Sector Assistance Program Evaluation on Education in Uzbekistan

 
Table 5: Strategic Positioning 
 
Key Area 
Assessment 
1. Relevance 
In terms of CSPs, and the Uzbekistan Welfare Improvement Strategy 
Paper, ADB interventions in the education sector were highly relevant 
for the country to establish and secure a quality education system in a 
globally competitive market economy.
2. Responsiveness 
ADB responded adequately and in a timely manner to the 1997 
National Program for Personnel Training, 2004 National Program for 
Basic Education Development, and Uzbekistan education laws. During 
1997–2009, ADB responded with 6 loans and 6 advisory TAs, besides 
project preparatory TAs (6), regional TAs (3), and one JFPR grant. 
3. Operational flexibility 
ADB displayed much operational flexibility. It started with the Basic 
Education Textbook Development Project focusing on the core 
curriculum and textbooks but soon moved to the Senior Secondary 
Education Project, under which it set up model schools and provided 
equipment and furniture. It then addressed policy issues and pursued 
qualitative improvements under the ESDP. It reinforced its 
commitment to the textbooks through the Second Textbook 
Development Project, and moved into ICT and rural basic education.
4. Portfolio management 
ADB’s timing of the project pipeline was well developed. At any stage 
it kept enough projects going to maintain momentum. It is only in the 
last 2 years (2008 and 2009) that a lull emerged in the portfolio, as the 
country partnership strategy shifted its priority to other sectors. Apart 
from a few delays, projects were implemented reasonably well.
5. Relationship 
with 
development partners 
ADB is the lead development partner. Its relationship with the United 
Nations Children’s Fund and the United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization were good and cooperative. Relationships 
with GTZ, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the World 
Bank were equally well maintained. See also Table 4.