EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL 
CAPACITY IN SELECTED 
GEOGRAPHIC AND SUBJECT AREAS
Prepared by: 
David Evans, Chief of Party 
Gary Goodpastor, J.D. 
Kenneth Tolo, Ph.D. 
Peter Shepherd, D.B.A. 
Cornelia Flora, Ph.D. 
July 19, 2010 
This report was produced for USAID/Macedonia under Task Order 28 of the Global Evaluation and Monitoring 
(GEM II) BPA, EDH-E-28-08-00003-00. It was prepared by the Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. Its 
authors are Frank Schorn and Nikolina Kenig. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily 
 reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
 
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF 
USAID/MACEDONIA’S 
PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT 
Mid-Term Evaluation of 
USAID/Macedonia’s 
Primary Education Project
July 19, 2010 
Dr. Frank Schorn, International Consultant 
Dr. Nikolina Kenig, National Consultant 
This assessment was conducted by the Aguirre Division of JBS International under Task Order 28 of 
USAID’s Global Evaluation and Monitoring (GEM) II BPA, EDH-E-27-08-00003-00. The authors’ views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for 
International Development or the United States Government. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation i 
Acknowledgements 
The evaluation of the Project for Primary Education was carried out by a three- person team led by Dr. 
Frank Schorn (International Consultant), Dr. Nikolina Kenig (National Consultant), and Mr. Aleksandar 
Ivanovski, who assisted with the logistics of the research process. 
The team gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by: 
• USAID/Macedonia, especially to Mr. Michael T. Fritz, Mission Director; Mr. Alexander Woods, 
Education Office Director and Ms Lela Jakovlevska-Joshevska, Senior Education Specialist and AOTR. 
The team would also like to express a gratitude for the technical support and the contribution with 
information to AED’s Primary Education Project team and their partners, especially to: 
• Mr. Keith Prenton, Chief of Party; 
• Ms. Maja J. Cvetanovska, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator; 
• Mr. Nebojsa Mojsoski, School Renovations Specialist; 
• Ms. Gorica Mickovska, Assessment Specialist; 
• Ms. Anica Aleksova, Math and Science Specialist; 
• Mr. Petar Nikoloski, ICTs in Education Training Specialist; 
• Mr. Gjorgji Kushevski, Workforce Development Specialist; 
• Ms. Virna Manasieva, Training and Events Manager.
Other individuals and institutions also considerably contributed to this evaluation with their participation 
as informants: 
• Hon. Nikola Todorov, Minister of Education and Science in the Government of the Republic of 
Macedonia; 
• Mr. Gjorgje Arsov, Head of State Education Inspectorate in the Ministry of Education and Science; 
• Mr. Mitko Cheshlarov, Head of Sector at the Bureau for Development of Education in the Ministry of 
Education and Science; 
• Ms. Vera Kondik Mitkovska, World Learning’s Senior Program Manager for the USAID Human and 
Institutional Development Project; 
• Ms. Bojana Naceva, Education Specialist, World Bank office in Skopje; 
• The principals, teachers and students from nine primary schools in the country (“Draga 
Stojanovska” in v. Rakotinci, “Joakim Krchoski” in v. Nikishtani, “Dimitar Miladinov” in Skopje, 
“Zivko Brajkovski” in Skopje, “Kiril I Metodij” in Tetovo “Sande Shterjovski” in Kichevo, “Nikola 
Karev” in Kochani, “Kiril I Metodij” in Kochani and “Josip Broz Tito” in Struga) where the field data 
was gathered. 
Finally, the team acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by: 
• Mr. Blerim Shaqiri, Ms. Jana Stanoeska and Ms, Sandra Jakasanovska – interpreters who were 
translating from (and to) Macedonian and Albanian and helped the Consultants in carrying out the 
interviews and class observations; 
• Aguirre Division staff, especially Roger Rasnake, Vice President and Senior Evaluation Specialist; 
Edward Allan, Senior Research Associate 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation ii 
Acronyms 
AED Academy for Educational Development 
BDE Bureau for Development of Education 
ESE Employment Service Agency 
ETST Educational Technology Support Teachers 
ICT Information and Communication Technology 
IU Indiana University 
M&S Mathematics and Science 
MCEC Macedonian Civic Education Center 
MoES Ministry of Education and Science 
MoU Memorandum of Understanding 
MTE Mid-term Evaluation 
PEP Primary Education Project 
SBA school-based assessment 
SI State Inspectorate 
SSTC Student Support Technician Clubs 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
WFD Work Force Development 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation iii 
Table of Contents 
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Approach ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3. PEP Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 6
4. Assessment Findings and Component Recommendations ................................................................................ 7
1. Renovations to schools to improve efficiency ................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Increased access and improvements in the use of ICTs ................................................................................ 8
Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 10
3. Improved math and science education ............................................................................................................. 10
4. Improved student assessment ............................................................................................................................ 12
Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 14
5. Increased Workforce Skills in Students ........................................................................................................... 14
Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 15
6. Cross-Cutting Activities ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Manual for the 21st Century Classroom ............................................................................................................ 15
PEP Teacher Certification Process ..................................................................................................................... 15
School Support Teams .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Mentoring and Coaching in Pilot Schools ......................................................................................................... 15
Workshops on PEP Standards for Learning Facilitators ............................................................................... 16
5. Sustainability of PEP Project Initiatives ................................................................................................................. 16
1. Motivation and Incentives ..................................................................................................................................... 16
2. Ongoing Professional Development ................................................................................................................. 17
6. Actions and Activities in the Remaining Project Period to Assure that PEP Goals are Achieved ......... 19
1. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) ........... 19
2. Training follow- up for each component ......................................................................................................... 19
3. Develop a strategy for the use of computers in the classroom and the deployment of computers 19
4. Complete high quality training for all components given the cascade model with appropriate 
follow-up. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Adjust the integral evaluation checklist to include as many objectives of PEP as possible. ................. 19
7. Additional Support to the Education Sector Following the Completion of the Project .......................... 20
Improving Management and Instructional Leadership Capabilities of School Administrators. ................. 20
Strengthening Professional Development Capacity ............................................................................................ 20
Providing More Effective Support for Children and Youth with Special Needs .......................................... 21
Further Focusing on Gender Sensitivity ................................................................................................................ 21
Funding for Instructional Materials That Support Interactive Teaching and Workforce Development 21
Infrastructure Development for Science Labs ...................................................................................................... 21
Expanded Workforce Skills for Youth ................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................................... 22
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation iv 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 1 
Executive Summary 
This Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of USAID/Macedonia’s Primary Education Project (PEP) was designed 
to provide USAID/Macedonia with an external assessment of the Primary Education Project (PEP) that 
can be used to increase the existing activities’ effectiveness throughout the end of the project period. 
The MTE is expected be used for the next program planning and implementation cycle to ensure that 
future USAID basic education sector initiatives will be effective, efficient, and relevant to the broader 
contextual issues. The four main objectives for this MTE were to: 
1. Evaluate progress towards meeting the overall project goals, as well as the specific objectives in each 
project component; 
2. Evaluate progress towards a sustained impact of the project; 
3. Recommend actions required in the remaining project period to ensure that stated goals are fully 
met; and 
4. Identify if/what goals cannot be achieved and can be undertaken by the planned Basic Education 
Project (2011-2015). 
The MTE reviewed the current conditions of the PEP components and the efficiency of the 
USAID/Macedonia basic education portfolio by conducting a document review that was followed by in￾country interviews, focus groups, and site visits. A two-person team conducted this evaluation primarily 
via formal and partially structured meetings with key representatives at various levels of the system, 
including staff of government Ministries, educators at various levels from the school through the district 
to the national level, staff of implementing partners, and other relevant stakeholders. The evaluation 
focused on primary schools that have participated in at least two of the project component trainings and 
renovations. This evaluation restricted itself to the Primary Education Project. This included providing 
feedback the five PEP components. 
Because the time available for the evaluation was limited, the key data gathering process made use of a 
purposive sample of ten schools, based on a principle of maximum heterogeneity according to five 
relevant criteria (geographical location, language of instruction, ethnic composition of the population in 
the region, urban versus rural location and coverage with different components of PEP). In addition to 
school visits and individual interviews conducted with a number of key persons, following the field 
research the team organized and facilitated a stakeholders’ workshop with 21 participants. While this 
kind of sampling allows insight into variety of perspectives and experiences and we believe that our 
findings and recommendations are valid and generalizable, we make no claim for validity or reliability in a 
strict statistical sense. In addition, because of time and resource constraints, we have focused on 
detecting perceptions, opinions, feelings and experiences of the respondents as opposed to 
quantitatively measurable outputs. The findings presented represent the best possible approximation 
the views of the majority of the interviewed persons or observed situations. 
Recommendations 
1. Renovations to schools to improve efficiency 
1.1 Schools should develop School Improvement Plans and systematically address all renovation needs 
and identify funding sources 
1.2 The project should continue to engage municipalities, parents, teachers and other community 
members to donate time and resources to promote and renovate their schools 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 2 
2. Increased access and improvements in the use of ICTs 
2.1 Provide additional training to the school directors, school pedagogues/psychologists, inspectors and 
BDE advisors on using computers effectively in the classroom and refine the MoES integral evaluation 
instrument. 
2.2 Computers need to be used in the classroom to support the instructional program on a regular 
basis 
2.3 Additional software should be developed to support the curriculum in a wide range of content areas 
3. Improved math and science education 
3.1 Identify additional training follow-up strategies for all teachers to provide feedback on using the new 
interactive teaching approaches 
3.2 Provide on-going professional development and encourage teacher support networks to share best 
practices 
3.3 Improve the capabilities of school administrators and pedagogues/psychologists to support 
interactive teaching approaches on a regular basis. 
4. Improved student assessment 
4.1 Continue training on ethics, methodologies, test development, and effective use of school-based 
formative and summative assessment for student and teacher evaluation in all content areas
4.2 The Government’s policy regarding student assessment should take into consideration the new 
continuous evaluation strategies introduced by PEP. 
5. Increased workforce skills in students 
5.1 Develop a teachers’ guide on integrating career education and enterprise education into the 
curriculum using interactive teaching methods. 
5.2 Continue to identify relevant workforce skills for students at all primary school levels and provide a 
connection between labor market needs and skills being developed. 
5.3 Develop gender-sensitive approaches in order to encourage girls to consider careers in technology. 
A number of crosscutting activities were examined including the development and dissemination of 
instructional and training material materials such as A Manual For the 21s t Century Classroom. In addition 
we reviewed School Support Teams, Mentoring and Coaching in Pilot Schools and PEP Standards for 
Workshop Facilitators. 
In terms of sustainability, PEP has signed a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the BDE 
and MoES in January 2009. This includes support for the technology curriculum and assistance in 
implementing new laws on grading and student assessment. Other sustainability issues examined 
included motivation and incentives for school professionals to apply the skills they gained from PEP and 
assuring that there is on-going professional development and training capability within the MoES 
following the project. 
In terms of actions and activities required to assure that PEP goals are achieved at the end of the project 
we noted training follow-up requirements for each component. We noted that strategies for the use of 
computers and their deployment in the classroom need to be more clearly articulated. Refinements in 
the Integral Evaluated Checklist developed by the State Inspectorate are essential given PEP’s 
contributions to quality teaching. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 3 
1. Introduction 
The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of USAID/Macedonia’s Primary Education Project (PEP) is designed to 
provide USAID/Macedonia with an external assessment of the Primary Education Project (PEP) that can 
be used to increase the existing activities’ effectiveness throughout the end of the project period. The 
task order began on May 1 and ended June 15, 2010. The in-country assessment activities took place 
between May 9 and May 21 and included an international and local consultant. The MTE is expected to 
be used for the next program planning and implementation cycle to ensure that future USAID basic 
education sector initiatives will be effective, efficient, and relevant to the broader contextual issues. The 
four main objectives for this MTE were to: 
1. Evaluate progress towards meeting the overall project goals, as well as the specific objectives in each 
project component; 
2. Evaluate progress towards a sustained impact of the project; 
3. Recommend actions required in the remaining project period to ensure that stated goals are fully 
met; and 
4. Identify if/what goals cannot be achieved and can be undertaken by the planned Basic Education 
Project (2011-2015). 
The technical approach was inclusive of all relevant stakeholders: Ministry of Education and Science 
(MoES), Bureau for Development of Education (BDE), USAID and PEP staff, donor community, local 
partners, selected teachers, administrators and school Directors. 
The MTE reviewed the current conditions of the PEP components and the efficiency of the 
USAID/Macedonia basic education portfolio by conducting a document review that was followed by in￾country interviews, focus groups, and site visits. A two-person team conducted this evaluation primarily 
via formal and partially structured meetings with key representatives at various levels of the system, 
including staff of government Ministries, educators at various levels from the school through the district 
to the national level, staff of implementing partners, and other relevant stakeholders. The evaluation 
focused on primary schools that have participated in at least two of the project component trainings 
and/or renovations. 
The consultants provided a debriefing presentation to the USAID/Macedonia staff on May 21, 2010. 
This included preliminary conclusions and recommendations from the completed data collection and in￾country site visits. The meeting also provided an opportunity for the USAID/Macedonia staff to provide 
feedback on these early findings. 
 A close review of the proposed tasks demonstrated the need for a multi-level, multi-dimensional 
assessment effort, which required three levels of data collection and analysis: 
• A focus on the beneficiary level, took the consulting team to the communities to visit schools and 
classrooms, to talk to teachers, students, to observe education in action, on the ground in order to 
determine stakeholder satisfaction. 
• An evaluation of the project activity level, which examined interventions and impacts among each of 
the distinct project component areas within the education system as USAID has provided strategic 
support to strengthen the institutional capacity of the education system, including from what 
happens in the schools to innovations (and obstacles) at district and even national-level institutions 
and with other education partners; and 
• An analysis of sector-wide change, as education reforms targeted at the primary levels have moved 
forward within the MoES and as part of a broader interchange of efforts with the donor community 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 4 
and the range of education stakeholders within the nation, that will enable the assessment of the 
linkages between PEP program activities and future goals and planning. 
The MTE Evaluation Report includes an introduction outlining the objectives of the mid- term evaluation 
and provides a summary of the task order. The next section includes a review of the methodology and 
constraints given our short time frame. A brief PEP overview in then provided. The report provides our 
assessment findings for each of the five components immediately followed by recommendations. 
Crosscutting activities are also noted. The report then outlines issues associated with the sustainability of 
PEP Project initiatives. Actions and activities in the remaining project period to assure that PEP goals are 
achieved are then noted. Finally additional support for the education sector following the completion of the 
project is outlined. 
Appendices include a calendar for our consulting activities and a list of individuals interviewed. The PEP 
Performance Measures FY 2010 is provided. A summary of school visits are outlined. A description of 
our PEP Stakeholders Workshop is provided and finally lists of all documents consulted are noted. 
 
2. Methodology 
In this evaluation the consultants provided a research design that includes analysis of extant project data 
as well as qualitative data collection from multiple stakeholders. We provided a consultative 
participatory process with all key stakeholders represented and guided by the clear need for information 
about performance, effectiveness, and key challenges.
For Ministry staff, other governmental officials, national NGO and private sector stakeholders, the 
assessment concentrated on implementation challenges and successes, on capacity built, as well as on 
national policy, reform efforts, strategic planning, and multilateral cooperation in support of Macedonian 
educational priorities. For USAID implementers and partners, the team focused on the challenges and 
success of project activities and overall outcomes of USAID programming. Similar themes were pursued 
with implementers of activities funded by other donors. For students, the assessment focused on 
various program experiences and successes to date. For teachers and administrators, questions 
targeted on the relevance of training provided to local contexts, support and ongoing opportunities for 
professional development and project sustainability. 
Team members also conducted a thorough review of extant data from implementing partners, drawing 
on the list of reports and materials provided by USAID/Macedonia. These materials included: 
• USAID/Macedonia Extension Strategic Plan 2009/2010 
• Primary Education Project Program Description 
• PEP Project materials: work plans, agreement modification, quarterly reports, annual evaluations and 
miscellaneous reports. 
Approach 
The evaluation was conducted in May 2010 by a team of one international and one national consultant, 
assisted logistically and administratively by one national team member and interpreters. 
During the first week, the two evaluators focused on developing a work plan proposal, formulating a 
plan for the field work (calendar of activities) and reviewing the relevant documents and reports. The 
project work plan tasks and the calendar of all evaluation activities are exhibited in Appendix B. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 5 
After completing the planning phase, the team spent ten days gathering data. Due to time constraints, 
there was no opportunity to conduct meaningful quantitative research. Therefore, the team decided to 
use a qualitative approach which featured semi-structured interviews (individual or group), focus groups 
and naturalistic observations. The interview protocol was developed around several major themes (e.g. 
frequency of use of a certain skill or innovative approach, satisfaction/dissatisfaction, major 
accomplishments/difficulties, sustainability etc.). This strategy of using broad themes instead of sets of 
structured questions made the most sense because such an open format enabled the evaluators to shift 
the focus to those areas that were most important to particular components of the project and also 
made it possible to make refinements to reflect the team’s increased familiarity with beneficiary 
perspectives. 
In addition to these techniques, the evaluators used open-ended questionnaires and small group 
discussions within a three-hour workshop organized for different project stakeholders that took place at 
the Jan Amos -Komenski Primary school in Skopje after the end of the field activities. The participants 
were asked to think over the achievements and the weaknesses in the implementation of the project 
activities within the components where they are engaged, as well as to fill an open-ended questionnaire 
on their individual opinions about important aspects of the project. 
The list of the participants who took part in the workshop, along with the information of the project 
component on which they work is given in Appendix B. The same appendix also includes all other 
individuals that were interviewed or whose class instructions were observed for the purposes of this 
evaluation as well as the participants in the Stakeholders workshop. 
The last evaluation phase incorporated review and discussion of the results gathered by stakeholder 
interviews, focus groups, meetings, class and workgroup/training workshop observations, and a 
triangulation of the data and generating the report on the findings and recommendations. In addition we 
examined the PEP Performance Measures FY 2010 provided in Appendix C. 
Sampling 
Taking into account the limited time-frame, it was decided that the selected schools should cover widest 
possible range of variables that might influence the implementation and success of the various project 
activities. Therefore, it was decided that the most suitable method would be a purposive selection of 
schools. The choice of schools was organized taking into consideration the following criteria: 
• Geographical location: four schools from the capital and its surrounding - Skopje, two schools from 
the eastern part of the country – Kochani, and two from the western part of the country – Tetovo 
and Kichevo; 
• Language of instruction: three of the schools have both Albanian and Macedonian as languages of 
instruction; 
• Ethnic composition of the population in the region: two schools are located in a city where ethnic 
Albanians are majority of population, one is located at ethnically mixed settlement in Skopje and one 
in an ethnically mixed village; 
• Urban versus rural location: two schools are located in the rural area near Skopje. 
• Coverage with different components of PEP (e.g., renovation, workforce development, improving 
the instructions in math and science, etc.) 
During the school visits, the focus of interest was directed to a specific component, but at the same 
time, the other components were evaluated as well. The list of visited schools, the main components 
that were explored and the techniques that were used can be seen in Appendix D. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 6 
In no case did any of the selected schools object to the evaluation visit. On the contrary, the school 
employees were without exception proud to show the accomplishments achieved within the project. 
The team was able to interview all the officials it wanted to interview except for a very few who could 
not respond due to their overloaded working agendas. 
A stakeholders’ workshop was organized and facilitated by the consultants on May 20, 2010. Thirty-five 
individuals were invited and 21 attended. The program is provided in Appendix E. The consulting team 
also examined a wide range of documents, training materials and manuals developed by PEP. This is 
noted in Appendix F. 
While the sampling was systematic, given the needs of the Mission and the resource constraints on the 
assignment, the sampling was not representative, but purposive, based on a principle of maximum 
heterogeneity. This approach allows insight into variety of perspectives and experiences, but does not 
necessarily reflect the whole situation as it is. While we believe that our findings are accurate and 
reflective of the project’s performance, we do not make claims as to validity or reliability in a strict 
statistical sense. Also, given the data collection techniques, we have focused on detecting perceptions, 
opinions, feelings and experiences of the respondents as opposed to quantitatively measurable outputs. 
Therefore, the findings presented represent the best possible approximation the views of the majority of 
the interviewed persons or observed situations. 
3. PEP Project Overview 
The Primary Education Project (PEP) is a USAID-funded project, working under S.O. 3.4. Mitigate adverse 
social impact of the transition to market-based democracies. PEP is implemented by the Academy for 
Educational Development (AED) under a cooperative agreement in partnership with Indiana University 
(IU), the Macedonian Civic Education Center (MCEC), and other local NGOs and private companies. 
PEP is a five-year project designed to contribute to the improvement of the primary education in all 
public primary schools in Macedonia. 
PEP’s main objectives are to: 
ƒ improve teaching and learning to enable students to acquire critical thinking skills; 
ƒ increase access to and use of modern computer and Internet technologies to help students succeed 
in the job market; 
ƒ help schools improve their learning environments by renovating their buildings to stimulate learning 
and creativity; 
ƒ work with educators and the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) to develop quality digital 
learning materials to enable active inquiry-based learning; 
ƒ revitalize math and science education by improving curricula and teaching methods; and 
ƒ Improve school-based assessment to stimulate and reinforce quality learning. 
PEP includes the following five components: 
1. Renovate selected schools 
2. Increase access to and improve use of ICTs 
3. Improve math and science education (managed by Indiana University) 
4. Improve student assessment (managed by the Macedonian Civic Education Center) 
5. Increase workforce skills in students. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 7 
4. Assessment Findings and Component Recommendations 
1. Renovations to schools to improve efficiency 
PEP’s renovation component aims to improve the learning environment, by: renovating classrooms; 
improving physical conditions (safety, warmth, insulation); providing educational equipment for the 
renovated classrooms and organizing professional development activities for the teachers. These 
activities are part of PEP because improvement of the quality of education by modernizing teaching and 
learning is reliant on a comfortable and stimulating physical environment. 
PEP has committed to improve 100 schools by partnering with them and the local community, including 
the parents. Communities play an important role in school maintenance and security. Working with 
school directors and school boards, the Project holds school-hall meetings to gain the support and 
involvement of communities and local businesses. 
Renovation includes the use of modern, energy-efficient building materials that will offer cost-effective 
solutions for the schools in the future. 
Five schools piloted the use of “green” technologies, attitudes and approaches. They now serve as 
models for environmental projects involving students. 
 
Findings
This component is perceived to be very successful for several reasons: 
ƒ Indications are that schools got value for the money spent, which included substantial cost-share 
with the project. 
ƒ Indications are that schools are now in a better position to plan their infrastructure needs. 
– the outcomes are easily and quickly visible 
– the infrastructure of most of the schools in the country is a burning issue and one that both 
teachers and principals frequently discuss and perceive as being the biggest problems for efficient 
learning 
– Scientific measurements made by engineers in the field show that there are savings in energy as 
a result of the interventions (the temperature has increased for about 4°C). 
– the school and the local government are actively engaged in the process, not just mere receivers 
of the service 
– Warm and comfortable classrooms are more appealing to children – they are willing to spend 
more time at school. 
– There is an overall change of attitude towards the school and education in general, which is 
crucial for creating educated generations. 
– School directors feel that they are “not left by themselves” in struggling for resources for school 
renovations 
All beneficiaries agree that the renovations contributed to warmer surroundings and in some cases, to 
safer school environment. The partners of this project, included in carrying out the renovations, 
stressed that another consequence of this component is that mentality change among the teaching staff 
and the local community and now they do not only “sit and wait” for help, but are actively engaged in 
finding solutions for improving the infrastructure of their schools. One of the participants in the 
workshop illustrates these with the following statement: 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 8 
“[The renovation component is successful] because the students and the teachers acquired better working 
conditions, because their perception of their own school will be changed, and finally, they will make efforts to 
keep and maintain these newly acquired conditions, for teachers will teach students that it is not enough just to 
say “thank you,” but to be engaged in practice as well.” 
1. All stakeholders interviewed agreed that the renovations contributed to greater energy efficiency 
and comfort. 
2. Stakeholders suggested that additional infrastructure interventions are needed to support a better 
learning atmosphere 
3. School Directors indicated that coordination among donors is essential to maximize infrastructure 
benefits. 
Recommendations 
1.1 Schools should develop School Improvement Plans and systematically address all renovation needs 
and identify funding sources 
1.2 The project should continue to engage municipalities, parents, teachers and other community 
members to donate time and resources to promote and renovate their schools
2. Increased access and improvements in the use of ICTs 
The activities in this component are intended to support the Government’s efforts to develop an ICT￾based society by involving primary school students in ICT supported learning activities. Activities 
included: provision/testing of various ICT equipment to the schools; involvement of the teachers and 
school administration in professional development activities; and with the provision of continuous 
support and guidance. 
For 2009, PEP planned to provide training for all primary school teachers for the use of Edubuntu 
applications, as support to the Government’s initiative “Computer for every child”. It was also planned 
to train Educational Technology Support Teachers (ETST), as in-school support for the teachers. 
However, since the “Computer for every child” computers were not deployed in the primary schools 
during the 2008/09 school year, these mass training activities could not be implemented. 
This component is perceived to be partially successful for several reasons: 
• ICT is used most frequently in lower grades (shortage of functional computers); 
– Student technical support teams are formed and function well in all of the schools that were 
visited. 
– PEP adjusted to the needs of teachers and it is introducing Linux in the training program 
• At higher grades, computers are rarely used for teaching classes other than Informatics, although 
there are schools where teachers claim computers are being used on a daily basis. This does not 
match with the statements that we heard from majority of students in the focus groups. 
 
In the minds of many teachers however, it is a great step forward, regardless of minor setbacks (lack 
of computers). One teacher says: “This component contributes to creating essential changes in education 
and in the mindset of teachers. More precisely, the establishment of ICT in schools is something that was 
necessary for the schools and something without each school in future could not function.” 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 9 
• The educational software is compatible with the curriculum and some teachers are very satisfied 
with it. However, others complained that the software is ill translated or that it is not prepared for 
every subject. On the top of that, while a portion of the software using EDUBUNTU is satisfactory, 
several workshop participants asserted that other parts are not tied to the curriculum. 
Challenges: 
• Few teachers have been trained to work with EDUBUNTU. The trainings are due for June. 
• Another source of problems connected with this component is that both directors and teachers 
fear of the potential hardware damages of the computers. It is not very clear for the time being how 
to get technical and financial support for this. 
• Some teachers feel anxious because more and more students are very skillful in computers 
• All higher-classes students interviewed are very excited to use computers for subjects other than 
Informatics, but they claim that teachers do not use computers for instructions, with several 
exceptions when they were shown PowerPoint presentations. Also, teachers frequently suggest that 
students use the Internet as a source for getting information for homework projects. 
• Student technical support teams are formed in the schools with greater number of computers with 
Windows-based platforms. The increasing number of schools with Linux-based computers 
necessitates the forming of such teams in such schools 
Findings
2.1 Teachers primarily use computers for preparation of their classes and, from our observation, for 
presentation purposes as well. 
2.2 The training is not synchronized with the distribution and the installation of the computers in the 
classrooms. We were told that PEP’s ICT training was postponed multiple times due to 
Government delays in the deployment process and that training was to have been synchronized 
accordingly. Further, in some schools, we saw computers locked in storage. These factors are 
outside of PEP’s direct control. However, it is hard for teachers to apply what they have learned 
without effective access to the computers. 
2.3 The computers are not available for students in the higher grades except for outdated machines 
that are in the computer labs 
2.4 Instructional software is not available for some of the content areas 
2.5 There are few examples of effective use of computers to improve the learning throughout the 
curriculum 
2.6 Teachers and school directors indicate that ongoing technical support is required to assure that 
computers function effectively 
2.7 Follow-up assistance is required to help teachers use computers as part of their instructional 
program 
2.8 Some principals fear that once the computers are installed they will have difficulties in maintaining 
them and keeping them safe. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 10 
Recommendations 
2.1 Provide additional training to the school directors, school pedagogues/psychologists, inspectors and 
BDE advisors on using computers effectively in the classroom and refine the State Inspectorate (SI) 
integral evaluation instrument. 
2.2 Computers need to be used in the classroom to support the instructional program on a regular 
basis 
2.3 Additional software should be developed to support the curriculum in a wide range of content 
areas. 
3. Improved math and science education 
The need to start up the mathematics and science component (M&S) within the Primary Education 
Project is actually a need for bringing mathematics and science content closer to the students by 
introducing active teaching and learning methods that place the student in the center of the learning 
process. This aspect is presently insufficiently implemented in the math and science classes and curricula. 
Students need to work on real-life scenarios and problem solving activities in order to develop their 
critical thinking skills and to be able to apply what they have learned in class in new situations. Also, the 
equipment for these subjects in the schools is not sufficient for implementing the needed practical 
activities and for modernization of the teaching and learning in natural sciences. 
Hence, PEP has contributed towards enhancing the teaching and learning in the mathematics and science 
subjects through providing recommendations to the BDE for improvement of the mathematics and 
science curricula for upper grades; through a number of professional development activities and support 
for the teachers and school administration; development of printed, digital and hands-on instructional 
resources; as well as through establishing school-based and regional learning teams to support the 
teachers’ professional development. 
This component is perceived to be very successful and the following reasons were 
identified: 
• Handbooks (guidebooks) in each individual subject and training provided by PEP are very useful from 
the perspective of teachers. As one of the teachers said, this component contributed towards: 
“moving the traditional way of teaching and it succeeded to raise the educational process on a higher level.” 
• Video material of the practical work in classes are also useful, but not in all circumstances 
• Students can identify whether their teachers use the innovative approach or not and they find 
learning easier and more interesting when the new approach is used. 
One of the participants in the workshop says that this component is very successful simply because: 
… “some activities that were introduced before PEP would have been forgotten if there was no PEP, because 
it provided a new perspective to learning – namely through projects and research process, it developed the 
essence of that kind of learning. It prepared a lot of practical materials for teachers, and, most importantly, 
it is a first project that has focused on the subjects from the natural sciences.” 
The Minister of the MoES expressed a very strong opinion on this component, saying that it is 
indispensable for all teachers to be trained in using innovative teaching methods, pointing the model 
used by PEP as being a very good one. On the same line of reasoning, the Director of the State 
Inspectorate said that their recent study on a number of sample schools has shown that not many 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 11 
teachers use active approaches and that further training and monitoring on that is very much 
needed. He welcomed the efforts made within this project. 
Challenges: 
ƒ The level of implementation of the new teaching methods is conditioned by working conditions in 
schools. The arrangement of the computers in the classroom is found essential. In schools where 
the computers are installed, the teachers are struggling with insufficient space – computers 
dominate the classroom leaving little space for interactive teaching. A teacher noted: “The fact that 
the students’ desks will be predominantly occupied by computers will not leave the necessary space for 
practical activities and will heavily obstruct the group work and movement around the classroom. This 
setting will support the frontal teaching more, instead of the active teaching methods that engage the 
students. “ 
ƒ The process and the extent of this implementation depend on the individual effort and motivation 
of the teacher. In absence of mechanisms for promoting and valuing professional development, the 
implementation of this component is at risk. 
ƒ Many teachers think that they need additional resources (paper, equipment etc) in order to 
implement what they have learned during PEP trainings on a more frequent basis. It might be an 
excuse, but also there is a likelihood that schools cannot manage to provide even small things like 
paper, folders, toner etc. For instance, the Math teacher that we observed in one of the schools 
delivered a superb lecture, using several innovative approaches, but at the end he said that 
everything that was used (models, small cards for separating students in small groups, handouts, 
etc.) was at his own expense. 
Findings 
3.1 Math and science teachers are mostly satisfied with the training and the teaching materials provided 
by PEP. 
3.2 There seems to be a challenge in using space effectively for interactive teaching and computer 
assisted instruction. 
3.3 Teachers are having difficulties using active learning methods and implementing them in their 
classroom on an on-going basis given curriculum constraints. 
3.4 Teachers have demonstrated the use of hands on instructional recourses 
3.5 Math and science learning teams are being established so that teachers can share best practices and 
support each other in their professional development. However, while teachers we met in Kichevo 
(where we observed a meeting of a regional team) and Kochani (where teachers claim that they 
have excellent in-school cooperation) do find them very useful, we also heard that some teachers 
have restricted themselves to a sporadic exchange of experiences or teaching materials. Also, 
where teachers outside of cities may have to spend significant amounts of time getting to regional 
team meetings, it is likely to be challenging to keep them going. This includes career opportunities 
in these fields. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 12 
3.6 The majority of students welcomed the introduced changes in the way that the content is 
delivered, but some of them express concern that it gets difficult adjusting to the different teaching 
approaches used by different teachers. 
3.7 One of the concerns raised by teachers is that the new teaching approaches need financial support 
(for paper, toner, etc.) in order to be sustained. 
3.8 Many teachers interviewed are convinced that the training is useful and assists them in performing 
more effectively in the classroom. 
Recommendations 
3.1 Identify additional training follow-up strategies for all teachers to provide feedback on using the 
new interactive teaching approaches 
 
3.2 Provide on-going professional development and encourage teacher support networks to share best 
practices 
 
3.3 Improve the capabilities of school administrators and pedagogues/psychologists to support 
interactive teaching approaches on a regular basis.
4. Improved student assessment 
This component is focused on improving school-based assessment by equipping all subject teachers from 
Macedonian primary schools with knowledge, skills and instruments for the use of formative assessment 
and to implement summative assessment that is objective and fair. The first three years of the project 
were dedicated to formative assessment. Concretely, this means that the teachers are being taught how 
to provide the student with useful feedback on her/his achievements registered through various forms of 
student activities (discussion, presentation, portfolio, projects, essays, etc.), thus informing the student 
what and how to learn better. Also, they will invite students to take active role in the school-based 
assessment by evaluating their own work (self-assessment) and their peers’ work (peer assessment). In 
this way, teaching and learning outcomes were strengthened and student stress level as to their 
achievement was reduced. 
PEP has committed to improving school-based assessment by undertaking a number of activities that will 
provide teachers and school administrators with structured information and skills for performing 
school-based assessment. Firstly, PEP engaged international and local experts to learn and draw from 
other countries positive experience and develop national standards for school-based assessment (SBA) 
and a Code of Ethics. Then, PEP provided professional development activities and continuous support 
for the teachers and school administration regarding the implementation of the NSSBA; developed 
creative and attractive promotional materials for the schools and the parents; organized events for 
promotion of the new way of student assessment; etc. 
This component is perceived as being successful for several reasons: 
• For an extended period of time, education in Macedonia has suffered from an inadequate system of 
school achievement assessment. First of all, it was focused exclusively on summative assessment 
activities, and secondly, teachers were pressed to follow the expectations of the parents, students 
and sometimes even principals, to grade up to 80% or 100% of students only with highest grades. 
Therefore, the assessment neither served the purpose of giving feedback, nor gave even closely 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 13 
realistic information of the achievements of students (which was confirmed in the latest international 
comparison, especially in the area of math). This shortcoming of the educational system along with 
the positive role of PEP in overcoming these assessment shortcomings was stressed both by the 
Minister of Education and Science and the Director of the State Inspectorate. 
• An ethical code for school assessment was produced and teachers, students and parents are familiar 
with it, which makes objective assessment somewhat easier. The code of ethics is publicly displayed 
in schools. 
• All school teachers have gone through formative assessment training by now. 
• Teachers are trained to produce better test items (this training is barely present during their pre￾service training) and are trained that there are levels of knowledge that go beyond memorizing facts 
(Bloom’s taxonomy), which for decades was the only requirement from students in the primary and 
secondary education in the country. 
• Teachers are familiarized with the advantages of formative assessment and are taught how to create 
a portfolio. 
• Students are engaged in peer-assessment and now they perceive that their opinion matters and that 
the grades are fairer. 
• Time devoted to progress checks is reduced due to formal assessment processes. 
• Materials distributed to teachers on how to use formative assessment prove to be a great help to 
them. 
One statement from the workshop participants illustrates the perception of the success of this 
component: “Teachers now understand the need for changes in the students’ assessment and they are aware 
that they have to follow their achievements and that acquiring skills is also important. On the other hand, it helps 
students to build their responsibility and self-esteem in the process of learning.” 
Challenges: 
• Teachers think that the policy of external assessment counterpoises the policy of formative 
assessment, because they are afraid that the format of the external assessment does not match the 
style of learning proposed by the formative assessment approach. Therefore, teachers and students 
claim that summative assessment activities prevail, instead of the formative ones; 
• Due to the cascade method of training, trainings on formative assessment vary in quality; 
• Some teachers complain that they need more support from the BDE advisors in getting feedback as 
to whether they are on the right track with the portfolios. 
Findings 
4.1 All teachers valued formative assessment and indicate that it is included in their teaching on an on￾going basis. 
4.2 Teachers need more consistent support from the BDE advisors, especially from those who are 
subject area specialists. 
4.3 The conflict between the way the external evaluation was envisaged and the formative assessment 
made the majority of teachers reluctant in using the new approach. 
4.4 Students think that the feedback that they are getting from the formative assessment is useful for 
them. 
 
4.5 In some schools, we saw well-developed teacher portfolios. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 14 
 
Recommendations 
4.1 Expand materials and training on ethics, methodologies, test development, and effective use of 
school-based formative and summative assessment for student and teacher evaluation. 
4.2 The Government’s policy regarding student assessment should take into consideration the new 
continuous evaluation strategies introduced by PEP.
5. Increased Workforce Skills in Students 
This component focuses on increasing workforce skills (e.g., ability to use technology, communication, 
technology, initiative, teamwork, etc) in students and helping them meet the demands of the job market 
and contribute to society. Based on the revised MoU signed with the MoES in January 2009, the 
proposed areas for intervention are: Technical Education, Entrepreneurial/Employability Education and 
Career Education. 
This is the newest component, so it is hard to conclude much. However, the teachers and workshop 
participants interviewed generally agree that it is a successful one because: 
• The nine selected schools were equipped with very attractive working tools (robots, robotic arms, 
programmer kits; however, in some cases the schools did not have the computers with which they 
can program the robots, etc.) and also the classrooms for the Technical education were renewed. 
• Teachers now stress the applicability of the things that students learn at school. However, based on 
responses at the workshop, there are only some curriculum topics (primarily in biology, chemistry, 
and physics) where they are able to point to the direct applicability of curriculum content to 
workforce development. This includes career opportunities in these content areas. 
• Teachers think that they have always tried, whenever possible, to enable students develop certain 
skills. 
• Students enjoy and are very involved in these technical education classes where PEP equipment is 
used. 
• The Workforce Development team collaborates with the BDE to integrate employability skills into 
classroom instruction 
Challenges: 
• The new plan for primary education decreased the overall number of classes for Technical education
and places this class as an optional one for higher grades; 
• Technical education teachers expressed a need of an operating system based on Windows, not 
Linux; 
• One cannot fit the entire material in the timeframe of one class. The curriculum has to be well 
thought through in order to efficiently implement these contexts into the program for individual 
subjects. 
Findings
5.1 Curriculum changes have resulted in the reduction of time spent on technical education 
5.2 It is unclear to teachers where they are to integrate career and enterprise education into the 
overall curriculum 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 15 
 5.3 Teachers in technical education need additional instructional materials and supplies
Recommendations 
5.1 Develop a teachers’ guide on integrating career education and enterprise education into the 
curriculum using interactive teaching methods and assure that career development in all 
appropriate areas include content on vocational and professional opportunities.
5.2 Continue to identify relevant workforce skills for students at all primary school levels and provide a 
connection between labor market needs and skills being developed. 
 5.3 Develop gender-sensitive approaches in order to encourage girls to consider careers in technology. 
6. Cross-Cutting Activities 
Manual for the 21st Century Classroom 
In collaboration with BDE advisors, PEP is in the process of introducing this project designed manual for 
professional on-going development activities. One member from each of the 365 schools is expected to 
learn how to use this resource. These materials should contribute to providing support for additional in￾service training. 
PEP Teacher Certification Process 
The purpose of the teacher certification process is to provide recognition that teachers are 
implementing the new skills and knowledge gained from PEP workshops within their schools. As noted 
in the most recent PEP Work Plan, pedagogues and psychologists are being trained how to implement 
the certification procedure in their schools. Teachers respect this process but indicate that time 
constraints make it difficult for them to develop portfolios in a number of components. Recognition by 
the MoES is also considered important.
School Support Teams 
Teams are being trained to assist teachers in preparing their professional development activities and 
improving the quality of teaching and learning in the schools. Guidance materials are in the process of 
being developed. This could contribute to assuring that theory and practice are merged. 
Mentoring and Coaching in Pilot Schools 
An on-going mentoring program is being planned and will include activities for providing continuous 
improvement for the implementation of new teaching methods, integrating ICT and using formative 
assessment. The focus of the program will include advising on teaching strategies, joint lesson planning, 
observing instruction in the classroom, demonstration lessons, and curriculum planning and leading 
study groups. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 16 
Workshops on PEP Standards for Learning Facilitators 
All learning facilitators involved in PEP professional development activities become familiar with PEP 
professional development standards. This has provided PEP with certification standards for all learning 
facilitators and could provide the MoES with a cadre of trainers for other in-service activities. 
5. Sustainability of PEP Project Initiatives 
In terms of sustainability, PEP has signed a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the BDE 
and MoES in January 2009. This includes support for the technology curriculum and assistance in 
implementing new laws on grading and student assessment. It is expected that Educational Technology 
Support Teachers (ETST) and Student Support Technician Clubs (SSTC) will be institutionalized 
throughout the education system. 
PEP is working to support the government’s decentralization process through direct involvement of the 
municipalities in renovation projects and workforce development initiatives as well as working to 
identify computer maintenance solutions for the schools. 
A final evaluation conference is being organized this year to document achievement and integrate all PEP 
materials and systems developed to the MoES. A local chief of party has been identified and mentored 
and will replace the international chief of party in September for the final year of the project. The 
following are critical sustainability issues and require greater elaboration. 
1. Motivation and Incentives 
It is not sufficient just to provide in-service training and professional development to teachers. It is also 
necessary to ensure that participants are given sufficient incentives to avail themselves of the wide range 
of activities provided. Most educators are indeed aware of the fact that they need additional training. 
However, they must perceive the training to be relevant in terms of improving job satisfaction as well as 
dealing with career goals. The PEP portfolio system has been an excellent strategy to provide meaningful 
recognition and documentation of skills gained in many of the components but must also be recognized 
and valued by the MoES. 
. 
Incentives identified as a result given our discussions with participants include: 
RELEASE TIME: Opportunities for professionals to have a specified number of working days off each year 
to participate in workshops, course etc., is an indication that the MoES values such training. 
NETWORKING AND IN-COUNTRY TRAVEL: Teachers often feel isolated and are unaware of important 
developments even in their immediate districts There is a need to share accomplishments and challenges 
and examine how other professionals have dealt with similar problems. In addition the opportunity to 
exchange resources is often welcomed. The MoES should continue to encourage such exchanges and 
provide appropriate logistical support. The opportunity to attend regional courses at In-service Training 
events is already an important in-service contribution. Having one’s accomplishments acknowledged by 
the teaching profession during study tours and forums could also be an important incentive. PEP has 
initiated a number of effective networking initiatives including school support teams. 
TRAINING AS A PREREQUISITE FOR PROMOTION: Another inducement is to make in-service training 
conditional on the successful completion of appropriate training activities. This could be part of the 
criteria for the selection of inspectors, BDE professionals, deputy school directors, and school directors. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 17 
NEW ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Training could result in new roles and responsibilities for teachers, 
school directors, and inspectors. Upon completing their in-service programs, individuals could have 
overall responsibilities for such tasks as staff appraisal, materials development, clinical supervision, 
mentoring and orientation programs for teachers as well as provide overall leadership for staff 
development in their schools. They could contribute to national dissemination activities in various 
curriculum areas as well as be selected as itinerant resource teachers. Many teachers and school 
directors themselves could be selected as part of the MoES in-service training talent pool and be used as 
instructors for appropriate workshops and courses. They could be compensated financially and/or given 
release time as well as recognition for their achievements. 
HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION AND INTERACTIVE LEARNING: Learning that is enjoyable and relevant and 
based on adult learning methodology is most desirable. Assignments could be tailored to each 
participant's interests and working situation. Each course would allow for critical thinking, problem 
solving and reflection. Case studies, demonstrations, role playing, brainstorming, simulations and self￾analysis exercises could be factored into many in-service activities. Participants would receive relevant 
materials to be used back on the job. Given the participant’s high level of satisfaction, it is clear that PEP 
has addressed these issues and developed exceptionally high quality training materials to support training 
and professional development. 
CERTIFICATES: The MoES could work with appropriate agencies to determine the viability of certificates 
following certain training programs that would be recognized by the MoES for the purpose of salary 
increments and/or new positions. These activities would involve a substantial time commitment on the 
part of the participant, be highly structured and document knowledge and skill acquisition. PEP’s 
portfolio system could be an excellent model for all training providers in Macedonia. 
2. Ongoing Professional Development 
The importance of making training and professional development responsive to the needs of teachers, 
school directors and other educators in Macedonia requires consideration of participant competencies, 
school environments, and student populations. The initial challenge is to develop procedures whereby 
professional growth could be personalized, allowing individuals to define their own needs, to begin at 
their own level of sophistication and progress at their own rate whenever possible. 
The purpose of training for the MoES is to assist educators to develop new perspectives, skills and 
insights. Instructional programs in the schools are expected to be strengthened resulting in greater 
student achievement. In-service training is considered an effective means to enhance the overall 
performance and job satisfaction of school personnel and educators by providing them with relevant 
knowledge, skills and attitudes. 
In summary, the overall purpose of the PEP Training and Professional Development component of the 
project components is to: 
1. Improve the effectiveness of individual teachers, school directors and related BDE staff. 
2. Strengthen the overall effectiveness of the schools in delivering quality instruction resulting in 
improved student achievement 
3. Assist in the implementation of innovations and new materials valued by the MoES. 
4. Improve the management capabilities of school directors and management staff both at headquarters 
and in the municipalities. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 18 
The BDE should continue to perform a wide range of administrative and professional functions which relate to 
needs assessment activities, program planning, program delivery, monitoring training, evaluation and record 
keeping.
These tasks include: 
1. Devising an overall MOE in-service training management structure to plan, implement, monitor and 
evaluate training programs. 
2. Coordinating training activities planned by all in-service institutes. 
3. Devising a detailed schedule/calendar for all in-service training activities or a yearly basis for MOE 
initiated training. 
4. Developing and acquiring appropriate training resources. 
5. Developing training of trainers and Master Teacher programs. 
6. Formulating specific objectives, content, learning activities, materials and evaluation procedures. 
7. Determining the best delivery approaches for In-service. 
8. Developing projects with cooperating organizations. 
9. Coordinating logistical and professional support for all MoES-initiated training. 
10. Evaluating the impact of in-service programs and providing evaluation results to activity organizers. 
11. Issuing appropriate certificates. 
12. Documenting all aspects of in-service training and professional development. 
13. Providing the financial resources for in-service training and preparing budgets. 
14. Strengthening regional mechanisms to do all of the above. 
Key issues associated with delivering high quality relevant, applicable training and professional development to a 
large number of participants should be identified and discussed at all levels in the education sector. They include: 
1. Determining how people who are employed full-time can gain most effectively from their training. 
2. Developing strategies for strengthening existing training programs throughout Macedonia and 
supporting other institutions to develop and deliver quality in-service education and professional 
development. 
3. Determining alternative ways of delivering training services. 
4. Increasing the pool of training talent within the MoES. 
5. Providing access to training for more teachers regardless of whether they live in urban or rural 
areas, or whether they have had previous training or specific credentials. 
6. Identifying real problems and differentiating needs from wants. 
7. Exploring low cost and relevant approaches for human resource development. 
8. Obtaining reliable information on what works, for whom and under what circumstances. 
9. Strengthening the coordination, initiation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of all in￾service training. 
10. Identifying training methodology which is interactive, relevant and applicable back in the schools. 
11. Providing appropriate follow-up and documenting impact. 
12. Strengthening the municipalities and the schools capacity in initiating in-service training for school 
personnel. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 19 
6. Actions and Activities in the Remaining Project Period to Assure 
that PEP Goals are Achieved 
1. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Education and 
Science (MoES) 
This document should include the transition process in 2011 and determine who will take responsibly 
for what. The capacity of the MoES should be strengthened as result of PEP especially in the area of 
Professional development and Teacher In-service Education. Issues on who will receive the project data 
bases, training materials and evaluation instruments need to be articulated. The role of the BDE in terms 
of follow-up needs to be clarified. The status of the working group needs to be determined.
2. Training follow- up for each component 
PEP is continuing to assist the BDE in developing a school-based professional development system by 
working with BDE advisors in implementing regional and in-school support systems. In addition case 
studies are being developed to study effective school management practices. These can be disseminated 
to other schools, which can use them as a model for change and development. PEP is collecting evidence 
of school best practices. This will be used to encourage peer-collaboration through an on-line forum. It 
is also important to make the project toolbox accessible and sustainable. This will assure the collecting 
and sharing of instructional materials and subject specific manuals. It is essential to assure that the BDE 
will take over the Toolbox website. School and regional teacher networks need to strengthened and 
meet on an ongoing basis especially in the areas of mass and science. 
3. Develop a strategy for the use of computers in the classroom and the 
deployment of computers 
 
Strategies of integrating computers into the instructional program on an on-going basis especially in the 
area of math and science needs to refined and training provided to teachers. Additional software is 
essential. Using the computer to identify innovative instructional materials should also be continued. 
4. Complete high quality training for all components given the cascade model with 
appropriate follow-up. 
Quality control issues should be identified given the first phase of training and training programs 
modified given input from trainers and participants. The role of the BDE in terms of follow-up needs to 
be clarified given their time constraints and responsibilities of the advisors in areas other than 
professional development. 
5. Adjust the integral evaluation checklist to include as many objectives of PEP as 
possible. 
USAID’s Human and Institutional Development Program, implemented by World Learning, has provided 
training for the State Inspectors on Informal evaluation. It has also developed a job profile for the 
inspectors. The inspectors were provided with instruments for evaluating teachers. We could identify 
five criteria for effective teaching that relate PEP components and in-service training initiatives in that 
document. PEP should assure that this checklist measures their concepts of interactive teaching and the 
effective use of technology in the classroom. The project should assure that have provided appropriate 
input to the development of this instrument. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 20 
7. Additional Support to the Education Sector Following the 
Completion of the Project 
Improved quality instruction should remain the focus for supporting the next phase of assistance to the 
education sector, given PEP’s accomplishments. This will continue to ensure that students “acquire 
relevant knowledge and skills through improved pedagogy, strengthened quality of teaching, beneficial 
learning environments and sound educational management.” The strategy builds on USAID/Macedonia’s 
success in professional development to expand and support innovative, student-centered methodologies 
at a national level. Quality instructional materials and classroom renovations have supported effective 
instruction in addition to producing positive government and community engagement in education. 
 
As part of its education assistance strategy, USAID could expand materials and training on ethics, 
methodologies, test development, and effective use of school-based formative and summative 
assessment for student and teacher evaluation. 
Improving Management and Instructional Leadership Capabilities of School 
Administrators. 
USAID could support the improvement of the management capabilities of school administrators because 
effective management ensures quality control, promotes efficient use of resources, includes essential 
planning approaches, and fosters productive community involvement. The School Director must be seen 
as the key change agent in the school. Significant results have been realized from which to build on, 
including comprehensive training for school board members, implementation of a school director 
certification program, and programs for the State Education Inspectorate and Bureau for the 
Development of Education. The role of the School Director as the School Improvement Specialist and 
the person who provides instructional leadership is essential to support PEP’s contributions. Support 
for an innovative leadership program requiring the School Director to develop a school improvement 
plan and a strategy for implementation could have significant impact on the education system. Training 
and professional development for Inspectors and BDE Advisors would assure that they would reinforce 
what was gained from PEP. 
Strengthening Professional Development Capacity 
This could include provide technical assistance to the MoES to establish an integrated professional 
development infrastructure. This could include: 
• Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the current delivery of teacher in-service programs, 
• Identifying key areas for institutional strengthening and capacity building for teacher in-service 
training and professional development, 
• Developing specific recommendations to redesign the delivery of teacher in-service training, 
• Building the capacity for trainers in teacher training colleges and within the BDE to promote and 
support student-centered teaching methods and other methods of contemporary teaching, 
• Developing an improved system of needs assessment for in-service teacher training and use the 
system to conduct a needs assessment for teacher trainers and teachers that participated in PEP 
training, 
• Identifying prospective areas for short-term in-service training programs, develop a training schedule 
for the programs and improve the descriptions for the programs, 
• Identifying/verifying criteria to select local trainers, conduct a needs assessment of local trainers and 
prepare a training programs based on the needs assessment, 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 21 
• Training the BDE Advisors as an instructional improvement specialist and provide them skills in 
clinical supervision.
Providing More Effective Support for Children and Youth with Special Needs 
The next phase of assistance to the education sector should also address the needs of students with 
disabilities. PEP has had limited involvement in this area. USAID/Macedonia could support training of 
teachers and teacher trainers on methods to integrate students into the learning process through the 
use of innovative information technologies and mainstreaming approaches. Teachers could be provided 
training in diagnostic/prescriptive teaching. Strategies for inclusive teaching could be provided as an on￾going part of professional development.
Further Focusing on Gender Sensitivity 
PEP is committed to a gender sensitive approach in carrying out the project activities, which is especially 
important for two components of the project – M&S and WFD. USAID/Macedonia could support 
further training of teachers in developing and improving gender-sensitive teaching, encouraging girls to 
consider gender non-stereotypical careers and creating a gender-sensitive school atmosphere.
Funding for Instructional Materials That Support Interactive Teaching and 
Workforce Development 
Educators throughout Macedonia have indicated a need for relevant instructional materials and 
equipment materials which support the PEP methods and approaches for interactive teaching, problem 
solving and critical thinking. Disseminating the materials developed by PEP to a wider audience should 
also have a multiplier effect.
Infrastructure Development for Science Labs 
The Minister of Education noted that this was a priority given the recent PEP developments in 
strengthening science education. This is an infrastructure and renovation need as well as an important 
approach to interactive teaching, critical thinking g and problem solving. He has already completed a 
comprehensive needs assessment in this area. 
Expanded Workforce Skills for Youth 
A workforce project, planned entrepreneurship program, will establish Career Services Networks with 
schools, universities, the private sector and the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy’s regional offices of 
the Employment Service Agency (ESA). These networks will establish the vital connection between 
labor market needs and skills being developed through the educational system, and they will cater to 
both ethnic Macedonians and minorities. Materials developed for the schools this year by PEP could be 
highly relevant and the technology training initiatives could benefit from additional support. 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 22 
APPENDICES 
APPENDIX A. Scope of Work 
APPENDIX B. Calendar of Events 
APPENDIX C. List of Individuals Interviewed/Observed 
APPENDIX D. Schools That Have Been Visited, Main Focus and Implemented Evaluation Techniques 
APPENDIX E. Review of PMP 
APPENDIX F. PEP Stakeholder Feedback Workshop 
APPENDIX G. List of Documents Consulted 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
APPENDIX B. Calendar of Events 
May 2010 
School Visits and Meetings
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 
13:00 – 17:00 Lunch 
meeting with Nikolina 
(Local consultant) 
17:00 – 19:00 Dinner 
meeting with Alex 
Woods and Lela 
Jakovslevska 
Joshevska for project 
overview 
09:00 -12:00 PEP 
Orientation 
Presentation: COP 
Keith Prenton 
12:00 – 14:00 USAID 
Meeting with Director 
Michael Fritz and 
senior education 
expert Lela 
Jakovlevska 
Joshevska at US 
Embassy 
14:30 – 17:00
Planning meeting with 
PEP Component 
Coordinators and 
Evaluation specialist
11:00 – 12:00
Meeting with Gorge 
Arsovski 
Head of The Sate 
Education 
Inspectorate (SEI) 
14:00 – 15:00 
Meeting with Mitko 
Cheshlarov, Head of 
Sector in BDE; Ajshe 
Ajrullai, BDE Advisor 
and Goce Sopkoski, 
BDE Advisor. 
10:30 – 13:00 School 
visits in Skopje: 
“Draga Stojanovska” 
- Sopishte 
Municipality, v. 
Rakotinci 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues. 
Nebojsa Mojsoski/ 
focus: School 
Renovations 
13:30 – 14:30 School 
visits in Skopje: 
“Joakim Krchoski” - 
v. Nikishtani 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues. 
Nebojsa Mojsoski/ 
focus: School 
Renovations 
15:00 – 17:00 Refine 
and submit Work plan 
to USAID 
08:30 – 12:00 School 
visits in Skopje: 
“Dimitar Miladinov” 
– Center, SKOPJE 
(Second Shift) 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues. 
Olga Samardzich 
Jankova / ICT
12:30 – 13:30 
Meeting with Maja J. 
Cvetanoska, PEP`s 
M&E Specialist 
14:00 – 17:00 School 
visits in Skopje: 
“Zivko Brajkovski” – 
Butel, SKOPJE 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues.
focus:Gorica 
Mickovska / 
Assessments 
09:00 – 11:30 School 
visits in Tetovo: 
“Kiril and Metodij” – 
Municipality Tetovo 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues.
Anica Aleksova /Math 
and Science 
12:30 – 14:30 School 
visits in Kicevo: 
”Sande Shterjovski” 
– Municipality 
Kichevo
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues.
Anica Aleksova /Math 
and Science 
15:00 – 17: 00 
Observing the 
Activities of a Science 
Teachers Network and 
Interviews
Anica Aleksova 
focus:/Math and 
Science
09:00 – 12:00
Visiting Workshop 
Improving Math and 
Science Education 
(grades 1-3)
Visiting Math and 
Science Workshops in 
School Josip Broz 
Tito in Struga. 
Interviews with 
participants. 
Anica Aleksova 
focus:/Math and 
Science
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
May 2010 
School Visits and Meetings
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 
16:00 - Return to 
Skopje 
10:30 – 13:00 School 
visits in Kochani: 
“Nikola Karev” – 
Municipality 
Kochani. 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues. 
Gorgi Kushevski / 
focus:Workforce 
Development
13:30 – 17:00 School 
visits in Kochani: 
“Kiril I Metodij” – 
Municipality 
Kochani. 
Interviews with 
Director, Teachers 
and Pedagogues.
Gorgi Kushevski / 
focus:Workforce 
Development
11:00 – 12:00 
Meeting with Nikola 
Todorov, Minister of 
Education and Science 
and Jovan Grposki, 
Chief of Cabinet in 
Ministry of Education 
and Science.
14:00 – 15:00 
Meeting with Virna 
Manasieva PEP 
Training and Event 
Manager
15:00 – 17:00 
Meeting with Vera 
Kondik Mitkovska 
Senior Program 
Manager at World 
Learning for 
International 
Development. 
09:00 – 14:00 
Preparing for the PEP 
Evaluation 
Stakeholders 
Workshops/Focus 
Group 
14:30 – 16:30
Consultants finalize 
Program and materials 
10:00 – 13:30 
PEP Stakeholders 
Workshops/Focus 
Group for Mid Term 
Evaluation 
13:30 – 17:00 
Translating/discussing 
data gathered during 
the workshop 
10:30 – 12:30 
Debriefing with COP 
Keith Prenton 
15:00 – 16:30 USAID 
Presentation on the 
initial findings and 
recommendation by 
the consultants 
Frank Schorn 
departs Skopje 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
APPENDIX C. List of Individuals Interviewed/Observed 
NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION/LOCATION PURPOSE MOBILE PHONE E-MAIL
USAID
Michael T. Fritz Mission Director USAID / US Embassy Reviewed 
assignment 
expectation 
070 /228 - 324 mritz@usaid.gov
Alexander 
Woods 
Education Office 
Director 
USAID / US Embassy Project orientation 
and review scope of 
work for PEP 
Evaluation 
070/276 - 090 awoods@usaid.gov
Lela 
Jakovlevska 
Joshevska 
Senior Education 
Specialist 
USAID / US Embassy Project orientation 
and review scope of 
work for PEP 
Evaluation 
070 /364 - 908 ljakovlevska@usaid.gov
PEP
Keith Prenton Chief of Party Primary Education Project / PEP 
OFFICE 
Project overview 
and staff 
introductions 
071 /248 - 696 kprenton@pep.org.mk
Gorica 
Mickovska 
PEP Assessment 
Specialist 
Macedonian Civic Education Center 
(MCEC) / PEP OFFICE 
Overview of the 
School-based 
Assessment 
Component 
071 /248 - 694 gmickovska@mcgo.org.mk
Nebojsa 
Mojsoski 
School 
Renovations 
Specialist 
Primary Education Project / PEP 
OFFICE 
Overview of the 
School Renovation 
Component 
071 /248 - 691 nmojsoski@pep.org.mk
Petar Nikoloski ICTs in Education 
Training Specialist 
Primary Education Project / PEP 
OFFICE 
Overview of the ICT 
Component 
071 /248 - 692 pnikoloski@pep.org.mk
Anica Aleksova Math and Science 
Specialist 
Primary Education Project / PEP 
OFFICE 
Overview of the 
Math and Science 
Component 
071 /248 - 693 aaleksova@pep.org.mk
Gjorgji 
Kushevski 
Workforce 
Development 
Specialist 
Primary Education Project / PEP 
OFFICE 
Overview of the 
Workforce 
Component 
072 /228 - 285 gkusevski@pep.org.mk
Maja J. Monitoring and Primary Education Project / PEP Overview of the 071 /232 - 162 mcvetanoska@pep.org.mk
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
Cvetanovska Evaluation 
Coordinator 
OFFICE M&E Component 
Virna 
Manasieva 
Training and 
Events Manager 
Primary Education Project / PEP 
OFFICE 
Overview of the 
Training and Events 
Component 
071 / 248 695 vmanasieva@pep.org.mk
GOVERNMENT
Nikola 
Todorov 
Minister of 
Education and 
Science 
Ministry of Education and Science 
(MoES) 
Interview 02 / 31 17 896 biljana.cvetkovska@mon.gov.mk
Jovan Grpovski Chief of cabinet Ministry of Education and Science 
(MoES) 
Interview 075 / 402 911 jovan.gropvski@gmail.com
Gorgi Arsov Head of State 
Education 
Inspectorate (SEI) 
State Education Inspectorate (SEI) / 
Ministry of Education and Science 
(MoES) 
Interview 02/ 31 40 103 maja.marinova@mon.gov.mk
Mitko 
Cheshlarov 
Head of Sector in 
the Biro of 
Development in 
Education (BDE) 
Biro of Development in Education 
(BDE) / BDE Office 
Group interview on 
the role of BDE in 
the Project 
02 / 30 89 015 mitkoceslarov@bro.gov.mk
Aishe Ajrulai Advisor in the 
Biro of 
Development in 
Education (BDE) 
Bureau of Development in 
Education (BDE) / BDE Office 
Group interview on 
the role of BDE in 
the Project 
070/276198 aisheajro@yahoo.com
Goce 
Shopkoski 
Advisor for 
Professional 
Development in 
the Biro of 
Development in 
Education (BDE) 
Bureau of Development in 
Education (BDE) / BDE Office 
Group interview on 
the role of BDE in 
the Project 
076 / 484 080 gsopkoski@yahoo.com
OTHER INSTITUTIONS 
Vera Kondik 
Mitkovska 
World Learning Senior Program Manager Interview 02/3132026 Vera.Kondik@worldlearning.org
SCHOOLS
Goce 
Jankulovski 
Director of the 
School 
P.S. “Draga Stojanovska” / Sopishte 
Municipality, v. Rakotinci. - Skopje 
Interview 02 / 27 42 022 gjankulovski@yahoo.com
Valentina Director of the P.S. “Joakim Krchoski” / Interview 02 / 20 53 117 jkvolkovo@yahoo.com
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
Ivanovska 
Salaedin Isaki 
School v. Nikishtani - Skopje 02 / 20 53 216
Lidija 
Apostolova 
Ramos 
Director of the 
School 
P.S. “Dimitar Miladinov” / Center 
Municipality, Skopje. 
Interview 02 / 31 14 216
Vesna 
Damcevska 
Director of the 
School 
P.S. “Zivko Brajkovski” / Butel 
Municipality, Skopje 
Interview 070 / 284 138. v_ilievska@yahoo.com
Zhaklina 
Ristovska 
Lower grade 
Teacher 
P.S. “Zivko Brajkovski” / Butel 
Municipality, Skopje 
Class observation 
(From Wheat to 
Bread) 
070 / 804 355 zaklinaristovska@gmail.com
Nusret 
Sulejmani 
Director of the 
School 
P.S. “Kiril I Metodij” / Tetovo Interview 070 / 784 191 nusretsulejmani@yahoo.com
Satki Ismaili Math Teacher P.S. “Kiril I Metodij” / Tetovo Class observation 
(Area of the ring and 
circle sector) 
071 / 257 030 satkiismaili@yahoo.com
Lulzim 
Mehmedi 
Director of the 
School 
P.S. “Sande Shterjovski” / Kichevo Interview 070 / 328 003 lulzimmehmedi@yahoo.com
Vlado Andov Director of the 
School 
P.S. “Nikola Karev” / Kochani Interview 033 / 274 216
 German Teacher P.S. “Nikola Karev” / Kochani Class observation 
Ljiljana Arsova School 
psychologist, 
Project 
coordinator 
P.S. “Kiril I Metodij” / Kochani Interview 033 / 272 711
Suzana Aneva Technical 
Education 
Teacher 
P.S. “Kiril I Metodij” / Kochani Class observation 
(Using robots and 
connecting physics 
to everyday life) 
071 / 473 602 suzana_aneva@yahoo.com
TRAINING WORKSHOPS VISITS
Lidija 
Shutinoska 
Trainer (Biology 
Teacher) 
P.S. “Josip Broz Tito” / Struga Group interview 071 / 587 738 lidija_sutinoska@mail.net.mk
Vlado Noneski Trainer (Biology
Teacher and BDE 
Adviser) 
P.S. “Josip Broz Tito” / Struga Group interview 070 / 277 985 bro.struga@hotmail.com
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
Ana Stocheska Trainer (Math 
Teacher) 
P.S. “Josip Broz Tito” / Struga Group interview 070 / 261 173 astole@t-home.mk
Lidija 
Kondinska 
Trainer (Math 
Teacher and BDE 
Adviser) 
P.S. “Josip Broz Tito” / Struga Group interview 076 / 484 807 l.kondinska@yahoo.com
WORKING GROUPS 
Abduraman 
Memeti 
 P.S. “Sande Shterjovski” / Kichevo Observation 076 / 484 762 abduraman_memeti@hotmail.com
WORKSHOP (THURSDAY, MAY 20TH, 2010)
Anita 
Angelovska 
History Teacher P.S. “Krste Misirkov” / Skopje Assessment 071 / 358 341 anita_angelovska@hotmail.com
Tanja Mitrevska BDE Advisor State Examination Centar Assessment 070 / 277 196 tanja.mitrevska@yahoo.com
Andrijana 
Taseva 
School 
Psychologist 
P.S. “Krume Kepeski” - Skopje Assessment 075 / 507 143 tandrijana@macedonia.eu.org
Sofce Koceva BDE advisor Bureau of Development in 
Education (BDE) 
Workforce 
Development 
076 484 702 kocevasofka@yahoo.com
Katerina 
Mitevska 
English Teacher P.S. “Jan Amos Komenski” /Skopje Workforce 
Development 
075 / 440 126 katerina.mitevska@yahoo.com
Sofija 
Cvetanovska 
School 
Psychologist 
P.S. “Stiv Naumov” / Skopje Workforce 
Development 
075 / 783 464 sofcvet@yahoo.com
Zlatika 
Daskalov 
Technology 
teacher 
P.S. “Lazo Angelovski” / Skopje Workforce 
Development 
070 / 244 268 goldy@mt.net.mk
Gordana 
Janakievska 
BDE advisor Bureau of Development in 
Education (BDE) 
ICT in Education 076 / 484 704 Gogajpz@yahoo.com
Anita Sterjoska University 
Professor 
Faculty of Pedagogy - Skopje ICT in Education 070 / 464 879 asterjos@yahoo.com
Irina Ivanova IT Teacher P.S. “11 Oktomvri” / Skopje ICT in Education 075 / 430 486 irinaiv2001@gmail.com
Cvetanka 
Sjeklocha 
Engineer Ministry of Education and Science 
(MoES) / Sector for Capital 
Investments 
School Renovations 076 / 485 072 csjeklocha@yahoo.com
Zarko Ilievski President of the 
NGO 
MACEF School Renovations 070 / 228 577 macef@macef.org.mk
Suzana 
Kirandziska 
CEO Step by step Math and Science 070 / 219 717 skiran@soros.org.mk
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
Loreta 
Georgieva 
CEO MCEC School Renovations 071 / 226 920 lgeorgieva@mcgo.org.mk
Elizabeta 
Jovanovska 
Chemistry 
Teachers 
P.S.”Stiv Naumov” - Skopje Workforce 
Development 
075 620 892 elizabeta.jovanovska@yahoo.com
Igor Donov Physics Teacher P.S. H. T. Karpos Math and Science 070 682 190 igordonov@gmail.com
Oliver Zajkov University 
Professor 
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural 
Sciences, University of Sts. Cyril 
and Methodius 
Math and Science 075 438 357 zoliver@pmf.ukim.mk
WORKSHOP (THURSDAY, MAY 20TH, 2010) PEP PARTNERS
Suzana 
Pecakovska 
Project 
coordinator 
Open Society Institute Foundation 
– Macedonia 
PEP partner 070 / 272 443 specako@soros.org.mk
Bojana Naceva Education 
Specialist 
World Bank PEP partner 02 / 31 17 159 bnaceva@worldbank.org
Leila 
Jakovlevska 
Joshevska 
Senior Education 
Specialist 
USAID / US Embassy PEP partner 070 / 364 908 ljakovlevska@usaid.gov
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
APPENDIX D. Schools That Have Been Visited, Main Focus and Implemented Evaluation Techniques 
MAIN FOCUS IN DATA GATHERING
School 
Renovation 
School 
Renovation ICT Assessment Math & Science Math & Science Math & Science WFD WFD 
“Draga 
Stojanovska”, 
v. Rakotinci. 
“Joakim 
Krchoski” 
- v. Nikishtani. 
“Dimitar 
Miladinov” 
–Skopje 
“Zivko 
Brajkovski” 
Skopje 
“Kiril and 
Metodij” 
–Tetovo 
”Sande 
Shterjovski” 
–Kichevo 
"Josip Broz 
Tito" 
- Struga
“Nikola 
Karev” 
–Kochani. 
“Kiril i 
Metodij” 
- Kochani 
Observing/ 
viewing the 
School 
Observing/ 
viewing the 
School 
Interview with 
the school 
Director 
Interview with 
the school 
Director 
Interview with 
the school 
Director 
Interview with 
the school 
Director 
Interview with 
the school 
Director 
Interview with 
the school 
Director 
Interview with 
a school 
Psychologist/ 
Pedagogue 
Interview with 
a school 
Psychologist/ 
Pedagogue 
Interview with 
a school 
Psychologist/ 
Pedagogue 
Observing a 
class (lower 
grade) 
Observing a 
class (Math) 
Observing a 
class (German) 
Observing a 
class (Technical 
edu) 
Observing a 
work-group 
meeting 
Observing a 
workshop 
Observing a 
workshop 
Interviews with 
Trainers 
Interviews with 
Trainers 
Interviews with 
teachers 
Interviews with 
teachers 
Interviews with 
teachers 
Interviews with 
Teachers 
Focus-groups 
with students 
Focus-groups 
with students Focus-groups with students 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
APPENDIX E. Review of PMP 
Performance Measurement Plan FY 2010
Primary Education Project 
PERFORMANCE 
INDICATOR 
INDICATOR 
DEFINITION 
DATA SOURCE UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT 
BASELINE TARGETS FY10
PEP OBJECTIVE - Component 1: Renovate and improve learning environments in selected primary schools 
Schools provide 
effective classroom 
environments using 
energy efficient 
technologies 
I. Selected 
classrooms show 
increased agreed 
comfort standards 
(In 4 schools 
visited achieved)
• Supervisors 
reports
• Teachers’ 
questionnaires 
• Number of 
classrooms meeting 
the agreed comfort 
standards. 
0 Target: 
60% of all renovated classrooms (in phase 3 schools) 
show increased agreed comfort standards 
II. Schools show 
adequate thermal 
conditions. 
(In 4 schools 
visited achieved)
• Municipalities'/ 
Schools' officials 
reports 
• Number of schools 
that show improved 
thermal conditions 
0 Target: 
90% of all renovated phase 3 schools have adequate 
thermal conditions 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PERFORMANCE 
INDICATOR 
INDICATOR DEFINITION DATA SOURCE UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT 
BASELINE TARGETS FY10
PEP OBJECTIVE - Component 2: Improve the use of computers and ICTs in schools 
Effective use 
of ICTs in the 
schools 
I. More educational 
software is available 
for classroom 
instruction 
May require additional 
efforts in 6 schools 
visited 
• Project reports 
• Focus groups with teachers 
• Number of 
educational 
software prepared 
• Number of 
educational 
software available at 
schools 
48
applications 
within the 
ToolKID 
software for 
lower 
primary 
grades
All EDUBUNTU applications were 
translated and adapted for local use. 
There are no targets related to this 
indicator for 2010. 
II. Computers are 
used more effectively 
to improve learning 
throughout the 
curriculum (at least 
once a week) 
May require additional 
efforts in 6 schools 
visited 
• Questionnaire for teachers 
• Lesson plan review form 
• Classroom observation form 
• Focus groups with teachers 
• Surveys with students 
•Frequency/percent
age of answers that 
show effective use 
of ICTs 
• Number of lesson 
plans that 
integrate ICT 
• Number of classes
that integrate ICT 
10% of the 
surveyed 
teachers 
implement 
ICT based 
classes at 
least once a 
week 
Target: 
40% of trained teachers from the M&E 
schools integrate ICT in their teaching 
III. Schools have 
established Student 
Support Technician 
Clubs (SSTC) which
are providing support 
for computer 
maintenance and 
deployment in schools
• Questionnaire for teachers 
• Questionnaire for SSTCs' role in 
the schools 
• Surveys with students 
• School reports on SSTCs 
functioning 
This is underway 
• Number of SSTCs 
functioning (bi 
weekly meetings, 
increased computer 
use and access) 
0 Target: 
30% of all primary schools in 
R.Macedonia have SSTCs trained in 
maintaining new GoM computers working 
under OS Linux 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PERFORMANCE 
INDICATOR 
INDICATOR 
DEFINITION 
DATA SOURCE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT BASELINE TARGETS FY10
PEP OBJECTIVE - Component 3: Improve the Quality of Math and Science Education
Math and 
Science 
teachers use 
active teaching 
methods (such 
as problem￾solving and 
inquiry and 
project-based 
approaches) in 
class 
I. Teachers plan 
for active 
teaching 
methods and 
implement them 
in their classes 
 (Observed in 3 
classrooms￾effective 
interactive 
techniques were 
demonstrated)
• Questionnaire for 
teachers 
•Monitoring reports on 
the review of teachers’ 
portfolios (lesson plans, 
case studies and 
supporting teaching 
materials) 
• Classroom observation 
form 
• Focus groups with 
teachers 
• Surveys with students 
• Frequency/percentage of answers 
that show use of active teaching 
methods 
• Number/percentage of teachers 
showing evidence of using active 
methods in their planning
• Number/percentage of teachers 
showing evidence of using active 
methods in their teaching
0 Target: 
Phase 1 schools
70% of math and science teachers 
from the M&E schools plan for active 
learning methods and implement 
them in their classes 
Phase 3 schools
60% of math and science teachers 
from the M&E schools plan for active 
learning methods and implement 
them in their classes 
II. Teachers use
hands-on 
instructional 
resources
related to active 
teaching and 
learning 
(Observed in 3 
classrooms)
• Questionnaire for 
teachers 
•Monitoring reports on 
the review of teachers’ 
portfolios (lesson plans 
and supporting teaching 
materials) 
• Classroom observation 
form 
• Focus groups with 
teachers 
• Surveys with students 
• Frequency/percentage of answers 
that show use of hands-on instructional 
resources 
•Number/percentage of teachers 
showing evidence of using hands-on 
instructional resources in their planning
• Number/percentage of teachers 
showing evidence of using hands-on 
instructional resources in their teaching
Target: 
Phase 1 schools
80% of math and science teachers 
from the M&E schools incorporate in 
their plans and use hands-on 
materials and tools provided 
Phase 3 schools
60% of math and science teachers 
from the M&E schools incorporate in 
their plans and use hands-on 
materials and tools provided 
III. Teachers 
participate in 
learning teams 
(school-based 
or regional) to 
support their 
professional 
development 
 Functioning 
effectively in 
district visited
• Questionnaire for 
teachers 
• Focus groups with 
teachers 
• Frequency/percentage of answers 
that show teachers’ participation in 
school-based or regional learning 
teams for professional development 
0 Target: 
 Phase 1 schools
 - 50% teachers from the M&E 
schools participate in school-based, 
municipality or regional learning team 
Phase 3 schools
 - 40% teachers from the M&E 
schools participate in school-based, 
municipality or regional learning team 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PERFORMANCE 
INDICATOR 
INDICATOR 
DEFINITION 
DATA SOURCE UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT 
BASELINE TARGETS FY10
PEP OBJECTIVE - Component 4: Improve School-Based Assessment for Basic Education
Teachers and 
school 
administrators 
meet 
nationally 
agreed 
assessment 
standards 
I. Teachers and 
school 
administrators are 
familiar with the
national 
standards for 
school-based 
assessment, 
including a code of 
ethics 
Teachers and 
students 
interviewed noted 
awareness of 
national based 
standards
• Questionnaire for 
teachers 
• Focus groups with 
teachers 
•Frequency/percentage 
of answers that show 
that teachers know the 
national standards for 
school-based 
assessment 
•Frequency/percentage 
of answers that show 
familiarity with the 
national standards for 
school-based 
assessment 
0 Target: 
• 95% of teachers from the M&E schools know about the 
existence of the national standards for school-based 
assessment. 
• 80% of teachers from the M&E schools are familiar 
with the national standards for school-based 
assessment 
II. Teachers use 
formative 
assessment with 
a purpose to 
improve students' 
learning 
 Teachers and 
students 
interviewed noted 
effectiveness of 
formative 
assessment
• Questionnaire for 
teachers 
• Monitoring reports 
on the review of 
teachers’ assessment 
portfolios (lesson 
plans, periodical 
plans, case studies 
and formative 
assessments 
instruments) 
• Class observation 
form 
• Focus groups with 
teachers 
• Surveys with 
students 
•Frequency/percentage 
of answers that show 
use of formative 
assessment 
• Number/percentage 
of teachers showing 
evidence of using at 
least three approaches 
to formative 
assessment 
0 Target:
Phase 1 schools
- 60% of the trained teachers incorporate in their plans
and 40% implement formative assessment 
Phase 3 schools
- 40% of the trained teachers incorporate in their plans
and 30% implement formative assessment 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PERFORMANCE 
INDICATOR 
INDICATOR DEFINITION DATA SOURCE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT BASELINE TARGETS FY10
PEP OBJECTIVE - Component 5: Workforce Development 
Increased 
workforce 
skills in 
primary and 
secondary 
school 
students 
I. Teachers include new 
technology, equipment 
and teaching resources
in their plans and use 
them in class to enhance 
the teaching and 
students’ learning in the 
technical subjects
 In process 
• Surveys with 
teachers 
•Monitoring reports 
on the review of 
teachers’ lesson 
plans 
• Surveys with 
students 
•Frequency/percentage of 
teachers’/students’ answers 
that show use of new 
technology and equipment 
• Number/percentage of 
teachers showing evidence 
of using new technology and 
equipment 
in their planning
Primary school students
report to use:
- Computers: 31% 
- Robots: 0% 
- Digital photo cameras: 0% 
- Software for technical 
education: 0% 
- Control boxes: 0% 
- Digital video cameras: 0% 
Vocational school students
report to use:
- Content related software: 21% 
- New technologies (ex. robots): 
8% 
- Control boxes: 3% 
Target: 
- 70% of trained technology 
teachers from the WFD pilot 
schools incorporate in their lesson 
plans and 50% use new 
technology, equipment and 
teaching resources in the technical 
subject 
II. Teachers plan 
entrepreneurial/employ
ability learning 
activities and implement 
them in class 
In process 
• Surveys with 
teachers 
•Monitoring reports 
on the review of 
teachers’ lesson 
plans 
• Surveys with 
students 
•Frequency/percentage of 
teachers’/students’ answers 
that show implementation of 
entrepreneurial/employability 
activities 
• Number/percentage of 
teachers showing evidence 
of presence of 
entrepreneurial/employability 
activities in their planning
Primary school students
report:
- Visiting a company/factory: 
58% 
- Visiting a high school: 0% 
- Interviewing businessmen from 
the local community: 0% 
Target: 
- 60% of trained primary school 
technology teachers from the WFD 
pilot schools incorporate in their 
lesson plans and 40% implement 
entrepreneurial/employability 
learning activities in their classroom 
III. Teachers plan career 
related learning 
activities and implement 
them in class 
In process
• Surveys with 
teachers 
•Monitoring reports 
on the review of 
teachers’ lesson 
plans 
• Surveys with 
students 
•Frequency/percentage of 
teachers’/students’ answers 
that show implementation of 
career related activities 
• Number/percentage of 
teachers showing evidence 
of presence of career 
related activities in their 
planning
Gymnasium students report:
- School as a source of career 
related information: 23% 
- Learn at school how to prepare 
a CV and cover letter: 23% 
- Learn about techniques of 
active job search: 4% 
- Learn about job interview: 3% 
Target: 
- 60% of trained gymnasium 
teachers incorporate in their lesson 
plans and 40% implement career 
related learning activities in their 
schools 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PERFORMANCE 
INDICATOR 
INDICATOR DEFINITION DATA SOURCE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT BASELINE TARGETS FY10
PEP OBJECTIVE - Component 5: Workforce Development 
IV. Developed new 
technology and 
teaching resources, 
and provided 
equipment to schools in 
order to increase the 
workforce skills in 
students 
Planning stages
Project reports •Number of new technology 
developed 
•Number of new teaching 
resources developed 
•Number of equipment 
provided 
0 Target: 
- 60 computer PLC control devices 
for technical vocational schools (4 
per school) 
- 60 computer control kits for new 
primary schools (4 per school) 
- 9 Robotics arms for pilot primary 
schools (1 per school) 
- 5 Robotics arms for pilot 
secondary schools (1 per school) 
- 27 electronics kits for pilot primary 
schools (3 per school) 
- 18 solar robotics kits for primary 
schools (2 per school) 
- Manual for PLC control devices 
- Manual for 3D designing 
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
APPENDIX F. PEP Stakeholder Feedback Workshop 
PEP Stakeholder Feedback Workshop 
PEP Midterm Evaluation 
Objectives 
1. To evaluate progress towards meeting the overall project goals in each component 
2. To review the sustainability of PEP project initiatives 
3. To recommend actions and activities in the remaining project period to assure that PEP goals 
are achieved 
4. To analyze overall achievements and challenges of the PEP project 
5. To discuss additional support to the education sector following the completion of the project 
PROGRAM 
10:00 – 10:30 --- Dr. Frank Schorn and Dr. Nikolina Kenig, Evaluation Consultants: PEP Project 
Evaluation Indicators 
10:30 – 11. 15 --- What PEP goals have been achieved? (Stakeholder groups) 
1. Renovate and improve learning environments 
2. Improve use of computers and ICT in schools 
3. Improve the quality of Math and Science 
4. Improve school-base assessment 
5. Increase students work skills 
11: 15 – 11:45 --- How can PEP assure the sustainability and impact of their initiatives? 
(Small group discussion) 
- Required follow up activities after training and implementation/ by whom, when, where, and 
how? 
- Sustainability challenges 
- The role and responsibilities of the BDE and the State Inspectorate 
- Donor support and cooperation with other Projects/Institutions 
11:45 – 12:30 --- What additional support is suggested for the education sector following 
the completion of PEP? (Group discussion) 
12: 30 – 13:00 --- Summary by consultants
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
APPENDIX G: List of Documents Consulted 
Name Type of Document Component Published by
Windows XP professional 
operating system and WLAN 
(Manual for the Student Support Technician Clubs) 
Manual ICT in Education USAID and AED
Yearly planner for ICT deployment Planner ICT in Education USAID and AED
ICT Deployment guidebook Guidebook ICT in Education USAID and AED
Poster for ICT awareness "Internet safety" Poster ICT in Education USAID
Poster for ICT awareness "Take care of me!" Poster ICT in Education USAID
Improving mathematics education 
(Manual for facilitators) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Improving science education 
(Manual for facilitators) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Strategies for student centered teaching 
and learning mathematics 
(Manual for facilitators) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Classification of tasks in teaching mathematics according 
their cognitive demands 
(Manual for facilitators and teachers) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Learning cycle in teaching biology 
(Manual for teachers) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Learning cycle in teaching chemistry 
(Manual for teachers) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Learning cycle in teaching physics
(Manual for teachers) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Learning cycle in teaching geography 
(Manual for teachers) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Improving mathematics education and education for 
natural surrounding 
in lower primary grades 
(Manual for facilitators and teachers) 
Manual Math & Science USAID and AED
Poster " Scientific Method" Poster Math & Science USAID and AED
Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum 
(Guidelines for schools) 
Guidelines Assessment USAID and AED
Improving School-Based Assessment; 
Developing Assessment Standards; 
Code of Ethics in Assessment 
(Manual for educators) 
Manual Assessment USAID and AED
Implementation of Assessment Standards 
in Students Assessment 
(Manual for facilitators) 
Manual Assessment USAID and AED
Implementation of Assessment Standards 
in Students Assessment 
(Manual for teachers) 
Manual Assessment USAID and AED
Implementation of Assessment Standards 
in Students Assessment 
(Presentations and materials for teachers) 
Presentations and 
materials 
Assessment USAID and AED
Assessment tips Tips Assessment USAID and AED
Code of Ethics on Assessment of 
Students’ Achievement 
Brochure Assessment USAID and AED
Poster “Code of Ethics on Assessment of 
Students’ Achievement” 
Poster Assessment USAID and AED
A Manual for the 21st Century Classroom Manual Publications for USAID and AED
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
teacher professional 
development 
Name Type of Document Component Published by
PEP Certification Procedure Procedure for 
providing certificates 
Publications for 
teacher professional 
development 
USAID and AED
Creating Innovative Schools: 
Preparing Students for the 21st Century 
Manual Publications for 
teacher professional 
development 
USAID and AED
Manual for Creating a Learning Environment 
for the 21st Century 
Manual Publications for 
teacher professional 
development 
USAID and AED
Green Club Working Book 
(Student activity Book) 
Working Book Green schools USAID and AED
Manual for working with the Green Clubs 
(Teachers Manual) 
Manual Green schools USAID and AED
PEP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 
Name Submitted by Published by
PEP MONITORING 
AND EVALUATION 
PLAN 
Academy for International Development (AED) with Macedonia Civic Education 
Centre (MCEC) and Indiana University Under Cooperative Agreement 
No.165-A-00-06-00101-00 
USAID
Name Type of 
Document 
Date Published by
FY08 Report on the Primary Education Project 
EVALUATION 
Report November, 2008 USAID and AED
FY08 Report on the Primary Education Project 
EVALUATION 
Report September, 2009 USAID and AED
PEP Performance Measurement Plan FY 2008 Plan 2008 USAID and AED
PEP Performance Measurement Plan FY 2009 Plan 2009 USAID and AED
PEP Performance Measurement Plan FY 2010 Plan 2010 USAID and AED
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PEP PLANS OF WORK
 Period of time 
Name From: To: Submitted by Published by
Plan of Work 18 Sep. 2006 17 Sep. 2007 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
Under Cooperative Agreement 
No.165-A-00-06-00101-00 
USAID
PEP Plan of 
Work 
(Revised 
February 2007) 
18 Sep. 2006 17 Sep. 2007 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
Under Cooperative Agreement 
No.165-A-00-06-00101-00
USAID
PEP Plan of 
Work 
18 Sep. 2007 17 Sep. 2008 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
Under Cooperative Agreement 
No.165-A-00-06-00101-00 
USAID
PEP Plan of 
Work 
18 Sep. 2008 17 Sep. 2009 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
Under Cooperative Agreement 
No.165-A-00-06-00101-00 
USAID
PEP PLANS OF WORK
 Period of time… 
Name From: To: Submitted by Published by
PEP Plan of 
Work 
18 Sep. 2009 17 Sep. 2010 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
Under Cooperative Agreement 
No.165-A-00-06-00101-00 
USAID
PEP STATISTICAL REPORT
 Period of time… 
Name From: To: Submitted by Published by
PEP Statistical 
Report 
Sep. 2006 Jul. 2009 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PEP QUARTERLY REPORTS
 Period of time… 
Name From: To: Submitted by Published by
PEP 
Quarterly 
Report 
18 Sep. 2006 31 Dec. 2006 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Second 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jan. 2007 31 Mar. 2007 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Third 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Apr. 2007 30 Jun. 2007 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Fourth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jul. 2007 30 Sep. 2007 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Fifth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Oct. 2007 31 Dec. 2007 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Sixth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jan. 2008 31 Mar. 2008 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Seventh 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Apr. 2008 30 Jun. 2008 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Eighth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jul. 2008 30 Sep. 2008 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Ninth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Oct. 2008 31 Dec. 2008 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Tenth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jan. 2009 31 Mar. 2009 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
USAID/Macedonia Primary Education Program – Midterm Evaluation 
PEP QUARTERLY REPORTS 
 Period of time 
Name From: To: Submitted by Published by
PEP 
Eleventh 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Apr. 2009 30 Jun. 2009 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Twelfth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jul. 2009 30 Sep. 2009 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Thirteenth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Oct. 2009 31 Dec. 2009 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
PEP 
Fourteenth 
Quarterly 
Report 
01 Jan. 2010 31 Mar. 2010 Academy for International Development (AED) with 
Macedonia Civic Education Centre (MCEC) and 
Indiana University 
USAID
Primary Education Project Web Site: www.pep.org.mk
 
 
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523
Tel: (202) 712-0000
Fax: (202) 216-3524
www.usaid.gov