That is, can the strategy be measured by a tangible change (for example a product that will be developed, the number of people to benefit, a change in budget allocation for ECE, etc.)? For example, the strategy “advocate for increased budget to support curriculum implementation” can be measured through identifying the increase of the budget allocation to the ECE subsector.

This refers back to the logical framework approach to clarify the causal links between the underlying challenge and the proposed action. It is recommended to refer back to the Build to Last conceptual framework (in Section 1) and the Pre-primary Subsector Analysis Tool (in Section 2) as a starting point – for uncovering the underlying ECE challenges in a holistic manner (looking at the core functions of the subsector and the enabling environment). This will help ensure that the ECE strategies respond comprehensively to key issues around access to ECE, equity (including issues of gender and inclusion) and quality of ECE.

That is, if two strategies appear to address the same underlying challenge, it may be possible to combine the two. For example, perhaps a strategy to support curriculum implementation (ex. provide in-service training to teachers on curriculum implementation) may be combined with a strategy to support workforce development (ex. strengthen pre- and in-service training programmes).

Is it forward looking and does it provide sufficient detail for achieving policy priorities/goals? For example, the strategy “train teachers” is too broad and lacks the specificity for the desired outcome. Instead, the strategy “strengthen in-service training programmes with a focus on play-based pedagogy” is clear, forward-looking and provides direction on what aspect of teacher training should be improved.

For example, if there are ongoing efforts to develop and pilot-test improved teacher training materials, the strategy in response to an underperforming ECE workforce may be to build on and scale up this existing initiative. Furthermore, consider linking ECE strategies with efforts in health, nutrition and economic development to yield increased outcomes for children.

For example, the strategy “ensure training and certification of all kindergarten teachers of the country” covers the target population (i.e., all kindergarten teachers) and the geographical areas (i.e., across the country, irrespective of where they are located). Another example is “provide different modalities for age-appropriate, over-age and out of school pre-school learners in rural and other disadvantaged areas”, which reaches and differentiates the targeted populations (i.e., over-age and out of school pre-school learners) and covers the geographical locations based on equity (i.e., rural and disadvantaged areas).

Start with reviewing Section 2.3 of MOOC Module 4 (on selecting policy priorities) for guidance and considerations for situating the ECE strategies within the context of the broader education sector’s vision and challenges. This first step helps an initial prioritization, navigating trade-offs and aligning ECE strategies with broader education sector priorities. After this first step, you may refer to the guiding questions below for further reflection on and prioritization of ECE strategies.

Bear in mind that the prioritization process should take into consideration the logic of scope, impact and capacity/availability of resources.

• Ideally, you would prioritize a strategy that produces high impact, with broad reach and scope.
• Think about what can be realistically achieved with the available/projected capacity and resources for maximum reach and impact. For example, does the strategy maximize the available resources to attain high impact towards the aspired target/vision?
• Sometimes, even if a strategy requires a high level of effort/capacity and resources that may not be currently available, the strategy should still be considered a priority if it critically important and has a high impact. For example, a strategy to “revision the pre-primary curriculum to ensure that it is developmentally appropriate, play-based and child-centered” will likely require high levels of capacity and resources; despite limited capacity/resources, it should be prioritized as it has an impact on the quality and effectiveness of ECE.
• Additional needs in capacity and resources to implement strategies may be further assessed to determine whether it should be addressed in the Education Sector Plan and Operational Plan (i.e., included as a distinct strategy around capacity building or resource mobilization, with the associated activities).
• Two examples of “high priority” strategies are provided in the template, with details on the analysis of the scope, impact and capacity/availability of resources factors and rationale.

In the event there are multiple strategies of equal importance, consider capacity availability (i.e. human and financial resources needed and available) and the urgency of the strategy.

Examine your strategies within and across the core functions of the ECE subsector (or other types of categorization that you choose to follow) as this may reveal strategies that have a broader reach/scope which may be further prioritized.

Determine if the strategy should be: (a) prioritized; (b) dropped; (c) given a lower priority level (for example, to be documented in a “parking lot” of strategies to be implemented only if funding is still available after higher priority level strategies are implemented).