Human Resource Development Board (HRDB)

13th February, 2012

9:30 – 11:45 am
Venue: Conference Room Of Minister, Ministry of Education

Draft Minutes

Co-Chair: Steering Committee: Sectoral Ministries

MoLSAMD Ms Karen Coats Mr. Arian Wassay, MoE
Mr. M. Sarwar Azizi, MoE MoWA Absent Mr. Jabar Khail, MoE
Ms. Carol Horning, USAID MoHE Prof. Baboury Mr. Asadullah Zarmarwal , MoE
Denmark Absent Ms. Susan Wardak, MoE
CIDA Ms. Karen Christie Ms. Shazia Zramarval (Recording Secretary)
Observers: India Absent Mr. Seddiq Weera, EQUIP
Ms Calister Mtalo, UNICEF France Absent Mr. Fred Hayward, MoHE/HEP
Dr. Patrick A Dworakowski, ISAF Japan Ms. Naomi Matsumoto Mr Amir Mansory , TED/MoE
Mr. Abdulhai Sofizada, UNESCO Netherlands Mr. Martin Van Der Does Mr Kkwja Omary, CINOP
Ms Elizabeth Royall, IJC Norway Mr. Anders Wirak
Mr Wahab, UNESCO DFID Absent
Ms. Yukiko Matsuyoshi, UNESCO SCA Absent
Ms. Lynn Davies, GIZ, MoHE/HEP Sweden Ms. Annelie Strath
Mr Mirwais Naikmal, AUSAID UNESCO Mr. Olve Holaas
Mr Mohammadi gul Wahidi, UNESCO UNICEF Mr Kurtie Pawan
USAID Ms Renu Jain
World Bank Mr. Aman Farahi
Chamber of Commerce Absent
NZAID Absent
ANCB Absent
GIZ (on behalf of Dietmar Kleb
German Embassy)
AusAid Mr. Peter Izzard
Save the Children Mr Colin Alfred
UN-Women Absent
SDC Absent

No. Item Discussion Responsible Action Points

1. Welcome and Introduction  Mr Azizi commenced the meeting by welcoming all participants, with No Action
special welcome to Mr Baboury (DM of MoHE). Mr Azizi then

1
 requested participants to introduce themselves.
2. Approval of the Agenda  Mr Azizi further added that there has been a change to the draft agenda: HRDB Amend the meeting
 1. Agenda point 5.3 has been shifted to 5.2. Secretariat agenda
3. Approval of HRDB  Minutes of HRDB meeting which took place on the 12 December was
th

Minutes of 12th December approved.

2011
4. Business Arising from Minutes of last meeting.

4.1 Update on Joint Sector  Mr Olve was requested to present the Joint Sector Review. Mr Olve
Review—The Joint
Sector Team and the
ECC.
provided a brief description of the key words, joint, sector and review.
He then stated that we will be focusing on female teachers as the theme HRDB Within two weeks,
of the review. He emphasized on the importance of raising this as a Secretariat organize an additional
discussion in the Tokyo Conference taking place in July. He highlighted HRDB meeting to mainly
that there is still some uncertainty on the funding side of things but focus on Joint Sector
ToR’s for the JSR have been shared previously but updated versions Review (JSR).
will also be provided. He concluded that if the same indicators are
focused on for next year it can be used as a longitudinal study. The
review will have to be completed by the end of June 2012, giving us 2.5
months (please refer to presentation for more details).

Comments
 Ms Naomi requested for elaboration on why the focus is on female
teachers and not female students.
 Wirak – how is it related to other Ministries?
 Mr Mansoury – can’t it be used as a global monitoring purpose
and not just for Tokyo, make it more scientific.
 Renu – shared info requested for clarification on whether it’s a
desk study – if so will be a waste of time, as this has been already
done, still not clear how the consultants will be working?
 Ms Annelie – time may be a consideration – a good opportunity to
get all together and review the current status – get a
comprehensive understanding – first time being done, therefore
it’s a pilot but also very important.
 Mr Baboury – relevance to NPP?
 Mr Pawan – a lot of discussion on process want to see it as a
forum for bringing all stakeholders together. Reflect critical
challenges and looking at the way forward. Narrowed down by the
theme as the sector is very broad. Want to start small bit catalyzed
to the other sectors, namely primary/secondary education, TVET,
Literacy, higher education. Have discussed field studies to double

2
 and back up/support the review.
 Mr Azizi – 3.5 months are more than enough provided that the
field study and paper work are done simultaneously, in addition a
lot of the resources that can be used for the review is already
available hence with good planning and utilization of the
resources time should not be a constrain.
 Mr Colin focusing on female teachers alone limits the human
resource development
 Mr Arian in the previous HRDB meeting a small group was
assigned to work on the JSR, ToR for the JSR was prepared and
shared for comments, relevant comments received were in
cooperated. Scope is limited because otherwise it would become a
sector anaylsis which would require another 5 years. It is
important that the process is not complicated this year as its our
first attempt. Work on it further next year. Field visits have been
included. .Gender will be considered across all subsectors but with
an in depth focus on female teachers as it seems to be the main
cause of the vicious cycle limiting girls from access to quality
education.
 Ms Renu more information needs to be provided by the core team
with respect to the JSR process how it will be conducted.
 Mr Olve – answer to inclusion of NPP’s difficult to review
something that has not been implemented. Relevance to Tokyo –
recommendations that will be made can lead to discussions for
2013. All figures presented come from CSO (central statistical
office). Timing – all documents need to be provided prior to
review.
 Mr Anders- are other ministries interested in this review also, if so
what is it in for them.

Conclusion
 Ms Carol – there is a need for another session devoted to this,
preferably within the next two weeks. Share ToR’s today and
request for feedback/comments.
5. New Business
5.1. Higher Education  Ms Carol requested Mr Baboury for an update on implementation
National Strategy— of the higher education strategic plan.
Progress Update on  Mr Baboury in his brief on implementation of the HE strategic No Action
2011 Implementation— plan he commented on Quality of HE, curriculum, accreditation and Point
H.E. Deputy Minister quality assurance, governors, research capacity, student services and
3
Prof. Baboury construction.
 He also highlighted that the achievements made have been limited
due to receiving only 12% of the budgeted fund.

 On quality he stated that - important attention has been given to
faculty development, 478 have completed post-graduation making up
40% of academic staff (total 150 faculty members). WB and are
supporting the strengthening of higher education through capacity
development of pedagogy and research. Have increase the number of
internal post graduate programs from 6-10. Quality is main concern –
staff regulations have been put in process.
 Curriculum - review and revision of higher education curriculum,
current curriculum is 3 decades old. Need assessment needs to be
carried out, tried 3 years ago. Many institutions have taken the initiative
to revise their curriculum – cluster of this is required. Have inherited
centralized system - no autonomy suppressing the creativity of faculty
members.
 Accreditation and Quality assurance - There is a need to build a
reliable accreditation of the system (quality assurance mechanism),
already established in 12 universities, implemented through self
assessment system. Institutionalization of quality assurance is very
important prior to accreditation system. This will in turn reduce the
negative impact of centralization
 Governors – revision of legal framework of higher education,
initiated 4/5years ago, 5 new regulations introduced in collaboration
with stakeholders, revised last year waiting for approval by parliament.
Reform has been suggested, included in the new legal framework.
 Research – new regulations have been drafted to strengthen
capacity. National committee of research established but a long process,
the aim is to establish 3 nationwide research centres.
 Construction – graduates from schools increasing but higher
education does not have the capacity to take all in, attention to this has
increased. There has been good progress made in it, teacher resources
and labs.
Progress update on Mr Azizi requested Dr Khawaja Omary to present an update on the Organize a national
Afghanistan National progress made on ANQF. ANQA conference to review the
Qualification ANQF concept.
Framework (ANQF)-- Dr Omary highlighted that an MoU was signed between MoE, MoHE,
MoF and MoEc in 2007. Technical working groups are working on the
Mr. Malik Sharaf/Dr.
ANQF with NGO’s and stakeholders. There are 8 levels according to the
Khawaja Omary
4
existing system in Afghanistan. Levels will correspond to knowledge, skill
and competency.
Authorities – autonomous body – 6 boards under the supervision of the
vice president. Permanent members are the employees and temporary are
from ministries and stakeholders.
The project is due to be completed over the next few months (see
presentation for details).

Questions Requested.
Mr Baboury – is it a concept or an implemented project?
Dr Omary – a concept, for which all documents required for established
have been prepared and waiting to be signed by the vice president once
approved by the president.
Mr. Baboury commented that the concept has been prepared by
Internationals and not Afghan, they are not familiar with HE in
Afghanistan. Difficult to implement in Kabul university let alone other
universities – need to be pragmatic. The Boards in HE is not feasible the
way presented. The project is misunderstood and misleading. Billions of
dollars will be needed for implementation of this and it will take 5 decades
– not feasible. Comments from MoHE has not been included anywhere.
He concluded that one of the most important things that need to be done is
to identify and define the criteria that will categorize the activities. Which
can be done via presentation of a concept, but consensus by relevant
bodies will be required. Skills need to be improved prior to accreditation.

Dr Omary clarified that the team working on the concept have ensured that
it applies to Afghanistan’s situation. The authority will monitor activities
according to international standards. He added that the following website
(www.cesp.gov.af) can be used to look at the criteria for each level in more
detail and that the authority will also monitor whether the curriculum
meets the proposed standards and if not – feedback into why and how the
system can be supported.

Mrs Renu – agrees with Professor Baboury, this will be very expensive.
And USAID has never been involved in this process.

Dr Omary clarified that the boards have representatives from all

stakeholders, and bi-weekly meetings were held involving all (i.e. NGO’s,
JICA, HE etc).

Due to limitation of time Dr. Omary was requested not to provide

5
 clarification for any further comments made but to simply make note of
them. Dr. Omary added that he does not agree with any of the comments
made and with permission is happy to answer any questions.

Mr Olve – why is UNESCO not involved? Extremely elaborated process,

high cost a lot of staff needed. In support of Mr Baboury’s comment.
ANQF covering primary education – something that has not been done to
this detail elsewhere – time consuming. Qualification framework needs to
be slimmed down, focus on important areas.

Mr Sofizada – it’s a framework, therefore needs to be slim, provide

guidance to the ministries for implementation need to identify the
standards for accreditation.

Dr Weera – major concern, the way you plan to do it may not be the best
way for Afghanistan. Lets have a large conference to look at the design.

DUE TO TIME RESTRICTIONS – TED and LIFE presentations were postponed until Monday 20th Feb, when an additional HRDB meeting
has been proposed to review the JSR ToRs.
Next Meeting: 9th April 2012