Strengthening accountability in primary education in madagascar results of an impact evaluation
Download
1 / 16

Strengthening Accountability in Primary Education in Madagascar: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 258 Views
  • Uploaded on

Strengthening Accountability in Primary Education in Madagascar : Results of an Impact Evaluation. Jee-Peng Tan & Cornelia Jesse, . HDNED Chief Economist Office & Results for Development Institute Seminar “Demanding Good Governance - Inside & Out”. March 25, 2010.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Strengthening Accountability in Primary Education in Madagascar:' - Roberta


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Strengthening accountability in primary education in madagascar results of an impact evaluation l.jpg

StrengtheningAccountability in Primary Education in Madagascar:Results of an Impact Evaluation

Jee-Peng Tan & Cornelia Jesse,

HDNED Chief Economist Office & Results for Development Institute Seminar “Demanding Good Governance - Inside & Out”

March 25, 2010


Primary education in madagascar much progress but still many challenges l.jpg
Primary Education in Madagascar: Much Progress, but stillMany Challenges

  • Signs of progress:

    • Primarycompletion rate doubledfrom 35% in1999 to 71% in 2008

  • Evidence of weaksector performance:

    • ½ of eachcohort of 1st graders does not finish the primary cycle;

    • Repetition rate stillhighat 18% in 2005 (30% in 2000)

    • Lowquality: in 2004-5 PASEC, average test score of 50% in Maths and Malagasy and 32% in French; deterioratedsince 1997-98

  • Multiple systemic causes :

    • Inconsistencies in teacher allocation acrossschools;

    • Ineffective management of pedagogicalprocessesatschool and classroomlevels


A problem of internal accountability l.jpg
A Problem of Internal Accountability

Tasks essential for studentlearning are neglected:

  • Inadequate supervision of pupil and teacherabsenteeism

    e.g. more than 80% of directorsfail to report teacher absences to administratorsat the sub-district and district levels

  • Neglect of basic pedagogicaltasks

    e.g. 20% of teachersdon’tpreparedailylesson plans

  • Poor monitoring of and communication on studentlearning

    e.g. results of student tests and quizes are poorlyrecorded and communicated to parents, if at all; schooldirectorshardlyfollow-up on student performance: 3/4 don’tdiscusslearningoutcomeswiththeirteachers


What tasks are deemed essential l.jpg
What tasks are deemed essential?

  • Teacher:

    • Takes daily roll call

    • Prepares daily lesson plan

    • Prepared bi-monthly lesson plans

    • Monitors student learning

    • Has tested pupils during the past two months

    • Helps lagging students

    • Discusses student learning issues with the director

  • School director:

    • Keeps a register of enrollments

    • Signs off on daily roll call

    • Analyzes student absences on a monthly or bi-monthly basis

    • Reviews pupils’ test results

    • Takes stock of teacher absences

    • Informs sub-district or district officer about teacher absences

    • Follows up with teachers on lesson planning


Tighter management to improve accountabilty l.jpg
Tighter Management to Improve Accountabilty

Conceptual Intervention Framework & IE Design:

  • Workflow tools to clarify tasks and internal accountabilities;

  • Facilitation of meetings between school and community;

  • Better information flows within school and between school and community;

  • Structured training for teachers and school heads

    Leading to:

  • improvement in actors’ behavior through bottom up and top down accountability

    • better managed school

      • increased school quality

        • higher student learning


Key questions for policymakers l.jpg
Key Questions for Policymakers

  • What is the impact of tighter management of processes on school functioning and student performance?

  • At what administrative level are management interventions the most effective (school, district or inspection level)?


Impact evaluation design 1 l.jpg
Impact Evaluation Design (1)

Method: Randomized experimental design over 2 school years

Interventions:

  • Specify actors’ responsibilities & their mutual accountability the processes through:

    • Management Tools and Guides for key tasks (e.g. pedagogical, administrative)

    • Training

  • Focus attention on results to clarify goals through:

    • Report cards:School, district and inspection report cards

    • School meetings:Facilitated school meetings & development of school improvement plans based on school report cards


School district report cards for better information flow l.jpg
School & District Report Cards for Better Information Flow

  • Report cards for school directors, sub-district and district levels officers:

    • Complement the tools and proceses

    • Draw attention to schooling outcomes

    • Include comparative data, allowing a school to compare its outcomes with those of other schools

    • Serve as basis for dialogue and accountability


Impact evaluation design 2 l.jpg

15 CISCO AGEMAD

15 CISCO

CONTROL

89 ZAP AGEMAD

84 ZAP

NON-AGEMAD

80 ZAP CONTROL

303 Schools

CISCO AGEMAD

TREATMENT 1

303 Schools

CONTROL

Impact Evaluation Design (2)

303 Schools AGEMAD

TREATMENT 3

303 Schools

ZAP AGEMAD

TREATMENT 2


Collecting data l.jpg
Collecting Data

Actors’ Behavior (direct effects):

  • Questionnaire from impromptu school visits in 1,200 schools, with information for 4,000 teachers

  • Questionnaires for District and Community admin. level

  • Collection and analysis of tools used in 40 schools (850 tools)

    Schooling outcomes (indirect effects):

  • Test scores from standardized tests in 3 subjects

  • National year-end school census data: flow rates, repetition, CEPE pass rate

    Timeline:

  • 2 school years, 2005-2007

  • Baseline survey/test and post-intervention survey/test




Policy implications l.jpg
Policy Implications

  • Prioritize school-level actors

    • “Cascade” training model alone, as currently defined, doesn’t work

    • Though results are encouraging, better management essentially entails changing peoples’ behaviors, which takes time and effort

  • Mainstream IE results into MoE activities

    • Need a champion from the start

    • Need early involvement of a national team, with good technical support

    • Necessary to sustain change in actors’ attitudes & behaviors

  • Use existing structures and mechanisms for scale up:

    • Tools, guides and training modules integrated into teacher training

    • Tool distribution, training and facilitated school meetings funded through the local catalytic funds based on regional, district and school performance plans and needs

  • Develop leaders to drive change in management practices

    • Discussion underway on collaboration in leadership training between Madagascar MoE and partner organization in another country


Stay tuned publications forthcoming l.jpg
Stay tuned…Publications forthcoming

  • Africa Human Development Working Paper Series

    «Améliorer la gestion de l'enseignement primaire à Madagascar - Résultats d'une expérimentation randomisée »

  • Journal Article undergoing peer review

    «Managing for results in primary education in Madagascar: Evaluating the impact of selected workflow interventions »


It takes a village l.jpg
It takes a village…

  • Government commitment:

    • Stable counterpart team (15 staff from MoE with coordinator)

  • Partner commitment:

    • Financial and technical assistance from AFD (via two staff)

    • WB team lead by Jee-Peng Tan and Cornelia Jesse, consisting of Gérard Lassibille and Trang van Nguyen (with in-country field coordinators)

    • Local NGO Aide et Action to assist with training

  • Financing: WB, AFD, MoE, EFA-FTI (EPDF), Irish Aid, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

  • Timeline: 2004 – 2007

  • Total number of people involved: 50



ad