Post on 27-Sep-2020
Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC), Phase II
Monitoring and Evaluation Report
The Three Program Pillars• Transparent School Based Management and Planning
– School development plan– Child friendly school– School resource management
• Community Participation– Improving role of school committee– Increasing role of parents & community– Openness and transparency towards community
• Active Joyful and Effective Learning– Learning development plan– Learning delivery– Learning assessment
Key Activities• Advocacy meetings at district and cluster level
• Planning and materials development workshops
• In service training for teachers, headteachers, supervisors and school committees
• On the job training in schools for teachers, headteachers and school committees
• Study visits to well functioning CLCC schools
• Teachers Working Group meetings (KKG)
• School Headteacher Working Group Meetings (KKKS)
• Monitoring and Evaluation by data collection, field visits and review meetings
• Block Grants to support implementation of AJEL
Where CLCC has worked
Try Out 1999-2002 4 provinces 7 districts
First Phase 2002-2006 11 provinces 42 districts
Second Phase
2007-2010 15 provinces* 78 districts*
*11 Provinces and 46 Districts under NZAID Funding Scheme, later after Pemekaran Wilayah, becomes 12 provinces and 51 districts
Scope of Evaluation
• Actions of School Headteachers in Practising SBM
• Actions of Teachers in applying AJEL in teaching‐learning
• Actions of School Committee in development, management and monitoring school plan and budget
• Actions of school cluster KKG and KKKS in institutionalizing practices within primary school clusters
• Capacity and readiness of District Education Offices in sustaining CLCC model and practices
Implemented in January‐May 2010 in 61 districts (15 provinces) in 153 clusters & 493 schools to assess:
The sample included: 79.9% public SD, 12.2% private SD (mainly in the eastern regions) and 7.9% madrasah (3% public, 4.9% private).
Methodology• At School Level:
– Interviews with school headteachers and teachers on SBM
– Interview with teachers and observation of teaching using AJEL using structured observation instruments
– Interviews with school committee members on community participation
• At Cluster Level:
– Interviews with headteachers and teachers at core schools on cluster activities (KKG and KKKS)
• At District Level:
– Group interviews with District SBM Development Team about implementation of program at district level
THE RESULTS
Summary of Main Results• The program has been implemented in 58% of schools using CLCC or local
funding
• Most schools have made and implemented school development plans together with stakeholders.
• Most teachers prepare their teaching programs and lessons well
• The class environment is stimulating with displays of students’ work and library corners.
• Teaching and learning activities are varied.
• Students participate actively in lessons including working cooperatively and expressing their thoughts and opinions.
• School cluster activities support teacher and school development
• School communities monitor and support school activities
• Parents support their children’s learning at home and school
District SBM Teams• SBM teams established in over 90% of districts, some with varied
membership, others only from district education offices.
• 31% have good working programs and a further 51% have a less clear program
• 33% of teams have an SK and 34% are trying to obtain one
• Team duties include: district planning and budget support, facilitating participation in SBM activities and monitoring SBM implementation in schools. 38% of teams perform all functions.
District SBM Support
• The SBM program has been integrated in district planning in 31.1% of districts.
• 64% of districts have allocated funding to support the SBM program, but it is possible that some of the funds were not spent as planned.
• Rotation of personnel in District Education Offices was often mentioned as a problem and diminished the effectiveness of the SBM team.
School Clusters
• CLCC has supported directly 5 primary school clusters in each district.
• Training and support activities (KKG, KKKS) take place in these clusters.
• About 80% of supported clusters had a clear organizational structure and work program.
• Activities took place regularly in almost 80% of clusters.
• Some schools complained of a lack of funding to run activities, but it was not clear why BOS was not used for this.
SBM Training for Schools
• CLCC assisted 7.4% of primary schools to receive SBM and AJEL training.
• Districts themselves had funded training for a further 14.7% of schools.
• Other sources (such as BOS) funded a further 35.3% of schools.
• 42% of schools have not received any assistance.
• In some district schools have been trained by other similar projects (e.g. DBE1 in Aceh Besar)
• There was some concern about the interpretation of ‘training’ – in some cases a half day workshop was counted as training.
Other related factors
• ‘On the job’ mentoring has covered 86% of schools – but many claimed this was insufficient.
• Block grant distribution has been patchy (over 60%).
• 59% of SD received supplementary materials for teachers, while only 30% of MI received the materials.
Impact on School Management
• 94.9% of schools had a school development fulfilling most criteria (formulated with stakeholders, used as a reference for school activities…).
• Most schools had vision and mission statements supported by the school community.
• Percentage of plan implementation was also high (90%).
• 90% of schools met most ‘child friendly’ requirements – e.g. cleanliness, positive discipline.
• The biggest problem was with the ‘availability and condition’ of toilets.
Active, Joyful and Effective Learning (1)1. Learning Development Plan• 90% of schools met most or all requirements – having a semester
program, syllabus and lesson plans for most classes and subject
2. Learning Delivery• Highest scores were in most areas:
– ‘students skilful in group work’ (over 90%) – ‘students look familiar with AJEL’ (88%).– ‘students are not afraid to express opinions’ (80%)– ‘students are creative in completing assignment/task (79%)’
(The figures are for all or most of students fulfilling requirements)
Active, Joyful and Effective Learning (2)
Learning Assessment• In 16.4% of schools students work indicated they could write in their own
words (a further 52.3% had partially achieved this)• 74% of schools had displays of work, in 27.2% of these schools the displays
were regularly updated and well structured• 26% of teachers evaluated the students’ work and used it to give feedback
and enrichment, a further 61% did this partially.• 27.8% of schools had reading corners with a good variety of reading
materials, a further 44% had only textbooks available. 8.9% had no reading corners.
Community Participation
• In 80.7% of schools committees were selected democratically. • In 28% of schools all members of the committee understood their duties• In 57% of schools the committee undertook all four functions as
supervisor, supporter, controller and mediator• In 58% of school the committee work program was made by school
members/stakeholders and 32% of schools implemented their program quite fully.
• 73% of parents helped their children at home• 72% of parents also supported school activities.
Impact on Student Performance• Tests were done on a sample of students in 45 schools in 15 districts in
2003 and repeated in 2010 in– Reading (Grade 1)– Reading & Writing (Grade 4)– Mathematics (Grade 4)– Science (Grade 5)
• The tests focus on student competencies include language skills and problem solving
• Average scores rose significantly, although there were some changes in the marking schemes which may have affected the results, but notinvalidated them.
• There were particularly large gains in grade 1 reading possibly as a result of a project focus on this area.
• The lack of gain in mathematics may stem from many teachers’ own lack of confidence in this area.
Average Test Scores 2003 & 2010
47.1
20.5
34.1
40.1
47.0
28.8
71.3
59.4
53.8
46.9
47.0
39.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Grade 1 Reading Aloud
Grade 1 ReadingComprehension
Grade 4 ReadingComprehension
Grade 4 Writing
Grade 4 Mathematics
Grade 5 Science
Average Score (%)
20102003
YEAR 2003 2010ACTIVITY PRE-TEST POST-TEST
ORGANIZATION UNICEF & PUSPENDIK UNESCO, UNICEF & PUSPENDIK
SUBJECT Conducted test on 533 students in 45 schools in 15 districts and 6 province
Conducted test on approximately 2585 students in 45 schools in 15 districts and 7 province
GRADE 1, 4 & 5 1, 4 & 5
INSTUMENTS
GRADE 1
20 ITEMS READING ALOUD; 5 ITEMS READING COMPREHENSION
20 ITEMS READING ALOUD; 5 ITEMS READING COMPREHENSIONTIME ALLOCATION:?
GRADE 4
INDONESIAN LANGUAGE TEST: 18 ITEMS READING TEST and 1 ITEM WRITING TASKMATH TEST: 20 ITEMS
INDONESIAN LANGUAGE TEST: 18 ITEMS READING TEST [45 MINUTES] and 1 ITEM WRITING TASK [30 MINUTES]MATH TEST: 20 ITEMS [60 MINUTES]
GRADE 5
SCIENCE: 10 MULTIPLE CHOICE ITEMS, 10 SHORT-ANSWER ITEMS, 3 ESSAYS
SCIENCE: 10 MULTIPLE CHOICE ITEMS, 10 SHORT-ANSWER ITEMS, 3 ESSAYSTIME ALLOCATION: 60 MINUTES
SCORE & SUBJECTS in 2010TOTAL NUMBERS OF STUDENTS = 2485
MAXIMUM SCOREREADING ALOUD
MAXIMUM SCOREREADING COMPREHENSION
60 40
INDONESIAN LANGUAGE TEST
MATH TEST
READING WRITING MAXIMUM SCORE: 100
50 50
SCIENCE TESTPART A
[SHORT ANSWER]PART B
[MULTIPLE CHOICE]PART C[ESSAY]
40 30 30