Millennium Schools’ Programme Progress Evaluation ⁄ Visionary Analytics

Millennium Schools’ Programme (MSP), approved in 2022, aims to reduce student achievement gaps in Lithuania by 2030. Among other general education improvement programmes, MSP stands out for its scale and unique investment model. It involves almost all (58 of 60) Lithuanian municipalities and around one-third (270 of 915) of general education schools, with some non-participating schools benefiting from its activities and results through networking. The programme has a budget of €254.1 million, with 83% covered from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and 17% from the state budget.

MSP follows a decentralised planning and implementation model. While the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Lithuania (MESS) governs the programme and European Social Fund Agency (ESFA) oversees implementation, municipalities have significant autonomy in planning activities. MESS set goals, indicators, and investment directions, allowing municipalities to focus on five key investment areas:1) renovation and creation of infrastructure; 2) acquisition of equipment and teaching materials; 3) strengthening the competences of school leaders and teaching staff; 4) organisation of educational activities and programmes; 5) improving access to resources for network schools. Each type of investment can be planned in four school improvement areas: leadership in action, inclusive, cultural, and STEAM[1] education.

Our study

At the request of MESS, Visionary Analytics conducted an interim evaluation of the MSP’s implementation progress to provide recommendations for improving its further implementation. The evaluation focused on assessing the relevance, sufficiency, coherence and effectiveness of MSP’s activities, its implementation process and potential risks.

Key evaluation results

MSP’s relevance and coherence. The evaluation confirmed that MSP’s goals align with Lithuania’s education context. However, the focus on school network restructuring is not explicitly expressed in the programme, although it is evident in eligibility criteria and indicator selection. This inconsistency reduces the relevance of the programme’s indicators.

Only two of the four mandatory indicators partially reflect the programme’s goals, as they measure student achievement in Lithuanian language and mathematics without addressing regional or school level disparities. Furthermore, the selected Basic Education Achievement Test (BEAT) indicators apply only to 10th graders, making them unsuitable for some schools, while the remaining two mandatory indicators relate to an unstated restructuring goal. Only four of 13 optional indicators align with MSP’s objectives.

The selected school improvement areas are generally appropriate, except for inclusive education, which lacks clear alignment with the programme’s goals and objectives. At the municipal level, similar issues persist, as municipality progress plans (PP) often fail to link goals, activities, and indicators, leading to misaligned target-setting. Despite these planning issues, programme activities planned by the municipalities align well with their needs and are internally coherent.

MSP’s sufficiency. MSP covers only part of Lithuania’s municipalities and a bit less than one-third of schools, yet its goals, objectives, and targets are set at national or municipal levels, making its interventions insufficient on their own. Achieving these targets requires additional contributions from municipalities and schools.

PP preparation and MSP’s implementation process. Overall, PP preparation process was relatively smooth, with municipal coordinators and school representatives rating it at 7.94 and 7.67 points out of 10, respectively. The smoothness of MSP’s implementation process is rated by municipal coordinators and school representatives at 7.75 and 7.72 out of 10 respectively. The main challenges of PP preparation and MSP implementation are summarised in the table below.

MSP’s effectiveness. Although the first evaluation of MSP’s indicators is set for 2025, trends from 2022–2024 indicate likely achievement of national targets for Lithuanian language and mathematics BEAT results, while targets for the number of students in joint classes and student-teacher ratios may not be met. Of the 13 optional indicators, 10 are expected to reach targets by 2025, two may fall short, and one could not be assessed. However, the impact of MSP’s activities on the achievement of these indicators is likely limited – improvements in many indicators are observed despite only around 25 (stream I) and 10 (stream II) percent of all planned activities being implemented.

Observed early programme’s results include positive changes in school attitudes, teacher competences, infrastructure, school communities, and networking, though challenges like staff fatigue, educational disruptions, and increased competition among schools have emerged.

Sustainability of MSP’s results. A sustainability plan for maintaining infrastructure, equipment, and competences developed under the MSP exists in 61.6% of stream I and 46.4% of stream II municipalities. Among schools, 79.3% in stream I and 83.3% in stream II have plans to maintain programme outcomes. As the MSP draws to a close, ESFA will provide municipalities with tailored recommendations to ensure the long-term impact of the programme.

Future risks for MSP’s implementation:

Probable delays in implementing activities and meeting progress indicators resulting in lost RRF funding and forcing municipalities to cover costs from their budgets.
Potential policy shifts under the 19th Government leading to changes in MSP’s implementation.
Insufficient networking, especially in stream II municipalities, potentially reducing the programme’s impact.
Risk of failing to ensure the sustainability of achieved programme results.
Stream II municipalities and schools facing the same challenges as stream I municipalities and schools.

Recommendations

The evaluation provided recommendations for improving MSP’s implementation and strategic suggestions for planning and implementing similar programmes and projects in the future. The key recommendations include:

reducing administrative burden for municipalities and schools implementing the programme
speeding up ESFA and Central Project Management Agency administrative procedures
providing additional support in the areas where participating municipalities and schools lack knowledge and experience (e.g. public procurement and planning infrastructural investments)
developing individual risk management strategies for municipalities facing a high risk of failing to implement planned activities on time
ensuring long-term sustainability of the programme’s results.