1

Evaluation of alternative school feeding models on children’s educational outcomes: preliminary findings from a cluster

randomised control trial

GHANA EDUCATION EVIDENCE SUMMIT 2017

28 March 2017

Dr. Clement AdambaSchool of Education and Leadership,

University of Ghana

2

Other colleagues

Felix Asante1, Elisabetta Aurino2, Irene Ayi1, Kwasebena Bosompem1, Gloria Folson1,

Lesley Drake2, Aulo Gelli3, Meena Fernandes1, Edoardo Masset4, Isaac Osei-Akoto1 ,

Getrude Ananse-Baiden2

1University of Ghana, Ghana 2 Imperial College London, UK3 IFPRI, US4 3ie, UK

3

School feeding

Education

Nutrition and health

School feeding as a policy linking education, health and agriculture

3

Agriculture

SME development

• Simple idea but programmes are complex!

– Managing complexity and trade-offs across objectives is not straightforward

Figure 1:

What we do know so far about school feeding and education is that ….

Overall weighted average effect Number of studies

ACCESS TO SCHOOLING

Enrolment 0.14* 7

Attendance 0.09* 6

Dropout –0.06* 3

Completion 0 2

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Language arts

scores

0.09* 8

Math scores 0.10* 10

Composite test

score

0.14 3

4

Source: Snilstveit and others 2015.

The Ghana School Feeding Programme

• Launched in 2005

• Hot, cooked meal to children in public schools

• 2012: 1 in 3 children enrolled in public schools

were beneficiaries

5

First rigorous evaluation of school feeding in Ghana

•Theory-based impact evaluation designed around scale-up of GSFP in order to expand the linkages between the programme and local agriculture in high food insecurity areas

•116 schools across all regions of Ghana

•Randomisation58 school feeding schools29 SF standard GSFP model

29 HGSF+ pilot (GSFP + agriculture/nutrition package)58 no school feeding (pure controls, get SF after year 3)

• 3 year study in partnership with Government of Ghana, University of Ghana, Partnership for Child Development at Imperial College and IFPRI

•Baseline in 2013 and endline in 2016

6

58 districts(116 schools)

29 HGSF+districts

(58 schools)

29 GSFPdistricts

(58 schools)

29 HGSF+ schools

(725 HH)

29 control schools

(580 HH)

29 control schools

(580 HH)

29 GSFP schools

(725 HH)

1st stage randomisation

2nd stage randomisation

Randomisation

Figure 2:

Main educational outcomes

8

Indicator Metric

Educational access Children’s enrolment, attendance, grade

repetition and drop out

Attention and cognition Digit span, Raven matrices: 12 questions

Learning achievement Scores on literacy and maths tests: 15

questions each

Descriptive statistics

9

Arm School level 2013 2016

Control KG 78.2 51.4

Primary 97.6 101.0

JHS 46.5 71.4

GSFP KG 81.0 57.5

Primary 101.7 111.0

JHS 49.4 66.0

GHSF+ KG 81.8 62.1

Primary 98.6 102.4

JHS 50.2 71.1

Table 1: Gross enrolment

10

Figure 4: Net Enrolment at the Primary School level

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Control GSFP GHSF+

Baseline Endline % Change

11

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Control GSF HGSF

Baseline Endline Change

Figure 5: Net Enrolment at the Junior High School level

12

Figure 4: Percent that missed a school day

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2013 2016 2013 2016

Female Boys

Control GSFP

13

2. Mixed effects models

• Mixed-effects models (multi-level regression models) account for the hierarchical nature of the data.

Impact evaluation analytical approach

Two main approaches:

1. Difference-in-Differences (DD) estimator

Design group Baseline Follow-up Difference

Treatment A B B - A

Control C D D - C

Difference A - D B - C DD = (B - A) - (D - C)

14

• The school feeding increases the likelihood of enrolment by about 2%**.

Impact on School enrolment

• Net enrolment at Kindergarten level increased by nearly 13% and 11% in regular GSF & HGSF schools respectively

15

Table 2: Impact results of GSF and HGSF on Schooling outcomes

Estimate Repeated grade Missed a day Dropped out

GSF/HGSF (Control) -0.183 0.137 -0.005

(0.126) (0.216) (0.453)

HGSF (GSF) 0.017 -0.781** -0.101

(0.190) (0.304) (0.652)

Reduce the chance of missing a school day by 6.87%

16

Impact on learning and cognition

Table 3: Impact results of GSF and HGSF on learning outcomes

Estimate Literacy Maths Raven test Digit span

GSF+HGSF (Control) 0.040 0.051 0.039 -0.030

(0.039) (0.041) (0.032) (0.029)

HGSF (GSF) -0.010 0.054 0.076 0.035

(0.111) (0.103) (0.087) (0.068)

17

Table 4: Impact results of GSF on learning outcomes, by sex

Estimate Literacy Maths Raven test Digit span

HGSF (GSF)

Boys 0.013 0.064 0.113 0.066

(0.136) (0.105) (0.096) (0.083)

Girls -0.037 0.042 0.033 0.001

(0.119) (0.127) (0.096) (0.070)

18

• Girls (6-12 years) in Primary school that received the GSF/HGSF performed significantly higher in Literacy and Maths test.

Table 5: Impact results of GSF and HGSF on learning outcomes by sex of child

Estimate Literacy Maths Raven test Digit span

GSF+HGSF (Control)

Boys -0.031 -0.004 0.008 -0.069*

(0.055) (0.056) (0.044) (0.040)

Girls 0.127** 0.120** 0.079* 0.017

(0.057) (0.059) (0.046) (0.043)

19

This translates to:

• Language art -13.5%

• Mathematics - 12.7%

• Raven test - 8.2%

• Conversely, SF appears to have a negative impact on

boys’ reasoning ability. Reduced boys reasoning ability

by about 7%.

• This requires further investigation to unravel the cause

of this unintended negative outcome.

20

Time-Use SF Control Diff

Hours spent on care or chores1.66 1.60 0.06

Hours spent at work in farm or

for pay0.62 0.69 -0.07*

Hours spent in leisurely

activities 2.10 2.11 -0.01

Hours spent at school or

studying 6.39 5.96 0.43***

Observations 5124

•One of the pathways to the improvement in learning

outcomes, we think, is the changing time use by children

in school feeding schools

Table 6: Children time use

21

• This points to a somewhat protective role of school

feeding for children.

• Reduced time spent at work and 25.8 additional

minutes per day spent at school or studying.

• This was strong for girls in school feeding areas, who

spent 31.8 additional minutes per day at school or in

study as compared to boys (19.8 additional minutes).

Concluding remarks

22

• In-school meals have positive impact on enrolment and on girls learning and

reasoning outcomes.

• Reduces or eliminates delayed enrolment and encourages enrolment at the

appropriate age.

• There is need to take measures;

enhance the nutritional value of the meals provided

sustain the gains made in increased enrolment by paying attention to retention

and completion.

23

Thank you