romania advisory services agreement on informed decision … · 2020. 3. 17. · romania advisory...
TRANSCRIPT
ROMANIA
Advisory Services Agreement on Informed
Decision-Making on Investments in Infrastructure
OUTPUT 4 – Final Report with a Recommendation for the
Recipient’s Strategy for Infrastructure Investments in Education
Institutions
June 29, 2017
ii
This report corresponds to the fourth output under the Advisory Services Agreement on
Informed Decision-Making on Investments in Infrastructure between the National Centre for
Technical and Vocational Education and Training Development and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, which was signed on March 30, 2016.
The fourth output under the Advisory Services Agreement comprises the following two
volumes:
Volume I - Strategic Framework for Investments in Education Infrastructure 2017–2023
(this report).
Volume II - From Data to Investment Priorities: Using Evidence to Guide Strategic
Decisions about Romania’s Education Infrastructure (a companion analytical report).
Disclaimer
This report is a product of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / the
World Bank. The findings, interpretation, and conclusions expressed in this report do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments
they represent. The World Bank Group does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in
this work. This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the
Government of Romania.
Copyright Statement
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions of this work
without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint
any part of this work, please send a request with the complete information to either: (i) the
National Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training Development (Spiru Haret
Street, No. 10-12, Bucharest, Romania) or (ii) the World Bank Group Romania (Vasile Lascăr
Street, No. 31, Et 6, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania).
iii
Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... v
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Strategic Values .................................................................................................................................... 6
III. Strategic Framework at a Glance ...................................................................................................... 8
Strategic Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Strategic Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Strategic Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 9
IV. Strategic Pillars and Goals .............................................................................................................. 10
Pillar I – Improving Access and Service Provision ................................................................................ 10
Pillar II – Improving Quality .................................................................................................................. 14
Pillar III – Enhancing Learning Environments ....................................................................................... 18
V. Strategic Principles and Criteria for Prioritization of Investments ..................................................... 24
VI. Strategic Results Framework .......................................................................................................... 29
iv
Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of Libraries in Primary and Secondary Education Schools ..................................... 14 Figure 2. Availability of and Access to Science Laboratories in Secondary Schools ................................ 15 Figure 3. Primary and Secondary Schools without Indoor Toilets ............................................................. 16 Figure 4. Employer Perceptions of Romania’s Education System ............................................................. 19 Figure 5. Average VET Schools’ Document Literacy Scores by County ................................................... 20 Figure 6. Proportion of VET Students Who Would Benefit from Socioemotional Learning ..................... 21 Figure 7. Distribution of Low-Performing First-Year Bachelor’s Students by University ........................ 22
Tables
Table 1. RAS Implementation Status and Schedule ..................................................................................... 2 Table 2. EU Funds and State Budget Available for Education Infrastructure .............................................. 4 Table 3. Targets for Education and Training by 2020 .................................................................................. 5 Table 4. Strategic Values to Guide Investments in Education Infrastructure ............................................... 6 Table 5. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Schools per Category ....................................................... 11 Table 6. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Students Enrolled per Category ....................................... 11 Table 7. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Kindergartens per Category ............................................. 12 Table 8. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Kindergarten Students Enrolled per Category ................. 12 Table 9. Strategic Subdimensions and Indicators per Level of Education.................................................. 27 Table 10. Strategic Pillars and Indicators ................................................................................................... 29
Maps
Map 1. Distribution of Romanian Students Affected by Overcrowding by County ................................... 11
v
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CSS Criteria Simulation System
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
ESL Early school leaving
EU European Union
GEIS Geospatial Education Infrastructure System
IT Information technologies
MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration
MoNE Ministry of National Education
NCTVETD National Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
Development
NIS National Institute of Statistics
NPLD National Programme for Local Development
NRDP National Rural Development Programme
NSIIEI National Strategy for Infrastructure Investments in Education Institutions
RAS Reimbursable Advisory Services
ROP Regional Operational Programme
SCI School Capacity Index
SIIEI Strategy for Infrastructure Investments in Education Institutions
SIIIR Sistemul Informatic Integrat al Invatamantului din Romania
(Education Management Information System)
TAU Territorial Administrative Unit
VET Vocational education and training
vi
Acknowledgements
This strategic framework and its companion analytical report were prepared by a World Bank
Task Team comprising Janssen Teixeira (Task Team Leader), Tigran Shmis, Koji Miyamoto,
Inga Afanasieva, Antonio Nunez, Alina Sava, James Gresham, Jeremie Amoroso, Sina Smid,
Maria Jimenez, Iulia Maries, Ioana Ciucanu, Florian Gaman, Marius Nicolaescu, Clara Ivanescu,
Raluca Burtila, Andra Popescu, Clark Matthews, Chiara Amato, Stefania Popescu, Juan Prawda,
Eliezer Orbach, Magdalena Balica, and Sharanya Vasudevan, with support from Marta Assis and
Camelia Gusescu. This strategic framework and its companion analytical report were developed
under guidance of Cristian Aedo (Education Practice Manager) and Elisabetta Capannelli
(Country Manager).
The Task Team would like to thank the staff of the National Centre for Technical and Vocational
Education and Training Development, Ministry of National Education, and Ministry of Regional
Development and Public Administration for the excellent collaboration throughout the
preparation of this strategic framework and its companion analytical report.
vii
1
Background
The World Bank and the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) of Romania through the
National Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training Development
(NCTVETD) signed an Advisory Services Agreement for assistance in informed decision-
making on investments in education infrastructure on March 31, 2016. The development
objective of this Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) is to strengthen the strategic and
monitoring capacity of the MoNE to make informed decisions on investments in education
infrastructure. Specifically, this RAS (i) supports the preparation of a draft Strategy for
Infrastructure Investments in Education Institutions (SIIEI), and (ii) builds and enhances capacity
within the MoNE for the preparation and monitoring of the National Strategy for Infrastructure
Investments in Education Institutions (NSIIEI). The MoNE will prepare the government’s
NSIIEI based on recommendations presented in the draft SIIEI developed under this RAS. The
draft SIIEI comprises two documents: Volume I – Strategic Framework for Investments in
Education Infrastructure 2017-2023 (this document) and Volume II – From Data to Investment
Priorities: Using Evidence to Guide Strategic Decisions about Romania’s Education
Infrastructure (a companion analytical report).1 The NSIIEI will be fundamental to inform
decisions on investments in infrastructure, as well as to (i) increase the absorption of European
Union Structural and Investment Funds for the 2014–2020 programming period, and (ii) to guide
the utilization of funds from other sources available for the Government of Romania.
This RAS comprises two components to be implemented sequentially over a period of 36
months between 2016 and 2019. Component 1 - Preparing Recommendations for the
Development of the Recipient’s NSIIEI included detailed analysis of education infrastructure in
the broader context of the education sector to inform the development of guiding principles,
strategic values, and criteria to help prioritize infrastructure investments in public education
institutions. The analysis under this component is aligned with four agreed-upon dimensions: (i)
needs of education institutions; (ii) demographic trends; (iii) student transportation alternatives;
and (iv) labor market skills needs (for vocational and higher education). The first version of a
Geospatial Education Infrastructure System (GEIS) was developed under Component 1 to enable
the MoNE to make informed decisions on investments in education infrastructure based on data
changes over time. Component 2 - Building and Enhancing Capacity to Monitor the NSIIEI
focuses on supporting the government and particularly the MoNE to use data effectively to
prioritize investments and to monitor those investments. This component includes the
preparation of an action plan for Romania to monitor the NSIIEI.
The World Bank delivered the first version of the GEIS, as well as a Criteria Simulation
System (CSS), which are important tools to inform the decision-making process. An
extensive assessment of the client’s existing management information systems was conducted
and a report on recommendations for improving these systems was delivered during
implementation of Component 1. The first version of the GEIS, deployed in February 2017,
1 The Strategic Framework for Investments in Education Infrastructure 2017–2023 is the draft Strategy for
Infrastructure Investments in Education Institutions (SIIEI) referred to in the Advisory Services Agreement. The
reason why this report is called a “Strategic Framework” is because it is subject to further discussions with the
MoNE upon delivery in late June 2017, and subsequent approval by this Ministry.
2
allows users to learn about the infrastructure of education institutions across the country by using
geospatial maps at the national, county, Territorial Administrative Unit (TAU), and school
levels. The World Bank also supported development of the CSS to facilitate the application of
the proposed criteria for prioritizing investments in education infrastructure. Given the synergies
between these two information systems and to facilitate their operation by users, these two
systems are being merged into a single platform that will be available in September 2017.
Initial recommendations for Romania’s NSIIEI—including draft criteria for prioritizing
investments—were presented in December 2016 and discussed extensively with
counterparts and key stakeholders. Table 1 summarizes the RAS implementation schedule and
key deliverables. The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA)
included these draft criteria in the guidelines for preparation of proposals for financing under the
Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2014–2020. Extensive consultations with stakeholders
along with additional data collection and analytical efforts undertaken in the past 10 months
further informed the draft SIIEI as well as the proposed criteria for prioritization. The MRDPA
has not yet launched the call for proposals for financing under European Union funds, so the
final version of the criteria prepared under this RAS can still be taken into account.
Table 1. RAS Implementation Status and Schedule
Schedule
Component 1:
Preparing Recommendations for
Development of the NSIIEI
Months 1–15
Component 2:
Building and Enhancing Capacity to
Monitor the NSIIEI
Months 16–36
Sta
tus
Mar 2016 RAS agreement signed
Com
ple
ted
Sep 2016 Outline for draft SIIEI
Dec 2016 First version of draft SIIEI (Output 1)
Feb 2017 First version of GEIS (Output 2)
Jun 2017 Final version of draft SIIEI (Output 4)
Sep 2017 Final version of GEIS (Output 3)
Four outputs to be prepared, including
Guidelines to Monitor the Action Plan
for Implementation of the NSIIEI Upco
min
g
Jul 2017 to
Mar 2019
This document—along with the accompanying analytical report contained in Volume II—
comprises the final set of recommendations for Romania’s SIIEI (Output 4). The two
documents are designed to be complementary but distinct. Volume I is a streamlined strategic
document that presents the proposed framework for Romania’s future investments in education
infrastructure. Volume II contains the detailed explanation of criteria for prioritizing investments
in education institutions, which are derived from an extensive situation analysis of Romania’s
education system, also presented in that Volume. Together, Volumes I and II represent the final
report containing recommendations for Romania’s SIIEI.
In the next steps of this RAS, the World Bank will complete discussions with the Romanian
counterparts on recommendations for the SIIEI and will support the MoNE in preparing
the NSIIEI by finalizing development of the accompanying action plan for implementation.
Although counterparts were consulted throughout implementation of Component 1, a next step in
the RAS implementation schedule is to conclude discussions on the recommendations included
3
in Output 4, especially on the criteria for prioritization of investments. These discussions will
also enable completion of an action plan for implementation of the NSIIEI. This document
already includes a results framework for the draft SIIEI, and was informed by extensive
consultations with stakeholders. However, further analysis and planning are required to
complete the action plan, including the cost estimates and time horizons for different scenarios.
It is expected that the approved NSIIEI, and specifically, that the guiding principles and
criteria for prioritization will be used to evaluate proposals for investments in education
infrastructure regardless the source of funds. This process will follow a two-stage approach.
First, authorities responsible for evaluation and selection of proposals for investments in
education infrastructure will verify compliance of all received proposals with the guiding
principles for investments. Next, the approved criteria will be applied only to those proposals
that comply with the guiding principles. This two-stage process ensures that a holistic and
evidence-based approach to investing in education infrastructure will be taken.
1
I. Introduction
Strategic planning for investments in
education infrastructure requires decision
makers to assess whether the location and
quality of this infrastructure are or will be
adequate. Adequacy relates to the use of
education infrastructure, population
dispersion and enrollment trends,
transportation options, and environmental and natural disaster risk, among other relevant factors.
The location of education institutions is important because it directly affects distance to school,
which has been shown to affect student enrollment and retention. The number and location of
education institutions may also affect total enrollment, which has an effect on the performance
and motivation of both students and teachers. The other key element of education infrastructure
strategic planning is quality, which should be understood in relation to compliance with
minimum infrastructure standards and alignment of facilities design with learning principles.
While governments have shifted efforts toward improved education systems and are
spending increasingly more on education, questions arise about the efficacy and efficiency
of these investments. Educational inputs such as school infrastructure, teaching materials, and
well-trained teachers remain relatively expensive. In comparative terms, investments in
education infrastructure tend to be considered expensive, though the reality is that new
construction, renovation, or major repair of existing buildings typically involve one-time
(capital) expenditures that are large compared to recurrent expenditures for maintenance of
infrastructure or for salaries of education staff. At the same time, the relatively high investment
cost of education infrastructure is explained by its lifetime, which extends over many years. Both
characteristics—a high initial outlay and an extended lifetime—mean that investments in
infrastructure are expensive and cannot be easily reversed. Given the high investment costs and
the need to allocate limited funds to finance various educational inputs, it is paramount that
investments selected for support yield the greatest returns.
Investments in education infrastructure
are expensive everywhere in the world,
but the financial challenge is aggravated
in Romania by its level of expenditure on
education, which is among the lowest in
Europe. However, limited education
expenditure is not the only challenge
constraining the education system. On the
social front, children who remain outside the education system tend to be from disadvantaged
backgrounds, including Roma communities. On the organizational side, the existing
decentralized infrastructure decision-making model in Romania implies complex coordination
initiatives. Complicating matters, the learning outcomes of Romania’s students need to improve
(Romania’s 15-year-olds continue to perform well below the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development average in mathematics, reading, and science). Additionally,
Romania’s shifting demographics require a balance between policy reforms aimed at students in
Education infrastructure is a fundamental input
to the education process. It can facilitate or
interfere with teaching and learning processes,
and can affect students’ performance
Investments in education infrastructure in
Romania will be made taking into account
demographic, financial, social, organizational,
and school-related challenges
2
the education system and the relevance of this system for the labor market and wider economy.
This is especially important given the declining and aging population, and the significant
migration of workers to other European countries.
Currently, decisions about construction, rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of
education infrastructure in Romania are taken at various levels of government under a
decentralized approach, which contributes to existing inequities and poses challenges in
terms of coordination, financing, and regulation. Although the MoNE and other central
bodies of government finance investment programs in education institutions, many decisions
regarding the selection of institutions and identification of infrastructure requirements are taken
by local authorities, through county and local councils, and by education institutions directly.
Romania’s current model of investing in education infrastructure fails to explicitly address the
significant inequities in access to and quality of education infrastructure between geographical
regions, urban and rural communities, and levels of education. In fact, this model magnifies
existing inequalities in teaching and learning conditions. The low overall level of resources
available for investing in education infrastructure further complicates the problem, especially
given that the majority of available resources are dedicated to salaries of staff working in
education and other recurrent expenditures, leaving little for capital investments. It is because of
these facts that an evidence-based and pro-equity decision-making model becomes necessary in
Romania. Such a model will enable the effective and efficient use of limited resources for
infrastructure, and will ensure that investments reduce rather than exacerbate existing
inequalities in the education system.
These challenges and constraints demonstrate why the current model of decision-making
for investing in education infrastructure is insufficient and explain Romania’s need for a
Strategic Framework for Investments in Education Infrastructure. This framework will help
the Government of Romania evaluate investment options holistically using funds from various
sources, and ultimately select those with the greatest benefits relative to the investment costs,
between 2017 and 2023.
From the European Union (EU),
European Structural and Investment
Funds for the 2014–2020 programming
period are available for Romania to
significantly supplement existing
resources for investments in education
infrastructure. European Union Regulation
No 1303/2013 on common provisions about
(i) European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), (ii) European Social Fund (ESF), (iii)
Cohesion Fund, (iv) European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and (v) European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund specifies that European Structural and Investment Funds for the
2014–2020 programming period are available for investments, provided that decisions are made
according to an integrated approach that can sustain territorial development, while focusing on
inclusiveness and smart growth.
Financing: At present, Romania relies on a
combination of state and local budgets, as well
as European funds for investments in its
education infrastructure
3
The MoNE also invests state budget in pre-university education infrastructure, as
established in the Law of National Education. State funds can be used to finance: (i) national
programs approved through Government Decisions; (ii) national contributions to projects or
programs co-financed by the Government of Romania and other international financial
institutions; and (iii) annual and multiannual programs for investments in modernization and
development of public pre-university institutions’ facilities, including school consolidation,
rehabilitation, and equipping.
Concerning EU funds, Romania can benefit from two main mechanisms to invest in
education infrastructure. One is through the allocation of resources from ERDF, to be
managed by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration. The other is
through resources from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),
whose responsibility rests on the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development/Agency for
Financing Rural Investments. Under the former, funds can be allocated to local authorities
according to the requirements of the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) for 2014–2020.
Under the latter, funds can be allocated to local associations and nongovernmental organizations
according to the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP). The NRDP can also finance
the following activities under Priority 6 (Local Development in Rural Areas): construction,
rehabilitation, and modernization (including equipment) of nurseries and kindergartens that are
not part of a school, and upper secondary education schools in the field of agriculture.
The Operational Programme for Human Capital for implementation of ESF in 2014–2020
outlines the priorities and objectives to invest around €5 billion (of which €4.3 billion from
EU funds) to help Romanians, including youth, find a job and improve their education and
skills, while reducing poverty and social exclusion, as well as supporting better social
services and labor market institutions. These provisions are particularly important because of
the need to align investments in education infrastructure with investments in human capital.
Specific attention is given to youth, Roma, and rural populations. In particular, Priority 6 on
education and skills will invest €1.2 billion to support second chance education for youth not in
education, employment, or training; reduce early school leaving (ESL); improve access to and
quality of tertiary education; support apprenticeships, traineeships, and lifelong learning;
improve teachers' skills; support entrepreneurship education; and improve the relevance of
vocational education and training (VET).
Investment priorities to reduce ESL,
increase participation in lifelong learning,
increase tertiary education attainment,
quality and efficiency, and increase the
quality and efficiency of VET should be
complemented by ERDF under Thematic
Objective 10. Investments in education,
training (including professional education
and training), and lifelong learning can be
supported by developing education and training infrastructure under ROP 2014–2020. The
financial envelope for Priority Axis 10 (Education Infrastructure Development) is about €352
million (€297 million from ERDF and €55 million as the national contribution). Local authorities
In total, €428.5 million (€362 from ERDF and
€66.5 as the national contribution) is available
for investment in education infrastructure from
2014 to 2020, considering only Thematic
Objective 10 of the ROP for this period
4
and public universities are the eligible entities to apply for these funds. Eligible activities
include:
Construction, rehabilitation, modernization, and equipment for nurseries, kindergartens,
and primary and lower secondary education schools.
Rehabilitation, modernization, extension, and equipment for technological high schools
and VET schools.
Rehabilitation, modernization, extension, and equipment for universities.
Under ROP 2014–2020, €76.5 million is available for investment in education
infrastructure according to Investment Priority 4.4, which is specific for county capitals
(excluding Tulcea County). This total includes €65 million from ERDF and €11.5 million as the
national contribution. These funds are for investments in nurseries, kindergartens, VET schools,
and institutions offering lifelong learning.
Additionally, around €417 million is available for investment in education infrastructure under
the NRDP and the National Programme for Local Development (NPLD) for 2015–2023. The
NSIIEI should inform decisions for investments of funds from various sources, including EU
funds, as well as state and local budgets. Table 2 shows the availability of EU funds and state
budget for investments in education infrastructure until 2023.
Table 2. EU Funds and State Budget Available for Education Infrastructure
Programs
EU Funds
(€ million)
Romania's
Funds (€ million) Total
(€ million) ERDF EAFRD
State and Local
Budgets
ROP
2014-2020
PA 10 297 0 55 352
IP 4.4 65 0 11.5 76.5
ROP Total 362 0 66.5 428.5
NRDP (2015–2023)* 0 150 27 177
NPLD (2015–2019) 0 0 240 240
Total 362 150 333.5 845.5
Source: MoNE, MDRAP, and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Note: *Funds are not exclusively for education infrastructure.
5
Romania is concentrating efforts, together with all
EU member states, to ensure a significant
contribution to the achievement of EU objectives in
education and training, in line with specific national
and regional development needs. Ex-ante
conditionalities for utilization of EU funds together with
a comprehensive set of objective criteria for an
assessment of their fulfilment were established for
Romania. The following national strategies were
prepared to fulfill these conditionalities: (i) to Reduce
Early School Leaving; (ii) to Increase Tertiary Education Attainment, Quality and Efficiency;
and (iii) for Lifelong Learning. These strategies were formally approved by the Government of
Romania in 2015, and have already been accepted by the European Commission. The targets for
these strategies are reflected in Table 3.
Table 3. Targets for Education and Training by 2020
Indicator
EU
Target
Romania
Target
2016
Value
Share of 20–64-year-olds employed 75 70 66.3
Share of early school leavers 10 11.3 18.5
Share of 30–34-year-olds who completed tertiary education 40 26.7 25.6
Share of 25–64-year-olds who participated in lifelong learning 15 10 1.2 Source: European Commission and MoNE.
Priorities for investment in education infrastructure, as presented in the Partnership
Agreement 2014–2020, should include:
Supporting nurseries, kindergartens, and schools in areas where the enrollment rates or
educational performance are lower, and school dropout or ESL rates are higher than the
national/county average.
Restructuring the school VET network and enhancing Community Permanent Learning
Centers’ infrastructure to increase efficiency, improve quality, and increase attendance.
Ensuring or improving basic conditions (e.g., sanitation, proper water supply, heating) in
rural and isolated schools and/or disadvantaged areas.
Providing specialized facilities and teaching equipment for disadvantaged students,
including those with special education needs.
Investing in infrastructure to modernize and internationalize university centers in areas
with potential growth by building and upgrading research and innovation infrastructure,
learning materials, new technologies, and IT.
The Partnership Agreement 2014–
2020 indicates that future investment
in education should be embedded in a
national framework, taking into
account current demographic trends
and labor market demands
6
II. Strategic Values
The Government of Romania ensures that core strategic values will be taken into account
while making decisions for investments in education infrastructure. These core values,
shown in Table 4, are articulated in relevant national strategies and legislation, as well as
requirements from diverse sources of funds, including European funds. These core strategic
values were also reiterated through multiple rounds of consultations with key counterparts as
well as stakeholders.
Table 4. Strategic Values to Guide Investments in Education Infrastructure
Strategic Value Definition
Quality learning environments Ensuring safe, secure and age-appropriate physical spaces
designed to facilitate teaching and learning in line with
recognizing learning principles
Equity Promoting fairness and impartiality in infrastructure
investments by recognizing and reacting to inherent
differences in opportunities and advantages between groups
Nonsegregation Preventing investments from establishing new isolated
educational facilities or strengthening existing isolated
facilities
Innovative learning spaces Supporting the establishment of spaces designed explicitly
to promote new teaching and learning approaches, including
with the assistance of modern technologies
Evidence-based decisions Making decisions on programs or proposals for investments
that are grounded in analysis of existing quality data
Sustainability Prioritizing investments in infrastructure that ensure
environmental protection and cost-effective maintenance
Nondiscrimination Preventing unequal and unfair treatment in the provision of
educational services in schools
Holistic framework for decisions Making decisions on investments considering all relevant
analytical dimensions, such as demographic trends and labor
market skills needs, simultaneously
Ownership Ensuring that investments will make students feel that their
learning spaces are their own
Responsiveness to local needs Prioritizing proposals for investments that meet the needs of
communities that are locally served by schools
Labor market relevance Supporting proposals for investments in education
infrastructure that serve the current and future skills needs of
the labor market
Social inclusion Ensuring that investments in education infrastructure
contribute to have those individuals who are from
disadvantaged groups taking part in society
Transparency Supporting proposals for investments that are unambiguous,
informed, prepared according to existing regulations, and
publicly accessible
7
Flexibility Prioritizing investments in learning environments that
encourages space, equipment, and furniture to be designed,
adapted, and modified to accommodate the needs of
different types of learners
Strategic coherence Ensuring that investments in education infrastructure are
made in alignment with existing national strategies in
education and other relevant sectors
Safety Prioritizing investments in learning environments that
protect the physical well-being of students and staff
8
III. Strategic Framework at a Glance
Decisions about investments in education infrastructure in Romania will not be made in a
vacuum. Rather, these decisions will take into account contextual factors such as
demographic changes, existing transportation alternatives for students, and labor market
skills needs. These investments will be prioritized according to a set of holistic criteria that are
evidence-based and pro-equity.
Strategic Vision
The strategic vision for Romania’s Education
Infrastructure Strategic Framework 2017–
2023 encompasses both educational and social
benefits of better-informed investments in
education infrastructure. It reflects some
important values outlined in this strategic plan.
Across the globe, access to learning
environments correlates well with student
performance, and unequal access may exacerbate
the effects of socioeconomic conditions on this performance. This strategic framework was
prepared to help the Government of Romania address the challenge of access to learning
environments, while promoting social cohesion and personal development, and caring for
sustainability.
Strategic Mission
The use of evidence to inform decision-
making on investments in education
infrastructure is paramount for Romania.
The strategic mission for Romania’s
Education Infrastructure Strategic
Framework 2017–2023 reflects the
evidence-based nature of the decision-
making process established by the government. In fact, well-documented evidence from various
countries shows that education infrastructure is an essential input to the educational process and
has a clear effect on a range of student outcomes, including enrollment, retention, motivation,
and performance.
Additionally, students’ academic progress is influenced by learning environment features that
provide healthy spaces, support individualization of these spaces, and provide an appropriate
level of stimulation. The importance of appropriate environments for learning is highlighted in
this strategic mission for investment in education infrastructure in Romania.
Mission: To use evidence to provide equitable
access to safe and flexible learning
environments that meet local needs and
facilitate innovation in teaching and learning
Vision: Romania will make all investment
decisions for education infrastructure to
ensure access of its citizens to learning
environments that support personal
growth, social cohesion, and sustainable
development
9
Strategic Goals
The strategic goals pertaining to investments in education infrastructure in Romania are
to:
improve access and service provision in underserved areas and overcrowded schools
improve quality and appropriateness of school environments
enhance learning environments to foster skills development
The Government of Romania will support the development and implementation of actions
toward achievement of these goals. These actions fall into the following three strategic pillars:
Romania’s Strategic Framework for Investments in Education Infrastructure
2017-2023
Pillar I:
Improving Access and
Service Provision
Pillar II:
Improving Quality
Pillar III:
Enhancing Learning
Environments
10
IV. Strategic Pillars and Goals
Pillar I – Improving Access and Service Provision
Goal I: To improve access and service provision in underserved areas and overcrowded
schools
Overall, Romanian schools are not
overcrowded, but a significant share of
students attend schools with inadequate
capacity. Data show the problem of space
inefficiency in Romanian schools, which
have not kept pace with demographic
changes in the country. As detailed in the
companion report, approximately 10
percent of Romanian schools are
overcrowded, whereas nearly 60 percent of
these schools have excess capacity; the remaining 30 percent have adequate capacity. Among
urban schools, 14.5 percent have insufficient capacity, in comparison with 8.8 percent of schools
in rural areas. On the other hand, a large number of urban schools—46 percent—are excessively
spacious relative to the number of students enrolled. Excess capacity is even more widespread in
rural areas, where 62.6 percent of schools, or roughly two out of every three, are overly spacious
and thus underutilized. At the same time, overcrowding in secondary schools is more common:
14 percent of all secondary schools have insufficient capacity for their student population. In
comparison, only 2.4 percent of primary schools have insufficient capacity.
Analyzing school capacity through the lens of number of students enrolled, data reveal that
just over half (56 percent) of Romanian students attend schools that are either
overcrowded or underutilized. Table 5 shows the percentage of schools in three categories of
capacity, as measured by a School Capacity Index (SCI),2 while Table 6 reflects the share of
students attending overcrowded versus underutilized schools. Romania’s school infrastructure is
inadequate for an alarming number of students (more than 1.2 million). As shown in Table 6, 22
percent of Romanian students attend overcrowded schools – schools with insufficient capacity
relative to their student body. On the other hand, 34 percent of students – approximately one out
of every three – attend a school that is excessively spacious relative to the number of students.
Map 1 illustrates the distribution of overcrowded schools across Romania by the degree of
students affected; the darker the color, the greater incidence of overcrowding (i.e., the higher the
share of students affected by overcrowding).
2 The SCI represents the number of seats available in a school normalized by the number of seats needed to serve the
student population. An index value of 1 means that the school has adequate space to accommodate the student
population that it serves. A value greater than 1 means that the school has excess capacity relative to its student
population, i.e., that the school is underutilized. Values smaller than 1 mean that the school has insufficient capacity
to serve their enrolled students, i.e., that the school is overcrowded.
Romanian schools are space-inefficient, either
overcrowded or underutilized. More than 1.2
million Romanian students are affected by this
phenomenon. By 2020, funds should be invested
in education infrastructure that is capacity-
adequate to the student population
11
Table 5. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Schools per Category
Capacity SCI Category Percentage of Schools
Total Urban Rural Primary Secondary
Insufficient Space (Overcrowded) SCI < 0.75 10.4 14.5 8.8 2.4 14.0
Adequate Space 0.75 ≤ SCI ≤ 1.25 31.8 39.5 28.6 20.0 36.8
Excess Space (Underutilized) SCI > 1.25 57.8 46.0 62.6 77.6 49.2
Source: SIIIR.3
Table 6. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Students Enrolled per Category
Capacity SCI Category Percentage of Students Enrolled
Total Urban Rural Primary Secondary
Insufficient Space (Overcrowded) SCI < 0.75 22.1 23.8 18.5 5.7 22.9
Adequate Space 0.75 ≤ SCI ≤ 1.25 43.9 47.5 38.5 27.5 44.8
Excess Space (Underutilized) SCI > 1.25 34.0 28.7 43.0 66.8 32.3
Source: SIIIR.
Map 1. Distribution of Romanian Students Affected by Overcrowding by County
3 SIIIR (Sistemul Informatic Integrat al Invatamantului din Romania) is Romania’s Education Management
Information System.
12
Space inefficiency also affects Romanian kindergartens, given that approximately 60
percent of them have excess capacity. In Romania, approximately 6,600 kindergartens serve
nearly 380,000 children. One-third of these units are located in urban areas and serve
approximately two-thirds of the children enrolled. Units with insufficient space enroll about 8
percent of children, whereas kindergartens with excess capacity serve around 41 percent of the
kindergarten population. Excess capacity is more common in rural schools (66.7 percent),
serving 57.4 percent of students. Almost 40 percent of kindergarteners attend schools providing
adequate space (Table 7 and Table 8).
Table 7. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Kindergartens per Category
Capacity SCI Category Percentage of Schools
Total Urban Rural
Insufficient Space (Overcrowded) SCI < 0.75 3.7 5.7 2.7
Adequate Space 0.75 ≤ SCI ≤ 1.25 37.8 50.9 30.6
Excess Space (Underutilized) SCI > 1.25 58.5 43.4 66.7
Source: SIIIR.
Table 8. School Capacity Index: Percentage of Kindergarten Students Enrolled per
Category
Capacity SCI Category Percentage of Kindergarten Students
Total Urban Rural
Insufficient Space (Overcrowded) SCI < 0.75 7.9 9.2 5.4
Adequate Space 0.75 ≤ SCI ≤ 1.25 51.2 58.6 37.2
Excess Space (Underutilized) SCI > 1.25 40.9 32.2 57.4
Source: SIIIR.
Overcrowding, though not an overall pressing problem in Romanian schools, takes on
more importance when analyzed in conjunction with other factors that increase the risk of
ESL. Overall, the analysis of data on student performance, including performance on Grade 8
and Baccalaureate exams, in addition to completion rates, reveals that significant disparities exist
between schools located in urban and rural areas, possibly exacerbated by unequal access to
improved education infrastructure.
13
Strategic Actions for Pillar I
Priority will be given to investments aimed at improving access to education in areas of
Romania or in levels of service that are currently challenged. At present, access is a
challenge that does not affect all levels of education equally, and issues of access are not
observed in all Romanian regions or counties with the same magnitude. Data show that access
clearly needs to improve in certain levels, such as ante-preschool education, and geographic
locations, such as rural and some marginalized areas. On the other hand, in levels such as
primary education, schools are mostly underutilized. Investments will be made in access to
education to reduce these gaps in service provision by 2020.
Goal I: To improve access and service provision in underserved areas and overcrowded
schools
Strategic actions
Supporting proposals for investments in education infrastructure that will help to
reduce space inefficiencies in Romanian schools.
Prioritizing investments to reduce overcrowding in schools located in urban areas,
those offering secondary education, and those operating in multiple shifts.
Making more efficient use of schools that operate with excess capacity, mainly those
institutions located in rural areas and offering primary education.
Supporting investments in education infrastructure that will help to reduce the risk
of early school leaving (ESL). Priority should be given to proposals that will help to
mitigate the ESL risk of disadvantaged students.
Prioritizing investments aimed at increasing access to early childhood care and
education provided through nurseries.
Supporting equal access to education services from nurseries to universities,
including investments to improve accessibility for students with physical disabilities.
Reducing the urban-rural education infrastructure gap.
Increasing the access of Romanian students to adequate transport alternatives.
14
Pillar II – Improving Quality
Goal II: To improve quality and appropriateness of school environments
The concept of quality presented in this pillar relates to the compliance with minimum
infrastructure standards and the alignment between facilities design and learning
principles. Additionally, appropriateness should be understood as the suitability of school
utilities including heating and cooling systems, sewage treatment and garbage collection, in
addition to sanitary conditions. In fact, education infrastructure needs to be structurally sound to
provide safe and secure learning environment for students, and these concepts are aligned with
this basic principle.
Two out of ten urban schools lack
libraries, whereas this is the case in six
out of ten rural schools. Diversity across
counties is significant (Figure 1). In Alba,
Hunedoara, Mures, and Vaslui Counties,
less than 40 percent of primary and
secondary education schools are equipped
with libraries. The situation is also dire in
Iasi, the county with the largest number of
schools, in which fewer than half (48
percent) of its 448 schools have a library. On the other hand, Bucharest County has the highest
proportion of schools equipped with a library (88 percent). Other outperforming counties in this
sense include Ialomita and Teleorman, where over 70 percent of schools have a library.
Figure 1. Distribution of Libraries in Primary and Secondary Education Schools
Source: SIIIR.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Alb
a
Hu
ned
oar
a
Mu
res
Vas
lui
Bih
or
Go
rj
Co
vasn
a
Sala
j
Bis
trit
a-N
asau
d
Vra
nce
a
Car
as-S
ever
in
Bo
tosa
ni
Bu
zau
Iasi
Har
ghit
a
Olt
Tim
is
Ara
d
Giu
rgiu
Meh
edin
ti
Sib
iu
Bac
au
Arg
es
Suce
ava
Do
lj
Mar
amu
res
Cal
aras
i
Bra
sov
Satu
Mar
e
Ilfo
v
Dam
bo
vita
Nea
mt
Clu
j
Pra
ho
va
Val
cea
Co
nst
anta
Bra
ila
Tulc
ea
Ialo
mit
a
Tele
orm
an
Gal
ati
Bu
char
est
Number of schools Percentage of schools with libraries
Libraries are unevenly distributed across
Romanian schools. Fewer than one in ten
primary schools have libraries, which are more
common in secondary schools, yet almost 30
percent of these institutions do not have this
resource
15
The urban and rural inequalities are
very stark for this particular amenity: 72 percent of rural secondary schools are
missing a science laboratory, compared
to 30 percent of urban schools (Figure
2). Thus laboratories are absent in over
3,000 secondary rural schools (compared
to 803 urban schools). The lack of laboratories affects 63 percent of rural students (and 19
percent of urban students).
Figure 2. Availability of and Access to Science Laboratories in Secondary Schools
Source: SIIIR.
In total, 2,220 Romanian schools are
without indoor toilets, and an urban-rural
gap is evident: 38 percent of rural schools
are in this situation, versus 7 percent of
urban schools. These findings are relevant
considering the link between sanitation and
stunting, which can be caused by infection
from fecal bacteria. The lack of indoor toilets
is particularly dire in the Moldova region. In Vaslui and Botosani Counties, almost one in three
students do not have access to indoor toilets (Error! Reference source not found.). In Vrancea
and Teleorman Counties, this issue affects almost one in every four students. At the other end of
the spectrum, Bucharest, Ilfov, and Brasov Counties have the highest shares of schools with
indoor toilets.
More than half of Romanian secondary education
schools lack science laboratories on their
premises, affecting more than 845,000 students
Sanitary conditions: Nearly 30 percent of
schools in Romania do not have indoor toilets,
affecting more than 230,000 students
nationwide
16
Figure 3. Primary and Secondary Schools without Indoor Toilets
Source: SIIIR.
In Romanian primary schools, the combination of plain classrooms in shape, layout, and
decoration, with a low level of display, little personalization, and lack of child-friendly
furniture, all conspire to create a very low level of ownership from the perspective of
individual children. Many primary schools are not equipped with age-appropriate classroom
furniture. Desks and chairs in these classrooms are usually arranged in rows and not scaled
appropriately for small children. In schools with dual shifts, this latter feature might be explained
by the need for bigger furniture for older students.
Even though Romanian schools have
generally reasonable provision of
windows that open, very poor air quality
characterizes practically every
classroom. CO2 levels are a surrogate
measure of air quality, with the threshold of
good air quality for schools set at 1,000
ppm, although 1,500 ppm may also be
acceptable in some contexts. The average CO2 level for a sample of classrooms of Romanian
schools is 3,021 ppm. In Bucharest schools, the range spreads from 2,300–5,300 ppm. In Brasov
schools, the values are also high, typically around 1,500–2,500 ppm. Poor air quality directly
impacts pupils’ picture memory and word recognition, and performance on mental tasks reduces
from CO2 levels of 500 ppm upwards.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Bu
char
est
Bra
sov
Ilfo
vM
aram
ure
sH
argh
ita
Satu
Mar
eIa
lom
ita
Pra
ho
vaC
luj
Tim
isH
un
edo
ara
Sib
iuC
on
stan
taB
raila
Ara
dC
ova
sna
Mu
res
Tulc
eaD
amb
ovi
taSa
laj
Val
cea
Nea
mt
Bih
or
Arg
esC
aras
-Sev
erin
Alb
aG
iurg
iuC
alar
asi
Gal
ati
Bis
trit
a-N
asau
dSu
ceav
aB
acau
Do
ljTe
leo
rman
Bu
zau
Iasi
Meh
edin
tiG
orj
Olt
Vra
nce
aB
oto
san
iV
aslu
i
Percentage of schools without indoor toilet Percentage of students without indoor toilet
Romanian schools have poor air quality, which
severely reduces children’s capacity to
concentrate and remain alert, negatively
impacting their capacity to learn
17
Data show that urban Romanian
kindergartens tend to have better
conditions for utilities than rural ones. In
rural kindergartens, 24 percent have only
outdoor toilets, compared to 7 percent of
urban kindergartens. Additionally, 30
percent of rural kindergartens use
fireplaces as a heating source, as opposed to only 6 percent in urban ones. Notably, 10 percent of
rural kindergartens do not have access to an authorized source of water or have no water source
at all, which poses clear risks to the health of the young children who attend these schools.
Strategic Actions for Pillar II
A prime concern will be to improve the quality and appropriateness of learning
environments in Romanian schools. While robust studies prove that students’ learning
outcomes can be partially explained by physical conditions of learning spaces, many Romanian
schools have poor air quality, use very little natural daylight, use fireplaces as their main source
of heating, do not have any indoor toilets, and lack libraries or science laboratories.
Goal II: To improve quality and appropriateness of school environments
Strategic actions
Prioritizing investments to equip schools with quality learning spaces, including
multipurpose and flexible rooms.
Supporting proposals for investments in education infrastructure that will help to
modernize school amenities.
Promoting initiatives that will strengthen the linkages between education
infrastructure and student outcomes, including through teacher training, so teachers
are capable of maximizing the use of natural light, temperature, and ventilation to
enhance learning.
Prioritizing investments aimed at providing schools with good natural learning
environments that stimulate students, while supporting individualization of spaces at
the same time.
Supporting proposals for investments that will improve the appropriateness of
school utilities, including heating and cooling, water supply, sewage treatment, and
garbage collection.
Improving the sanitary conditions of schools, mainly in rural areas.
Enhancing housing conditions for students of universities and VET schools.
Decreasing seismic risks of school and university buildings.
Approximately one in four rural Romanian
kindergartens struggle with outdoor toilets, and
an even higher share, with heating provided
only by fireplaces
18
Pillar III – Enhancing Learning Environments
Goal III: To enhance learning environments to foster skills development
Romanian employers highly demand skilled workers – programmers and developers in the
information technology (IT) industry with higher-order analytical and problem-solving
skills.4 This excess demand is reported by employers in Cluj-Napoca and Iasi, for instance.
Employers reported that they tend to hire workers with insufficient cognitive and technical skills
who require intensive on-the-job training. Especially in services and industry, employers noted
the low motivation of workers to make long-term commitments to their jobs, leading to the
phenomenon of “transit” jobs, which workers hold for short periods of time before quitting to
look for other work. Employers also noted that this issue imposes continual costs on them to
recruit, train, and retrain employees. Low salaries were cited as a potential factor that worsens
job turnover and contributes to employers’ unmet demand for skills.
These skills include motivation, empathy,
tolerance, self-management, problem-
solving, teamwork, communication, learning
to learn, accountability, planning,
engagement, and commitment. Importantly,
many employers identified socioemotional
skills as among the most important skills for all
categories of occupations:
managerial/professional occupations, sales/service occupations, and agriculture/manufacturing
occupations.
Employers reported that university graduates generally possess cognitive and job-related
skills to an acceptable extent, though these students were said to acquire overly theoretical
academic skills. Employers also find VET students/graduates to have inadequate skills. In the IT
industry, employers described university graduates as lacking basic knowledge of business
operations and having insufficient business analysis skills. The lack of technical or job-related
skills perceived by employers who hire VET graduates stems in part from outdated equipment in
school workshops as well as outdated teaching methods and teaching experiences. To
compensate for graduates’ lack of “job-ready” skills, employers described the need to heavily
complement these skills by using different strategies/methods of skills upgrading, e.g.,
internships, practical training in firms’ premises, in-firm targeted trainings and courses, etc. This
issue further relates to the education system, which is perceived by all participants as being
overly theoretical, focused on acquiring knowledge and information, but less on developing
socioemotional and job-related skills. Many employers expressed the view that they spend too
much time and effort to train and upgrade the skills of new employees, and that the education
system could do more to foster these skills.
Romanian employers are generally critical about the relevance of the education system for
several reasons. First, the curriculum for both secondary and tertiary education is reported by
many different types of employers to be overly theoretical, with a focus on abstract concepts and 4 According to a survey and focus group discussions with employers carried out by the World Bank in 2017.
Romanian employers strongly believe that
current employees as well as students and
graduates entering the labor market lack
key socioemotional skills
19
the accumulation of information rather than practical applications. Second, in line with the
overly theoretical curriculum, teaching methods are described as being outdated and highly
traditional, with a focus on memorization rather than application. Finally, employers noted that
the education system is highly resistant to change, both at the pre-university and university
levels. Perceptions of Romanian employers about the relevance of the country’s education
system are illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Employer Perceptions of Romania’s Education System
Source: World Bank’s Online Employer Survey (2017).
Worldwide, the automation of production processes is driving the demand for higher levels
of cognitive skills. The ongoing automation of production processes will displace large numbers
of workers whose jobs involve the routine application of procedural knowledge. The Romanian
economy is particularly vulnerable to this trend, as it currently has a disproportionate share of
this type of job in the manufacturing, IT, and agriculture sectors. Jobs that are lost to automation
will be replaced by jobs that require cognitive skills that are high enough to support nonroutine
problem-solving (a minimum of level 3 literacy proficiency, or 275 on the 500-point
international proficiency scale). Students with level 3 literacy or higher learn more, are more
likely to persist to the point of graduation, and are more productive when they enter the labor
market.
Literacy, language, and numeracy skills are key to the acquisition of technical skills and
knowledge, and their efficient application in work. Research suggests that language, literacy,
and numeracy skills are foundational, in the sense that they influence the acquisition of technical
skills and knowledge and the efficiency with which they are applied in work.
6
11
14
28
40
43
33
31
33
26
23
25
19
17
11
20
22
28
14
17
9
8
8
8
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Equips people with the skills you ranked as important
Equips people with the up-to-date knowledge ofmethods, materials and technology
Meets the skill needs of your business adequately
Equips people with personal skills like time-management, reliability, ability to work with others,…
Equips people with practical experience that can beapplied to their work
Romania's education system...
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree or disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
20
The literacy skills of Romanian VET and
university students are low by international
standards. A sample of Romanian VET and
university students had their document
literacy5 skills assessed using an adaptive,
computer-based test that allows Romanian
students to be compared to their peers and
against the demands of work. This test was
applied to a random representative sample of VET and university students enrolled in their last
year of professional education, in academic year 2016/2017.
When students’ results are considered at the institution level, 97.5 percent of VET schools
fall into the lowest possible literacy level. In fact, the total mean score of tested schools is
significantly below level 2 proficiency. This gap would require several months of construct-
based classroom instruction to close. Only 2.5 percent of the sampled VET schools have average
test scores that would indicate their students have level 2 proficiency. When test scores are
considered at a county level, only Bucharest schools score just above the most basic proficiency
level (Figure 5Error! Reference source not found.).
Figure 5. Average VET Schools’ Document Literacy Scores by County
Source: Document literacy test applied in 2017.
Employers across Romania emphasized the importance of socioemotional skills, and
highlighted their concerns about workers’ shortages of these skills. The mentioned survey
with employers suggests that Romanian enterprises across economic sectors highly value
workers’ socioemotional skills in all occupational categories, and are facing difficulties in hiring
workers with these skills.
5 Document literacy is defined as the knowledge and skills required to locate and use information contained in
various formats, including job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and charts.
209.0226.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
Tim
is
Co
vasn
a
Tulc
ea
Bo
tosa
ni
Suce
ava
Do
lj
Dam
bo
vita
Arg
es
Vas
lui
Sib
iu
Clu
j
Bih
or
Alb
a
Olt
Pra
ho
va
Bra
sov
Mu
res
Bac
au
Ara
d
Mar
amu
res
Co
nst
anta
Bis
trit
a-N
asau
d
Bra
ila
Nea
mt
Har
ghit
a
Iasi
Gal
ati
Sala
j
Go
rj
Bu
zau
Bu
cure
sti
Approximately 90 percent of Romanian VET
students fail to reach the literacy level
needed to get full value from study and meet
the demands of the labor market
21
A sizable proportion of VET students self-
assess below the midpoint of the scale in
extraversion (e.g., communication skills
and assertiveness) and emotional stability
(e.g., stress-coping and self-confidence). This finding implies that a large proportion of
VET students perceive that they are only
“sometimes” emotionally stable, calm,
energetic, and comfortable with people. A non-negligible proportion of students also self-rate
themselves with low levels of conscientiousness (e.g., hardworking and reliability skills) and
agreeableness (e.g., tolerance and collaboration skills).
Cross-regional disparities exist in the proportion of VET students who would benefit from
socioemotional learning, according to self-rated scores on socioemotional skills.6 Figure 6
presents the proportion of students who would benefit from socioemotional learning by region.
This figure shows considerable cross-regional differences: the Center region has the lowest
proportion of such students (34 percent), while the Bucharest-Ilfov region has the highest
proportion (80 percent).
Figure 6. Proportion of VET Students Who Would Benefit from Socioemotional Learning
Source: World Bank’s Skills Assessment (2017).
6 Students who would benefit from social and emotional learning activities are defined as those whose self-rated
scores on socioemotional skills are below 3 (with a score range from 1 to 5) in at least one of five socioemotional
dimensions.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cen
ter
Sou
th
Sou
th-W
est
Wes
t
No
rth
-Eas
t
No
rth
-We
st
Sou
th-E
ast
Bu
char
est
-Ilf
ov
Romanian VET students self-assess
themselves as emotionally stable and
comfortable with communicating with people
only sometimes
22
Large Romanian universities specializing in
science, technology, and medicine attract
and enroll the highest-performing students
according to Baccalaureate exam results,
whereas comprehensive universities (in
terms of programs) located in smaller
towns admit more low-performing
students. In very large institutions, which
include many of the most prestigious
universities in the country, first-year Bachelor’s students had an average Baccalaureate exam
score of 8.9 in academic year 2015/2016 (out of a maximum of 10.0). By contrast,
comprehensive universities admitted first-year students with average Baccalaureate exam scores
of approximately 7.4. Low-performing students—those scoring below 7.0 on the Baccalaureate
exam—were distributed unevenly across universities, meaning that universities face disparate
challenges in serving these students. On average, low-performing first-year students represent 24
percent of all first-year Bachelor’s students, but low-performing students represent closer to 30
percent of first-year Bachelor’s students in comprehensive universities. Figure 7 shows the
distribution of low-performing first-year students across institutions, distinguishing between
those scoring in the lowest range (below 6.5) and the second lowest range (between 6.5 and 7.0).
Figure 7. Distribution of Low-Performing First-Year Bachelor’s Students by University
Source: UEFISCDI (2015/2016).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
UM
F C
aro
l Dav
ila B
ucu
rest
iU
MF
Iuliu
Hat
iega
nu
Clu
j-N
apo
caU
MF
Gr.
T. P
op
a Ia
siU
MF
Targ
u M
ure
sA
SE B
ucu
rest
iU
Arh
itec
tura
Urb
anis
m B
ucu
rest
iU
MF
Cra
iova
UM
F V
icto
r B
abes
Tim
iso
ara
U B
ucu
rest
iU
Po
liteh
nic
a B
ucu
rest
iSN
SPA
Bu
cure
sti
U A
lexa
nd
ru Io
an C
uza
Iasi
U B
abes
-Bo
lyai
Clu
j-N
apo
caU
NA
TC I.
L. C
arag
iale
Bu
cure
sti
U T
ehn
ica
Clu
j-N
apo
caU
Art
a D
esig
n C
luj-
Nap
oca
U P
olit
ehn
ica
Tim
iso
ara
U P
etru
Mai
or
Targ
u M
ure
sU
Lu
cian
Bla
ga S
ibiu
U N
atio
nal
a M
uzi
ca B
ucu
rest
iU
SAM
V Io
n Io
nes
cu d
e la
Bra
d Ia
siU
de
Ves
t Ti
mis
oar
aU
Nat
ion
ala
Art
e B
ucu
rest
iU
Ora
dea
U P
etro
l-G
aze
Plo
iest
iU
Tra
nsi
lvan
ia B
raso
vU
SAM
V C
luj-
Nap
oca
U O
vid
ius
Co
nst
anta
U A
rte
Geo
rge
Enes
cu Ia
siU
Co
nst
anti
n B
ran
cusi
Tar
gu J
iuU
Teh
nic
a G
heo
rgh
e A
sach
i Ias
iU
Vas
ile A
lecs
and
ri B
acau
U S
tefa
n c
el M
are
Suce
ava
U 1
Dec
emb
rie
19
18
Alb
a Iu
liaU
Cra
iova
U D
un
area
de
Jos
Gal
ati
A M
uzi
ca G
heo
rgh
e D
ima
Clu
j-…
U P
ites
tiU
Teh
nic
a d
e C
on
stru
ctii
Bu
cure
sti
U A
rte
Targ
u M
ure
sU
Au
rel V
laic
u A
rad
USA
MV
a B
anat
ulu
i Tim
iso
ara
USA
MV
Bu
cure
sti
U V
alah
ia T
argo
vist
eU
Mar
itim
a C
on
stan
taU
NEF
S B
ucu
rest
iU
Pet
rosa
ni
U E
ftim
ie M
urg
u R
esit
a
Baccalaureate scores less than 6.5 Baccalaureate scores between 6.5 and 7.0
Low-performing Romanian university
students are enrolled in institutions located
in smaller towns; these students are more
likely to drop out of universities after the first
year of study
23
Strategic Actions for Pillar III
Special attention will be paid to the linkages between education and the labor market,
particularly around the supply of and demand for skills. Data show significant gaps between
the skills that Romanian students and graduates possess and those required by employers.
Current skills gaps are characterized by overall low levels of socioemotional skills of students
and young graduates, as well as over skilled university graduates and under skilled VET
graduates in terms of cognitive skills. Romanian employers reported that socioemotional skills in
particular are lacking in graduates and young employees, including skills in communication,
learning to learn, problem-solving, and teamwork. Importantly, these employers identified
socioemotional skills as among the most important for all existing categories of occupations.
Employers also valued cognitive skills such as literacy and foreign language skills, especially in
professional, managerial, sales, and service occupations. Investments in education infrastructure
will be made to reduce these gaps by 2020.
Goal III: To enhance learning environments to foster skills development
Strategic actions
Supporting proposals for investments in education and training institutions that aim
at improving the development of skills that are either in high demand in the labor
market or are fundamental for success in life and society.
Prioritizing investments in VET schools, universities, and lifelong learning centers
that will facilitate the development of socioemotional learning activities.
Promoting the establishment of lifelong learning centers so that these centers can
contribute to the development of cognitive and socioemotional skills in line with labor
market needs.
Improving the conditions of universities to foster skills development by addressing
their infrastructure needs, including construction or expansion of dormitories for
students, and rehabilitation of old buildings.
24
V. Strategic Principles and Criteria for Prioritization of Investments
Guiding principles and specific criteria based on evidence will be used to prioritize
investments in education infrastructure. This section presents strategic guiding principles for
investments in education infrastructure in Romania that were identified during discussions with
key stakeholders involved in the respective decision-making process. This section also presents a
set of criteria for prioritization of investments in education infrastructure per level of education
and according to requirements of some of the major sources of funds.
The utilization of these guiding principles and criteria will follow a two-stage approach.
First, authorities responsible for evaluation and selection of proposals for investments in
education infrastructure will verify the compliance of all received proposals with the guiding
principles for investments. Next, the criteria will be applied to those proposals that follow these
guiding principles, so that priorities for investments will be established exclusively for compliant
proposals.
The first stage for evaluating proposals for investments would involve compliance with key
strategic principles, which aim to increase access to education and improve quality and
relevance of services provided by education institutions. Proposals submitted for evaluation
by decision makers will be scrutinized to make sure they are in full compliance with all guiding
principles for investments in education infrastructure. Typical proponents include local
authorities, public universities, and nongovernmental organizations. The following principles,
which were endorsed throughout the public consultation process, should be observed:
(i) Decisions on investments in education infrastructure should be made based on
reliable evidence and contribute to the Government of Romania’s efforts toward
improved access, quality, and relevance of education, which include programs to:
Increase participation in all levels of education
Reduce ESL
Increase compulsory education completion rates
Improve transitions to higher educational levels
Enhance the quality and relevance of VET
Promote lifelong learning
(ii) Infrastructure investments shall be aligned with ex-ante conditionalities on
lifelong learning, tertiary education, VET, and the reduction of ESL.
(iii) Infrastructure investments shall be planned and approved considering the relevant
elements on education and/or infrastructure stated in the:
National Strategy for Competitiveness
National Strategy for Research, Development and Innovation
National Strategy for Promoting Social Inclusion and Fighting Poverty
Strategy for Inclusion of Romanian Citizens from the Roma Minority
National Strategy for Territorial Development
25
(iv) Infrastructure investments should be planned in compliance with financing
requirements of operational programs, such as ROP 2014–2020 and the NRDP.
Candidates eligible to apply for EU funds include local authorities and public
universities. Local associations and nongovernmental organizations are also
eligible under the NRDP. Eligible activities include:
Construction, rehabilitation, modernization, and equipment of nurseries,
kindergartens, primary schools, and gymnasium schools.
Rehabilitation, modernization, extension, and equipment of infrastructure
in technological high schools and vocational education and training
schools.
Rehabilitation, modernization, extension, and equipment of infrastructure
in universities.
(v) Infrastructure investments should be planned in compliance with principles of
sustainable development, gender equality, nondiscrimination, desegregation, and
nonsegregation.
(vi) Infrastructure investments should be planned in compliance with existing
regulations, including:
National Education Law (Law No 1/2011)
National Program for Construction of Public Interest (Ordinance No
25/2001)
Law No 500/2002
Law No 273/2006 (Article 42)
Requirements for Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings
Government Decision No 1955 (dated October 18, 1995) on Hygiene
Norms for Entities for Protection, Education and Training of Children and
Youth
Government Decision No 21/2007 for the Approval of the Authorization
Standards for the Provisional Functioning of Pre-University Education
Units and the Accreditation and Periodical Review Standards for Pre-
University Education Units
Government Decision No 136/2016 for the Approval of the
Methodological Norms for Determining the Standard Cost per
Student/Preschool and for Establishing Basic Financing of Pre-University
Public Education Units
Government Decision No 363/2010 for the Approval of the Costs
Standards for Investments Financed from Public Funds
26
After proposals are deemed to be in compliance with guiding principles, a set of criteria
would be applied to prioritize eligible infrastructure investments. These criteria were
prepared primarily on the basis of available evidence and are described in detail in Volume II.
Analysis presented above and in Volume II confirms that four strategic dimensions and eight
subdimensions are important in deciding how to prioritize investments in education
infrastructure. The four dimensions are: demographics, needs of education institutions,
transportation alternatives, and labor market skills needs. The strategic subdimensions are the
following: (i) demographic changes; (ii) teaching and learning conditions; (iii) risk of ESL; (iv)
student performance; (v) socioeconomic background; (vi) location; (vii) transportation
alternatives, and (viii) linkages with labor market. These strategic subdimensions are relevant to
different levels of education and sources of funds, as indicated by the findings from the situation
analysis (see Volume II). The proposed criteria reflect these relevant differences and are aligned
with both the findings presented in the analytical report (Volume II) and with the guiding
principles described in this Strategic Framework. All indicators included in the criteria can be
found in Table 9 below.
27
Table 9. Strategic Subdimensions and Indicators per Level of Education
Strategic
Subdimension
Indicator
Funding Requirements and Level of Education
ROP Priority Axis 10 ROP IP 4.4 ** Other
An
te-P
resc
ho
ol
(Nu
rser
ies)
Pre
pri
ma
ry
(Kin
der
ga
rten
)
Pri
ma
ry
Lo
wer
Sec
on
da
ry
Up
per
Sec
on
da
ry V
ET
*
Un
iver
siti
es
An
te-P
resc
ho
ol
Nu
rser
ies)
Pre
pri
ma
ry
(Kin
der
ga
rten
)
Up
per
Sec
on
da
ry V
ET
*
Up
per
Seco
nd
ary
Hig
h
Sch
oo
l
Demographic
Changes Demographic Pressure ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Teaching and
Learning
Conditions
School Capacity Index ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Availability of Amenities ● ● ● ● ● Appropriateness of
Utilities ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Student-Teacher Ratio ● ● ● ● ● ● Availability of Mitigation
Programs ● ●
Enrollment Size ●
Demand for Dormitories ●
Building Age ●
Seismic Vulnerability ●
Risk of Early
School Leaving
Participation Rate ● ● ● ● Preparation for Primary
Education ● ●
Age-Grade Distortion ● ● ● ● ●
Dropout Rate ● ● ● ● ● Repetition Rate (Grade 5
and 9) ● ●
University Dropout Risk ●
Student
Performance
Completion Rate ●
Performance at Grade 8 ● Performance at
Baccalaureate Exam ●
Socioeconomic
Background
Area Marginalization ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Rural Area Students
Demand ●
Location Urban-Rural Divide ● ● Transportation
Alternatives Transport Inaccessibility ● ● ● ● ●
Linkages with
Labor Market
Need for Literacy
Upgrading ● ● ●
Need for Socioemotional
Learning ● ● ●
Master’s Degree
Graduates Capacity ●
Note: * Upper secondary VET refers to both professional schools and technological high schools offering VET programs.
** Investment Priority 4.4 of ROP 2014-2020.
28
Since the majority of funds currently available for investments in education infrastructure
are from the EU, the criteria presented in this framework reflect mainly EU requirements,
but also consider that these inputs are the basis for preparation of the NSIIEI. Thus, the
challenge was to prepare criteria driven by EU requirements but flexible enough to accommodate
the requirements of other sources of funds. Specific criteria were prepared for county capitals7 to
fulfill the objectives of Investment Priority 4.4, as well as for the entire country to meet the
requirements of Priority Axis 10, both under the ROP for the 2014–2020 programming period.
The criteria under Investment Priority 4.4 would guide investments in education and training
institutions for acquiring competencies and lifelong learning by developing infrastructure in
nurseries, preschool education schools, and VET schools. The criteria under Priority Axis 10
would guide investments across the education spectrum, including nurseries, preschools,
compulsory education schools, VET schools, and universities. The criteria prepared for these two
major sets of requirements are both fully aligned and consistent with the evidence and guiding
principles presented above.
Criteria for investments in upper secondary education schools that do not offer vocational
education were defined separately, because of financing requirements. This is because EU
funds cannot be used for investments in this type of schools, in Romania. However, given the
significant number of high schools that fall into this group, and the fact these schools are
responsible for the preparation of the largest number of new entrants of Romanian universities, it
is important to have some criteria also for prioritizing investments in this type of education
institutions.
7 Excluding Tulcea County, which will benefit from another Priority Axis.
29
VI. Strategic Results Framework
The strategic goals of Romania’s Strategic Framework for Investments in Education
Infrastructure are to:
Improve access and service provision in underserved areas and overcrowded schools
Improve quality and appropriateness of school environments
Enhance learning environments to foster skills development
The indicators included in this results framework are derived from the results of data-
driven analysis conducted in support of the draft SIIEI as well as ROP requirements.
Indicators relevant to the ROP under Investment Priority 4.4 and Priority Axis 10, as stated in
ROP guidelines,8 are included in the first section of the results framework below. The second
section, containing intermediate outcome indicators for each pillar of the strategy, is derived
from the data-driven analysis and findings presented in Volume II and aligned to the strategic
subdimensions described in Table 9 of Section V of this document.
For each pillar of this Strategic Framework, relevant indicators from the criteria for
prioritization were selected. Table 10 shows the correspondence between strategic pillars and
indicators.
Table 10. Strategic Pillars and Indicators
Pillar Indicator
Pillar 1 Improving Access and
Service Provision
Improved School Capacity Index by reducing the
share of schools that are overcrowded
Indicator 1
Pillar 2 Improving Quality
Decreased percentage of schools lacking
amenities
Indicator 2
Decreased scores on index of average utility
appropriateness
Indicator 3
Pillar 3 Enhancing Learning
Environments
Enhanced housing conditions for students of
public universities
Indicator 4
Share of a public university’s buildings
constructed prior to 1964 and not rehabilitated
since
Indicator 5
Share of VET Strategy’s funds spent on
infrastructure and training equipment consistent
with this Strategic Framework
Indicator 6
Cross-Cutting
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Agency responsible for coordination established Indicator 7
Study conducted on the impact of implementation
of the SIIEI on educational outcomes
Indicator 8
Increased percentage of marginalized areas
benefiting from SIIEI resources
Indicator 9
8 http://inforegio.ro/ro/por-2014-2020/documente-de-programare.html
30
I - Indicators Defined in the Regional Operational Program
Program-specific output indicators per specific objective
Specific
Objective ID Indicator Unit of
Measurement
Region
Category (if
relevant)
Reference
value
Reference
year
Target
value
(2023)
Data source Reporting
frequency
Investment
Priority 4.4
(for ERDF
and the
Cohesion
Fund)
IS16 Gross
enrollment rate
in nurseries of
children aged
0-2 in urban
areas
% Less
developed
region*
2.67 2013 5 MoNE/National
Institute of
Statistics (NIS)
Annual
IS17 Gross
enrollment rate
in preschool
education (3-5
years) in urban
areas
% Less
developed
region*
75.82 2013 90 MoNE/NIS Annual
IS18 Gross
enrollment rate
in VET in
urban areas
% Less
developed
region*
54.35 2013 60 MoNE/NIS Annual
Priority Axis
10 (for ERDF
and the
Cohesion
Fund)
ID Indicator Unit of
measurement
Region
category (if
relevant)
Reference
value
Reference
year
Target
value
(2023)
Data source Reporting
frequency
1S47 Gross
enrollment rate
in nurseries of
children aged
0-2
% More
developed
region/ Less
developed
region*
2.67 2013 5.0 MoNE/NIS Annual
1S48 Enrollment in
preschool
education (3-5
years)
% More
developed
region/ Less
developed
region*
84.1 2013 85.9 MoNE/NIS Annual
31
Specific
Objective ID Indicator Unit of
Measurement
Region
Category (if
relevant)
Reference
value
Reference
year
Target
value
(2023)
Data source Reporting
frequency
1S49 Enrollment in
primary and
secondary
education
% More
developed
region/ Less
developed
region*
92.5 2013 95 MoNE/NIS Annual
1S50 Enrollment in
VET
% More
developed
region/ Less
developed
region*
54.35 2013 60 MoNE/NIS Annual
1S51 Percentage of
people aged 30-
34 with tertiary
education
% More
developed
region/ Less
developed
region*
22.8 2013 28.2 NIS Annual
* In this Results Framework, marginalized areas (identified as per methodology explained in footnote 1) are used as a proxy for less developed regions. Footnote
1 also defines the more developed region.
32
II – Intermediate Outcome Indicators by Strategic Pillar
Pillar 1 - Improving Access and Service Provision
Indicator 1 - Improved School Capacity Index (SCI) by reducing the share of schools that are overcrowded
Measurement: by level of education and county
Reporting Frequency: annual
Methodology: see footnotei
Data Collection Responsibility: MoNE (SIIIR)
County
Nurseries Pre-Primary Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary
VET
Upper Secondary
Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Alba 3.2% 1.6% 1.7% 0.9% 6.6% 3.3% 37.5% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Arad 2.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 3.3% 26.3% 13.2% 27.3% 13.6%
Arges 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 2.3% 2.5% 1.3% 3.8% 1.9% 6.3% 3.1% 8.3% 4.2%
Bacau 1.8% 0.9% 2.2% 1.1% 15.1% 7.6% 27.8% 13.9% 11.8% 5.9%
Bihor 4.2% 2.1% 4.4% 2.2% 12.5% 6.3% 29.4% 14.7% 15.6% 7.8%
Bistrita-
Nasaud 3.3% 1.6% 1.3% 0.6% 5.8% 2.9% 23.5% 11.8% 25.0% 12.5%
Botosani 3.7% 1.8% 5.6% 2.8% 9.0% 4.5% 6.3% 3.1% 12.5% 6.3%
Brasov 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 5.4% 27.8% 13.9% 9.1% 4.5%
Braila 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 6.3% 36.4% 18.2% 27.3% 13.6%
Buzau 2.4% 1.2% 2.3% 1.1% 27.1% 13.5% 25.0% 12.5% 15.8% 7.9%
33
County
Nurseries Pre-Primary Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary
VET
Upper Secondary
Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Caras-
Severin 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6% 7.2% 3.6% 50.0% 25.0% 11.1% 5.6%
Cluj 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.2% 19.0% 9.5% 5.3% 2.6%
Constanta 60.0% 30.0% 4.8% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 6.7% 37.5% 18.8% 25.0% 12.5%
Covasna 6.4% 3.2% 1.7% 0.8% 10.5% 5.3% 11.1% 5.6% 11.1% 5.6%
Dambovita 0.8% 0.4% 2.2% 1.1% 5.8% 2.9% 6.7% 3.3% 7.7% 3.8%
Dolj 6.5% 3.2% 2.4% 1.2% 14.4% 7.2% 41.7% 20.8% 22.2% 11.1%
Galati 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% 4.2% 5.6% 2.8% 34.7% 17.4% 50.0% 25.0% 42.9% 21.4%
Gorj 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 1.5% 5.0% 2.5% 16.8% 8.4% 56.3% 28.1% 41.7% 20.8%
Harghita 4.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 4.0% 15.0% 7.5% 6.7% 3.3%
Hunedoara 2.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 10.6% 5.3% 27.8% 13.9% 7.7% 3.8%
Ialomita 3.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Iasi 7.4% 3.7% 7.1% 3.5% 22.2% 11.1% 25.0% 12.5% 24.0% 12.0%
Ilfov 6.7% 3.3% 4.0% 2.0% 4.6% 2.3% 25.0% 12.5% 35.7% 17.9%
Maramures 3.2% 1.6% 7.9% 3.9% 6.0% 3.0% 31.8% 15.9% 8.3% 4.2%
Mehedinti 2.3% 1.1% 5.5% 2.7% 6.6% 3.3% 62.5% 31.3% 40.0% 20.0%
Mures 2.4% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 11.2% 5.6% 15.4% 7.7% 23.1% 11.5%
Neamt 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 1.6% 30.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%
Olt 2.6% 1.3% 5.0% 2.5% 14.8% 7.4% 18.8% 9.4% 25.0% 12.5%
Prahova 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 3.8% 13.8% 6.9% 15.0% 7.5%
Satu Mare 6.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 4.7% 46.2% 23.1% 14.3% 7.1%
34
County
Nurseries Pre-Primary Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary
VET
Upper Secondary
Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Salaj 1.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 1.7% 13.3% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Sibiu 6.0% 3.0% 4.1% 2.0% 16.1% 8.1% 18.2% 9.1% 6.7% 3.3%
Suceava 12.5% 6.3% 5.6% 2.8% 0.9% 0.5% 20.4% 10.2% 22.2% 11.1% 21.4% 10.7%
Teleorman 0.0% 25.0% 12.5% 14.6% 7.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Timis 3.2% 1.6% 4.4% 2.2% 9.8% 4.9% 38.9% 19.4% 14.3% 7.1%
Tulcea 7.1% 3.6% 7.1% 3.6% 20.6% 10.3% 22.2% 11.1% 10.0% 5.0%
Vaslui 4.2% 2.1% 4.4% 2.2% 24.6% 12.3% 46.2% 23.1% 54.5% 27.3%
Valcea 3.9% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 18.5% 9.2% 54.5% 27.3% 46.7% 23.3%
Vrancea 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 3.5% 13.9% 7.0% 12.5% 6.3% 15.4% 7.7%
Bucharest 8.8% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 37.5% 18.8% 6.8% 3.4%
Calarasi 3.1% 1.5% 3.0% 1.5% 30.8% 15.4% 44.4% 22.2% 50.0% 25.0%
Giurgiu 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 1.6% 30.2% 15.1% 50.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0%
Average 3.1% 1.5% 3.8% 1.9% 3.1% 1.5% 12.6% 6.3% 29.1% 14.6% 19.2% 9.6%
35
Pillar 2 - Improving Quality
Indicator 2 - Decreased percentage of schools lacking amenities (school libraries, science laboratories, gyms, workshops/ateliers)
Measurement: by level of education and county
Reporting Frequency: annual
Methodology: see footnoteii
Data Collection Responsibility: MoNE (SIIIR) County
Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary VET Upper Secondary Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Alba 100% 70% 84% 59% 75% 53% 43% 30%
Arad 97% 68% 81% 57% 67% 47% 45% 32%
Arges 98% 68% 73% 51% 75% 53% 33% 23%
Bacau 100% 70% 83% 58% 94% 66% 25% 18%
Bihor 99% 69% 91% 64% 71% 49% 45% 32%
Bistrita-Nasaud 99% 69% 87% 61% 82% 58% 63% 44%
Botosani 100% 70% 94% 65% 73% 51% 75% 53%
Brasov 100% 70% 83% 58% 67% 47% 32% 22%
Braila 100% 70% 71% 50% 73% 51% 36% 25%
Buzau 100% 70% 90% 63% 88% 61% 47% 33%
Caras-Severin 99% 69% 90% 63% 70% 49% 72% 51%
Cluj 92% 65% 68% 47% 70% 49% 37% 26%
Constanta 97% 68% 70% 49% 83% 58% 29% 20%
Covasna 97% 68% 84% 59% 89% 62% 22% 16%
Dambovita 98% 68% 84% 59% 87% 61% 23% 16%
36
County
Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary VET Upper Secondary Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Dolj 100% 70% 80% 56% 75% 53% 33% 23%
Galati 100% 70% 79% 55% 70% 49% 31% 22%
Gorj 98% 69% 78% 55% 81% 57% 58% 41%
Harghita 99% 69% 82% 58% 65% 46% 24% 16%
Hunedoara 99% 69% 65% 46% 61% 43% 38% 27%
Ialomita 93% 65% 79% 55% 78% 54% 50% 35%
Iasi 100% 70% 85% 59% 77% 54% 33% 23%
Ilfov 100% 70% 71% 50% 75% 53% 54% 38%
Maramures 100% 70% 92% 64% 86% 60% 75% 53%
Mehedinti 95% 66% 85% 59% 75% 53% 33% 23%
Mures 99% 70% 86% 60% 62% 43% 30% 21%
Neamt 99% 69% 73% 51% 65% 46% 44% 31%
Olt 100% 70% 91% 64% 75% 53% 50% 35%
Prahova 100% 70% 78% 55% 83% 58% 30% 21%
Satu Mare 100% 70% 84% 59% 69% 48% 58% 41%
Salaj 99% 69% 85% 60% 80% 56% 44% 31%
Sibiu 96% 67% 83% 58% 48% 33% 40% 28%
Suceava 98% 69% 84% 59% 70% 49% 23% 16%
Teleorman 100% 70% 80% 56% 83% 58% 44% 31%
Timis 97% 68% 84% 59% 65% 45% 58% 40%
37
County
Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary VET Upper Secondary Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Tulcea 100% 70% 81% 57% 78% 54% 50% 35%
Vaslui 100% 70% 92% 64% 85% 59% 55% 38%
Valcea 100% 70% 84% 59% 73% 51% 47% 33%
Vrancea 100% 70% 91% 64% 88% 61% 62% 43%
Bucharest 97% 68% 46% 32% 71% 50% 32% 23%
Calarasi 94% 65% 83% 58% 44% 31% 67% 47%
Giurgiu 94% 65% 85% 59% 100% 70% 80% 56%
Average 98% 69% 81% 57% 75% 52% 45% 31%
38
Pillar 2 - Improving Quality
Indicator 3 - Decreased scores on index of average utility appropriateness (sanitary authorization, access to authorized water source,
garbage collection, central heating, indoor toilets, centralized sewerage or septic tanks)
Measurement: by level of education and county
Reporting Frequency: annual
Methodology: see footnoteiii
Data Collection Responsibility: MoNE (SIIIR)
County
Nurseries Pre-Primary Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary
VET
Upper Secondary
Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Alba 36.29 18.15 47.70 23.85 22.61 11.30 17.78 8.89 17.86 8.93
Arad 39.89 19.95 39.90 19.95 28.15 14.08 23.33 11.67 18.89 9.44
Arges 33.33 16.67 47.56 23.78 39.83 19.92 27.26 13.63 19.23 9.62 19.05 9.52
Bacau 42.39 21.20 55.35 27.67 34.27 17.14 17.86 8.93 19.44 9.72
Bihor 35.92 17.96 40.41 20.20 28.76 14.38 17.86 8.93 18.42 9.21
Bistrita-Nasaud 40.00 20.00 48.12 24.06 28.81 14.40 20.51 10.26 20.00 10.00
Botosani 42.49 21.24 61.30 30.65 43.71 21.86 25.64 12.82 19.44 9.72
Brasov 36.84 18.42 18.10 9.05 17.79 8.90 16.67 8.33 16.67 8.33
Braila 38.66 19.33 59.72 29.86 30.45 15.22 20.00 10.00 18.75 9.38
Buzau 48.06 24.03 49.05 24.52 35.17 17.59 19.79 9.90 22.92 11.46
Caras-Severin 33.33 16.67 39.24 19.62 45.96 22.98 28.00 14.00 16.67 8.33 18.18 9.09
Cluj 33.33 16.67 34.17 17.09 35.06 17.53 24.27 12.14 19.79 9.90 17.17 8.59
Constanta 33.33 16.67 41.78 20.89 38.24 19.12 25.93 12.96 23.02 11.51 21.11 10.56
Covasna 40.12 20.06 29.24 14.62 22.71 11.35 13.89 6.94 18.75 9.38
Dambovita 42.44 21.22 34.85 17.42 24.42 12.21 18.89 9.44 18.06 9.03
39
County
Nurseries Pre-Primary Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary
VET
Upper Secondary
Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Dolj 49.86 24.93 55.65 27.82 38.28 19.14 20.59 10.29 20.83 10.42
Galati 25.00 12.50 44.71 22.35 48.89 24.44 30.41 15.20 25.93 12.96 18.18 9.09
Gorj 33.33 16.67 46.73 23.37 40.61 20.31 26.15 13.08 18.33 9.17 16.67 8.33
Harghita 38.77 19.39 32.22 16.11 22.15 11.08 22.22 11.11 16.67 8.33
Hunedoara 35.76 17.88 26.48 13.24 20.18 10.09 16.67 8.33 18.18 9.09
Ialomita 42.19 21.09 30.56 15.28 23.27 11.64 19.05 9.52 20.00 10.00
Iasi 43.82 21.91 50.48 25.24 36.93 18.46 24.73 12.37 17.50 8.75
Ilfov 34.35 17.17 20.18 10.09 19.14 9.57 16.67 8.33 16.67 8.33
Maramures 34.41 17.20 33.33 16.67 30.08 15.04 22.55 11.27 19.44 9.72
Mehedinti 45.24 22.62 64.10 32.05 39.32 19.66 20.00 10.00 20.83 10.42
Mures 38.96 19.48 27.34 13.67 21.68 10.84 17.59 8.80 16.67 8.33
Neamt 45.61 22.81 49.70 24.85 29.38 14.69 23.68 11.84 17.71 8.85
Olt 49.10 24.55 60.26 30.13 45.73 22.87 25.64 12.82 22.22 11.11
Prahova 37.49 18.74 27.90 13.95 17.78 8.89 17.36 8.68 16.67 8.33
Satu Mare 42.97 21.48 28.47 14.24 26.56 13.28 17.95 8.97 20.37 10.19
Salaj 41.04 20.52 37.06 18.53 22.73 11.36 18.06 9.03 18.75 9.38
Sibiu 33.33 16.67 35.44 17.72 26.04 13.02 19.47 9.74 18.75 9.38 17.95 8.97
Suceava 40.14 20.07 63.80 31.90 44.19 22.09 22.44 11.22 18.33 9.17
Teleorman 52.31 26.16 38.89 19.44 35.85 17.92 16.67 8.33 21.11 10.56
Timis 39.93 19.97 30.04 15.02 23.39 11.70 17.59 8.80 19.89 9.95
Tulcea 38.60 19.30 47.62 23.81 30.18 15.09 16.67 8.33 16.67 8.33
40
County
Nurseries Pre-Primary Primary Lower Secondary Upper Secondary
VET
Upper Secondary
Non-VET
Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target Baseline Target
Vaslui 50.90 25.45 61.58 30.79 48.80 24.40 25.00 12.50 16.67 8.33
Valcea 45.08 22.54 39.68 19.84 26.91 13.46 19.70 9.85 19.05 9.52
Vrancea 42.89 21.45 67.07 33.54 41.40 20.70 16.67 8.33 18.18 9.09
Bucharest 34.07 17.03 0.00 18.67 9.33 17.71 8.85 18.37 9.18
Calarasi 46.42 23.21 62.88 31.44 35.95 17.97 16.67 8.33 22.22 11.11
Giurgiu 51.23 25.62 48.61 24.31 34.04 17.02 16.67 8.33 16.67 8.33
Average 32.14 16.07 41.76 20.88 42.98 21.49 29.31 14.65 19.58 9.79 18.74 9.37
41
Pillar 3 – Enhancing Learning Environments
Indicator Name Unit of
Measure
Baseline
(2017)
End Target
(2023)
Reporting
Frequency Methodology
Data Collection
Responsibility
Indicator 4 - Enhanced housing
conditions for students of public
universities
Public
universities
To be
determined
To be
determined
Annual See footnoteiv MoNE and
public
universities
Indicator 5 - Share of public university’s
buildings constructed prior to 1964 and
not rehabilitated since
Public
universities
30.92 15.0 Annual See footnotev MoNE and
public
universities
Indicator 6 - Share of VET Strategy’s
funds spent in infrastructure and
training equipment in consistency with
this Strategic Framework
At the level of
the public VET
system
0 50 Annual See footnote vi
Cross Cutting Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Indicator Name Unit of
Measure Baseline
(2017)
End Target
(2023)
Reporting
Frequency Methodology
Data Collection
Responsibility
Indicator 7 - Agency responsible
for coordination established Non
existent Agency
established
and
functional
Annual MoNE
Indicator 8 - Study on the impact
of the implementation of the SIIEI
on educational outcomes
No study
conducted
Preliminary
findings
discussed.
Strategic
Framework
fine-tuned,
if warranted
Final findings
discussed.
Recommendations
factored in the
development of
the next Strategic
Framework (for
2020-2025)
MoNE
Indicator 9 - Increased percentage
of marginalized areas benefiting
from SIIEI resources
Territorial
Administrative
Unit 0% 70% Annual See footnotevii MoNE
42
i School Capacity Index: A School Capacity Index (SCI) was created to measure the ratio of number of seats to the number of students enrolled in
a given school. This index was used to quantify the phenomena of overcrowding and underutilization in Romania’s school network. SIIIR data
were used to determine the intervals specified in the criteria presented in this section. Insufficient capacity (overcrowding) is indicated by an SCI <
0.75, adequate capacity corresponds to an SCI varying from 0.75 to 1.25, and excess capacity (underutilization) is indicated by an SCI > 1.25.
ii Availability of amenities. This indicator was created to measure the presence of amenities (e.g., libraries, science laboratories, gyms, and
workshops/ateliers) in schools, whose combination vary per level of education (e.g., workshops are fundamental for VET schools, and science
laboratories were not taken into account for primary schools). The indicator captures the percentage of schools missing at least one amenity at each
level of education.
iii Appropriateness of utilities. A Utility Index was created to measure the prevalence of inappropriate utilities in a school. School utilities were
designated as inappropriate if any of the following six conditions apply: (i) lack of sanitary authorization; (ii) absence of access to an authorized
water source; (iii) absence of garbage collection; (iv) absence of central heating (and instead, presence of fireplaces only); (v) lack of indoor toilets
(and instead, presence of outdoor toilets only); or (vi) absence of centralized sewerage or septic tanks. The Utility Index varies from 0 to 100, with
higher values indicating a greater degree of inappropriateness of utilities, and thus a higher need for utility modernization.
iv Enhanced Housing Conditions: Primary data on the availability and conditions of housing for university students in Romania was collected but
resulted in inconsistent and unreliable findings, leading its analysis to be inconclusive. This indicator is relevant for the Results Framework,
therefore more robust and validated data should be collected on the topic. Baseline and target references should be established on that basis.
v Building age. This indicator measures the share of a university’s buildings that were constructed over 50 years ago (prior to 1964) and not
rehabilitated since then. This indicator is only applicable for universities. Building age is a proxy for infrastructure quality and the need for
investment.
vi Percentage of funds (allocated to VET strategy) spent in infrastructure and training equipment in consistency with the SIIEI out of the
total available per fiscal year. Funds corresponding to the VET strategy would be invested in equipment and infrastructure in alignment with the
SIIEI. For the purposes of this Result Framework synergies are expected whereby the disbursement of those funds is in line with the SIIEI
objectives.
43
vii Area of Widespread Marginalization and Area of Limited Marginalization: This indicator measures the share of the population in a given
TAU that is affected by disadvantaged conditions in terms of human capital development, employment, or housing. This indicator was determined
combining the methodologies used for the Urban and Rural Atlases of Marginalization in Romania. These atlases define marginalized areas as
census sectors or localities that are disadvantaged in terms of human capital, employment, and/or housing conditions. Using census data, the
proportion of the population in a given TAU that experiences marginalization was calculated. This indicator reflects which TAUs are affected by
marginalization along with the percentage of their respective populations that are exposed to this phenomenon. The higher the degree of
marginalization, the more widespread the phenomenon, and the larger its effects on the population.