Lesotho Child-Friendly Schools

Final Report

Development of

Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) Indicators

December 2006

Prepared by the

National Education Quality Initiative

Human Sciences Research Council

1

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3

Indicator development process .................................................................................................... 4

Current status of indicators ......................................................................................................... 4

Way forward ................................................................................................................................ 6

The Child-Friendly School concept ............................................................................................ 7

Appendix B: ................................................................................................................................ 9

Terms of reference ...................................................................................................................... 9

Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) indicators .................................................................................. 11

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Indicator development process ................................................................................................ 4

Current status of indicators ..................................................................................................... 4

Way forward .............................................................................................................................. 6

Appendix A: The Child-Friendly School concept .................................................................. 7

Appendix B: Terms of reference .............................................................................................. 9

Appendix C: Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) indicators ....................................................... 11

2

Acknowledgements

The development of the CFS indicators would not have been possible without the UNICEF

education officers. We are grateful for their input, comments, suggestions and participation

during the various meetings. We are also grateful for the support from Changu Manathako and

Aster Haregot for ensuring that this project was successfully completed.

3

Introduction

Introduced in 1999 by the Education Section in UNICEF’s Programme Office in New York, the

child-friendly schools (CFS) framework is based on the principles of children’s rights as

expressed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) and other international human

rights instruments and international declarations, including the Declaration of Education for All

(1990).

The CFS framework promotes child-seeking, child-centred, gender-sensitive, inclusive,

community-involved, protective and healthy approaches to schooling and out-of-school

education. These approaches are intended to increase the learning effectiveness, efficiency and

reach of education systems and to enable all children to realise their right to learn. Currently the

CFS framework is in use by many UNICEF country programmes in all geographic regions and

by many national governments and NGOs, all of which have freely adapted CFS to suit many

different local contexts.

Child-friendly schools strive for quality in the following areas (see Appendix A):

An inclusive school

An effective school

A safe and protected school

An equity and equality promoting school

A health promoting school

School-community linkages and partnerships

In order to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the CFS framework, UNICEF

commissioned the HSRC to1:

1. facilitate the monitoring and evaluation session at the network meeting to be held in Nairobi

during February 28 to March 3, 2006 (The meeting included a knowledge-building session

on monitoring and evaluation of child-friendly schools as part of quality education);

2. develop capacities in monitoring learning achievement at lower primary level;

3. support CFS for Africa countries on monitoring and evaluation matters. Particularly to:

develop a procedure/tool to assess – at community and system level – learner

achievement of child-friendliness,

1 (see Appendix B)

4

tighten up the indicators developed for six component of CFS model during the capacity

development workshop in Malawi in August 2005.

The expected deliverables specified were:

Expected deliverable Outcome

1. Workshop on monitoring and evaluation of CFS at the Nairobi

meeting learning session.

Attained

2. Revised and update CFS indicators. Attained

3. Updated framework for application of CFS indicators. Partially attained –

See current status

4. Assist six countries (CFS for Africa participating countries) in

monitoring issues.

Partially attained –

See current status

Indicator development process

The process of developing indicators for the CFS is noted in Table 1 below. First a number of

possible indicators based on the CFS framework (see Appendix A) were identified by UNICEF

during the August 2005 Malawi meeting. The next stage required UNICEF education officers to

expand on these definitions (Nairobi meeting, February 2006). The HSRC was requested to

finalise the draft indicators and pilot these in collaboration with UNICEF country offices. Based

on the results of the pilot, the indicators were to be revised and tabled at the August 2006

Maputo meeting for finalisation.

Table 1: CFS indicator development process

Phase Activity Responsible Status

Phase 1 Identify possible indicators UNICEF Workshop August 2005

Phase 2 Revise initial indicators UNICEF Workshop February 2006

Phase 3 Expand and define the

indicators

HSRC Presented at August 2006

workshop in Maputo

Phase 4 Pilot the indicators Government, HSRC &

UNICEF education

officers at country level

In progress – for

countries to complete

Phase 5 Review, revise and adopt

indicators

Government & UNICEF

officers at country level

In progress – for

countries to complete

Current status of indicators

As noted in Appendix C, a number of key CFS indicators have been identified and defined. Each

indicator is presented under the CFS framework headings (an inclusive school, an effective

5

school, a safe and protective school, an equity and equality promoting school, a health promoting

school, school/community linkages and partnerships), and described by the following

characteristics:

Definition: Describes or defines the indicator.

Relevance: Provides an explanation of why the indicator is deemed important.

Data required: Describes the data that is needed for the analysis.

Data source: Indicates where the data can be obtained from.

Calculation method: Provides the method or mathematical formula for computing the indicator.

Types of disaggregation: Provides the applicable levels or categories by which the data can be

further analysed and includes some examples.

Interpretation: Explains how to best understand the outcome of the analysis.

Quality standards: Deals with reliability and validity issues.

Possible problems: Describes the issues that may arise in collecting, analysing or interpreting

the indicator.

At present, the indicators have been reviewed but still need to be piloted. It was expected that the

pilots would be conducted over a period of 3 to 5 days in a number of countries that have been

supporting/promoting the CFS framework. This proved extremely difficult given that the

philosophy of successfully implementing the CFS framework, in particular the CFS indicators,

required UNICEF officers to ensure that relevant indicators were integrated into the respective

monitoring and evaluation frameworks/systems of member countries. However, the M & E

systems of a number of countries were still being developed. For example, UNICEF education

officers in Mozambique and Zimbabwe (see Appendices D & E) prioritised the development of

relevant M & E and capacity of respective education officials to effectively implement these

systems. Thus assistance requested from the HSRC focused primarily on the development of the

M & E system, a small part of which was the piloting of the CFS indicators. These requests

required time frames that was not anticipated in the original agreement and could not be

accommodated within the original time frames stipulated.

6

In Eritrea, on the other hand (see Appendix F), the focus was on developing the national

assessment system (i.e. the learning achievement component) and relevant frameworks, tools and

capacity for evaluating the functioning of the education system. This contract required 55 days.

In deciding how to address this matter, given the time frame stipulated for the HSRC CFS ToR,

both ESARO as well as the HSRC agreed that the current HSRC contract with the regional office

did not cover the broader scope and objectives which UNICEF education country officers

required the HSRC to work on. ESARO thus proposed to terminate the current SSA contract

between ESARO and the HSRC so as to avoid confusion and to allow the education officers at

country level to sign new contracts on an individual assignment basis, when and as necessary.

Way forward

In mapping out the way forward with respect to the implementation of the CFS indicators, it

should be noted that the development and effective utilisation of the indicators is an ongoing

process, and thus the relevant and usefulness of the indicators should be monitored and reviewed

on a continuous basis. In addition, it must be noted that these indicators must address the specific

needs of a number of different countries in the region. In this context, the way forward for the

effective utilisation of the CFS indicators would require the following:

Integration and/or alignment of the CFS framework into the national assessment and/or

monitoring and evaluation systems of participating countries.

Piloting of the indicators within the national and/or local context.

Finalisation and adoption of the indicators within the national indicator system of countries

implementing the child-friendly schools framework.

.

7

Appendix A:

The Child-Friendly School concept

Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) for Africa

UNICEF ESARO

December, 2004

The child-friendly school concept

The child-friendly school framework is located within a quality framework which holistically

and functionally defines quality in education. This quality framework addresses various

dimensions of quality to include a) the quality of the environments addressing the physical,

psycho-social and service delivery part of the infrastructure; b) the quality of the learners,

teachers, parents, the home/family and community; c) the curriculum, teaching and learning

materials, norms and standard measures for school learners; teachers, parents and communities;

d) the quality of the process of what goes on in the schools, the learning process; the

interventions which make the schools functional, the interactions among students, teachers,

support supervision, school-governing bodies or parent teachers associations and the community;

e) the quality outcomes for the learners; the teachers, the school and the community.

The child-friendly school framework is one tool that can effectively pull together the various

dimensions of quality to make schools functional. Infrastructure is important but not sufficient to

make schools functional. The child-friendly school is to be viewed as follows:

1. A rights-based school, which demonstrates, promotes, and helps monitor the rights and well-

being of ALL children and ALL young people irrespective of gender, geographical location,

ability or disability. A CFS is to be seen as a place, which promotes and supports safe learning

environments, creates child-friendly spaces in school, on the way to and from school and in the

homes. All girls, boys and teachers in a child-friendly school are expected to have a basic

understanding of rights, roles and responsibilities. The school should enrol ALL categories of

children, including orphaned girls and boys, girls and boys with abilities and disabilities, girls

and boys from poor social backgrounds, from all cultural and geographical background,

including the rural and remote dwellers. The child-friendly school should purposely seek out

non-attending and non-enrolled girls and boys and ensure that they attend regularly and perform.

The school-facilities enrolment and recruitment and deployment of teachers should reflect

inclusion.

2. An effective school, effective with children – promotes quality, effective teaching and

learning in a structured but flexible learning-centred and child-centred curriculum, promotes

meaningful child participation, appropriate gender responsive, equality-based interactive

methodologies for the child; promotes quality learning outcomes equally for girls and boys –

learning how to learn; it is life-skills based, HIV and AIDS education, reality-based education;

enhances teacher capacity, morale, commitment and it is teacher and parent friendly. Takes into

account all the five dimensions of quality, i.e. quality of the environments, the learners, teachers,

parents, family, home and community, content, materials, what goes on in the schools and the

various interactions and the processes and methodologies which include the normally excluded,

8

particularly the rural remote dwellers and the urban poor.

3. A safe and protective school which is protective of girls, boys and young people. It should

be a haven for peace and should address issues of physical, mental and emotional violence in a

holistic manner. Creates safe spaces for girls and boys to effectively learn. It ensures that girls

and boys, as well as teachers feel safe on the way to and from school, in school, at home and in

the community. It is free from abuse, guarantees safety, respects diversity – girls, boys, working

children, children with abilities & disabilities, HIV and AIDS infected and affected girls and

boys; girls and boys orphaned by HIV and AIDS, infected and affected young people, both male

and female; no stereotyping; no stigmatisation, no discrimination. It promotes guidance and

counselling relating to the key issues affecting young people such as drugs, early marriage,

school pregnancy, gender, masculinities and femininities, and sexuality-related issues.

4. An equity and equality promoting school: It is gender sensitive/girl friendly; orphan and

vulnerable child friendly, is child centred; encourages child and young people participation,

including the Girls’ Education Movement (GEM); is flexible, responds to diversity; is

affordable and accessible. This would reflect in the kind of facilities, special support and

assistance given to remote rural schools and the urban poor schools. It is a school/community

which supports child-headed households, creates space for elder OVCs to attend class, do their

homework whilst the younger siblings are being taken care of. It promotes flexi modalities of

schooling dictated by the context. Promotes school feeding and school gardens in support of the

OVCs and girls for improved performance.

5. A health promoting school which is healthy for children, teachers, parents and is health

seeking – promotes physical, mental, emotional health and nutrition; life skills and HIV and

AIDS; gender-based violence education; positive experiences for children/psycho-social

development. It is a healthy school where girls and boys learn from a quality learning

environment. There should be adequate sanitation facilities separate for both girls and boys; that

both drinking and washing water and washing facilities are available and being utilised by both

girls and boys in school and community. A decent meal such as lunch is provided particularly to

the OVCs, girls and their younger siblings. A health promoting school should have clean, safe,

hygienic, and attractive infrastructure, compounds without causing environmental degradation. It

promotes positive health practices and life-skills based education; gender, sexuality;

masculinities and femininities.

6. School/community linkages and partnerships: A child-friendly school is involved with

families, promotes school/community partnerships. It should purposely develop a

school/community plan which can be utilised as a tool for mobilising for quality education and

provides an opportunity to clear definition of roles and responsibilities of various partners. It

deals with the whole child, and young person, before, during and after class, is family focused

supportive of parents, encourages local partnerships in school-based management and

governance, works with others with constant attention to children and young people’s rights, to

promote child-friendly spaces, integrated psycho-social support and eliminate gender-based

violence, for the safety and well-being of ALL girls and boys and young people. The community

should be involved in activities which improve the performance of girls, boys and young people.

9

Appendix B:

Terms of reference

Terms of reference for individual and institutional SSA

Position title: Institutional Consultancy Fee: US$ 450 per day x 44 days. Total US$ 19,800/= Location: Duty station Duration: 44 days Start date: 27 February – 30 September 2006 Reporting to: Regional Education Advisor Budget code/PBA no.: SI/2005/3276-01

Justification

Generally this task is related to the new MTSP and current work plan Key Result Area: KRA3.

Equality and Quality Models: Educational quality improved and school retention,

completion and achievements rates increased. Target 6 for countries adopting quality

standards through models such as CFS at primary school level and Target 7 – to increase

number of programme countries with standardised tests for measuring learning achievement,

linked to the national curriculum.

This task is also specifically linked to the capacity development of child-friendly schools for the

Africa programme which is being implemented in Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda,

South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Scope of work

1. To facilitate the monitoring and evaluation session at the network meeting to be held in

Nairobi during February 28 to March 3, 2006. This year’s network meeting includes a

knowledge-building session on monitoring and evaluation of child-friendly schools as part of

quality education.

2. To develop capacities in monitoring learning achievement at lower primary level (Kenya,

Uganda).

3. To support CFS for Africa countries on monitoring and evaluation matters. Particularly to

develop a procedure/tool to assess – at community and system level – learner achievement

of child-friendliness;

tighten up the indicators developed for six component of CFS model during the capacity;

10

development workshop in Malawi August 2005. This will be part of the 2006 capacity

development programme for the CFS Africa participating countries;

4. To enhance the use of indicators based on CFS framework, focusing on the:

identification of indicators (focus on life’s skills);

conceptualisation and development of indicators;

collection and analysis of data for developing indicators;

reporting indicators;

use of indicators.

Areas to be considered

Consultant will travel to facilitate monitoring and evaluation session at the network meeting to

be held in Nairobi during February 28 to March 3, 2006. Consultant will also travel to the

country where capacity-building workshop for CFS will be held. As necessary also travel to CFS

for Africa countries.

Expected deliverables

1. Workshop on monitoring and evaluation of CFS at the Nairobi meeting learning session.

2. Revised and update CFS indicators.

3. Updated framework for application of CFS indicators.

4. Assist six countries (CFS for Africa participating countries) in monitoring issues.

Desired background and experience

Qualifications – Masters or advanced degree; PhD in education and measurement and evaluation

related – High level international expertise in:

- educational theory and practice

- teaching / learning methodology

- action research

- programme evaluation

- Process evaluation of the educational large-scale programmes

- construction and use of the evaluation tools for measuring students’ achievements

- acquaintance with the problems in comparative education (familiarity with the educational

systems in different countries

- sensitivity for socio-cultural context of every educational system

- knowledge child-friendly school concept, EFA and UNICEF relevant documents

Conditions (Important) Consultant will travel to Nairobi on 28 February to 3 March 2006 for the education network

meeting. As necessary may also travel to CFS for Africa countries, Angola, Malawi,

Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

11

Appendix C:

Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) indicators

All indicators are meant primarily for use at the school level. Information should ideally be

collected by school staff with relevant information required by UNICEF to be drawn from the

school information and collated at the national or provincial levels.

Please note that the indicators listed have not been piloted. In addition, for some indicators,

additional comments, listed by UNICEF education officers, are provided on issues that require

further clarification. Finally, some headings may need to be revised and/or updated after the

pilot.

12

Need to define the school catchment areas to avoid duplication between schools. Also need to

address the definition of vulnerability.

1. An inclusive school

Indicator 1: Number and proportion of children not in school (CNS)

Definition: The number of school-age children (in your school catchment area) who are not in

formal schooling (primary school), with specific emphasis on girls, orphans and disabled

children.

Relevance: This information provides an idea of how many children in the schools’ catchment

area are not benefiting from school. In particular it provides information on vulnerable children

such as orphaned children where interventions can be initiated to include these sub-groups.

Data required: Total number of children not in primary school (in the catchment area of the

school) plus information on gender, orphan and disability status within the school catchment

area.

Data source: Community mapping, regular school surveys, village registers, census and child-

to-child census. Community mapping can be defined as information gathered on the

community’s assets and needs and is obtained from the community’s own members.

Calculation method: To calculate the percentage of children not in school, divide the number of

school-age children (in the school catchment area) not in school by the number of school-age

children in the primary school catchment area, and multiply the result by 100.

% CNS = No. school-age children not in primary school

X 100 No. school-age children in the school catchment area

= 393

X 100 1349

= 29%

13

Types of disaggregation: This indicator needs to be disaggregated by gender, by orphan status,

and by disability (mental and physical). May also be useful to disaggregate by grade/age, to see

if there are any trends.

Example 1

% girls NS = No. of school-age girls not in primary school

X 100 No. of school-age girls in the school catchment area

Example 2

% orphans NS = No. of school-age orphans not in primary school

X 100 No. of school-age orphans in the school catchment area

Example 3

% men disabled

NS =

No. of school-age men disabled not in school X 100

No. of school-age men Dis in the school catchment area

Example 4

% phy. dis. NS = No. of school-age phy. dis. not in school

X 100 No. of school-age phy. dis. not in the school catchment area

Presentation of findings:

School

total

Girls Orphaned Mentally

disabled

Physically

disabled

7 year olds 20% 40% 50% 2% 7%

8 year olds 25% 41% 55% 3% 8%

9 year olds 24% 42% 53% 2% 6%

10 year olds 27% 45% 57% 4% 10%

11 year olds 30% 49% 60% 3% 9%

12 year olds 38% 53% 67% 2% 8%

13 year olds 42% 55% 80% 5% 9%

School total 29% 46% 60% 3% 8%

Interpretation: A high number of school-age children not in the school system may point to

issues of access into school or the capacity of the school to address the specific needs of all

14

children. For example, as indicated in the table above, 29% of the school-age children in this

school catchment area are not attending school and when you disaggregate by gender, 46% of

the school-age girls in the catchment area are not attending school. Further 60% of the school-

age orphaned children, 3% of the mentally disabled children and 8% of the physically disabled

children in the catchment area are not attending school.

Quality standards: This indicator should be monitored every term.

Problems: Obtaining this information may be difficult as the primary source would be

community workers and this could be costly in terms of time and money. Difficulties could arise

in demarcating catchment areas so that duplicate information is not attained. Population data is

not reliable or available due to typically low-birth registration rate in many parts of the region.

15

Need to decide whether SR refers to the completion of the primary cycle or to keep to the

internationally recognised indicator of completing the primary cycle to Grade 5.

Indicator 2: Survival rate (SR) to primary Grade 5

Definition: The percentage of learners (cohort, i.e. those originally enrolled in Grade 1 and

complete schooling to Grade 5) who complete Grade 5 in a particular school.

Relevance: This indicator is a measure of the efficiency of the school.

Data required: Enrolment by grade over the period of schooling (e.g. 5 years).

Data source: School register, school survey or census, Education Management Information

System (EMIS).

Calculation method: Divide the total number of learners belonging to a school cohort who

reached Grade 5 by the number of learners in the school cohort who entered Grade 1, and

multiply the result by 100.

Survival rate = No. of learners who reached Grade 5

X 100 No. of learners from the original cohort entering Grade 1

= 116

X 100 136

= 85%

Types of disaggregation: This indicator can be disaggregated by grade, gender, orphan status

and disability.


Boys Girls School total

Grade 1 90% 95% 93%

Grade 2 89% 93% 91%

Grade 3 87% 90% 89%

Grade 4 85% 88% 87%

Grade 5 83% 84% 84%

School total 85% 87% 86%

16

Interpretation: Survival rates approaching 100% indicates a high level of retention and low

incidence of drop-out. Survival rate to Grade 5 of primary education is of particular interest since

this is commonly considered a prerequisite for sustainable literacy. For example, as indicated in

the table above, 86% of the children in this school cohort, completed Grade 5 and when you

disaggregate by gender, more girls (2%) completed Grade 5 than boys.

Quality standards: Since the calculation of survival rates is based on pupil-flow rates, the

reliability of the survival rate depends on the consistency of data on enrolment and repeaters in

terms of coverage over time and across grades. It is important to note that comparisons across

countries need to take into consideration the differences in national regulations concerning the

number of repetitions allowed.

Problems: Given that this indicator uses cohort analysis models that are based on a number of

assumptions (number of repetitions allowed or the number of grades in a primary school); care

should be taken when using the results in comparisons. Many countries have experienced

problems in applying this model to undertake their calculations. More importantly, the data is not

accurate in countries where there are high levels of migration.

17

Need clarification on this indicator:

1. What is meant by decision-making structures? Examples should be provided to ensure

schools respond correctly.

2. Is this school-going children or the children who don’t go to school or both?

3. Types of participation and level of involvement needs to be defined.

4. Standards need to be set as to what percentage of participation is considered appropriate.

5. Need to ensure this indicator is eliciting the information that is required. High levels of

participation by children in decision-making are not indicative of influence on decisions

taken by the school.

6. Are there student representative councils (SRCs) in primary schools?

7. Need to distinguish between participation and effective participation.

Indicator 3: Percentage of children who participate in decision-making

structures.

Definition: The percentage of children in the school who participate in decision-making

structures.

Relevance: Children are able to voice their concerns which are in line with the principles of

child-friendly schools.

Data required: Surveys, student representative council (SRC).

Data source: Learners.

Calculation method:

Children participating in decisions = No. of learners in SRC

X 100 No. of learners in the school

= 19

X 100 956

= 2%

Types of disaggregation: This indicator should be disaggregated by gender, orphan status and

disability.

18

Example 1

% girls participating in decisions =

No. of girls participating in

decisions X 100

No. of learners in SRC

Example 2

% orphans participating in decisions =

No. of orphans participating in

decisions X 100


Example 3

% men. dis. participating in decisions =

No. of men. dis participating in

decisions X 100


Example 4

% phy. dis. participating in decisions = No. phy. dis. participating in decisions

X 100 No. of learners in SRC


Girls Orphaned Mentally

disabled

Physically

disabled

School

total

School total 45% 1% 0% 1% 2%

Interpretation: A high level of participation would mean that the rights of the children are being

maintained. As can be seen in the table above only 2% of the children in the school participate in

decision-making structures. In terms of the representivity of this student decision-making body,

only 45% are girls, 1% orphaned, 1% physically disabled and there are no mentally disabled

representatives.


Problems: Structures for learners to participate in school decision-making may not exist. Schools

may have high levels of participation, but the influence of these children on the decisions may

vary. Therefore, it is unclear if this indicator will produce the information needed.

19

2. An effective school

Further work on this indicator is needed:

1. The way in which the indicator is constructed and calculated.

2. The number of times in-service training should occur in a school should be discussed

further.

3. Agreed upon standards, mean score cut points.

Indicator 4: Percentage of competent teachers (PCT)

Definition: The percentage of school teachers in your primary school who are academically

qualified, receive regular in-service training, certified to teach and are trained on and teach with

learner-centred approaches. This indicator is made up of the following indices:

1. Number of teachers who have nationally recognised teaching qualifications.

2. Number of teachers who receive, as stipulated in national policy, in-service training.

3. Number of teachers trained on learner-centred approaches (LCA).

4. Number of teachers teaching with learner-centred approaches (LCA).

Relevance: Teacher qualifications provide a useful indicator of the quality of education, while

trained and qualified teachers are essential to the provision of good quality education. It is

important to note though, that teacher qualifications, on their own, are inadequate measures of

education quality, as highly qualified teachers do not of necessity, deliver high quality teaching.

Data required: Teachers’ qualifications, teacher certification, in-service training workshops at

the school, number of teachers trained on and teach with learner-centred approaches.

Data source: School records, district records, school or national surveys, and observations.

Calculation method: Each indice (e.g. teacher qualification, in-service training, certified to teach

trained on learner-centred approaches and teach with learner-centred approaches) can be

calculated separately. For example to work out the percentage of academically qualified teachers

you would divide the number of academically qualified teachers by the total number of school

teachers and multiply the result by 100.

20

Example 1:

% academically qualified teachers = No. of academically qualified teachers

X 100 Total no. of teachers

= 20

X 100 28

= 71%

Example 2:

% teachers regular in-service training = No. of teachers regular in-ser. training


= 17

X 100 28

= 61%

Example 3:

% teachers certified to teach = No. of teachers certified to teach


= 25

X 100 28

= 89%

Example 4:

% teachers trained on LCA= No. of teachers trained on LCA X

100 Total no. of teachers

= 23

X 100 28

= 82%

Example 5:

% teachers teaching on LCA = No. of teachers teaching on LCA


= 20

X 100 28

= 71%

21

Development of teacher competency indicator

To calculate the indicator teacher competency, each index would receive a score of 1 if the

teacher fulfils the requirement and 0 if not. This would result in a maximum total score of 5 and

you could look at the percentage of teachers who scored the maximum. In some instances,

appropriate weights will need to be assigned, e.g. if a formal qualification ‘counts more’ than in-

service training.

Step 1: Add each teacher’s score then add all the scores together and divide by the number of

teachers in the school.

Teachers competency = Sum of all teacher scores

Total no. of teachers

= 110

28

= 3.9

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by gender and grade levels.

Presentation of findings: Teacher competency index

Male teachers Female teachers School total

Grade 1 3.6 3.8 3.7

Grade 2 4.1 4.0 4.1

Grade 3 4.6 4.8 4.7

Grade 4 3.8 4.3 4.1

Grade 5 1.5 3.1 2.3

Grade 6 3.2 4.8 4.0

Grade 7 3.6 4.7 4.2

School total 3.5 4.2 3.9

Interpretation: Primary school teachers’ competency scores approaching 5 indicates a high level

of quality education being provided. Scores lower than 2 indicate that learners may not be

receiving the quality education that is expected. As can be seen in the table above, teachers in

this school seem to be at an acceptable level of competency (school total score of 3.9), however,

Grade 5 teachers especially the male teachers’ competency needs to improve. It is important to

also review each indice percentage score to see if there is one area that could be much lower than

22

the rest. For example in-service training had the lowest percentage score (61%) and could be an

area that your school could improve on.

Quality standards: Data collected will need to be verified through evidence-based information.

Problems: International comparability of teacher qualifications is complicated, as standards and

requirements differ from country to country.

23

A definition of motivation needs to be finalised. How are we going to measure this? Careful

planning of the questions posed and how the results will be summated needs to be discussed

further. Also need to validate findings. Could ask teachers, learners and have observations. For

instance both qualitative and quantitative data will be used, how will this then be calculated into

one indicator score. Also the qualitative data will be subjective. In addition, gathering this data

will be both time consuming and costly.

Currently questions do not cover motivation, suggested that another table be constructed with

other questions, for example, number of days absent/late, average contact hour, etc. This

information can be collected by community-based monitoring by PTA, school management

committees, etc.

Also, 4-scale rather than 5 could be used to avoid ‘responses concentrating on neutral’.

Indicator 5: Teacher motivation index (TMI)

Definition: The percentage of primary school teachers who are motivated about teaching.

Relevance: Teachers who are highly motivated create an environment that is more conducive to

learning (Miller, 1981). Low levels of motivation can result in a decline in the quality of

teaching, depression, greater use of sick leave, and efforts to leave the profession (Ellenberg,

1972; Mendel, 1987).

Data required: Information on teacher attitudes, views and feelings.

Data source: Information from teachers using a teacher motivation scale and principal reports.

Str

ong

ly a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

ly

dis

agre

e

1 I enjoy teaching 5 4 3 2 1

2 I want to improve my teaching skills 5 4 3 2 1

3 I can manage my workload 5 4 3 2 1

4 I can control my class 5 4 3 2 1

5 I keep my learners motivated 5 4 3 2 1

6 I am happy with my salary 5 4 3 2 1

7 I am happy with the teaching and learning

conditions at my school 5 4 3 2 1

8 I feel that I make an impact on my learners 5 4 3 2 1

9 I feel competent to teach 5 4 3 2 1

10 I look forward to my day at school 5 4 3 2 1

24

Calculation method: There are two approaches, firstly the mean score could be calculated and

cut-off scores (see interpretation below) could be used to determine on average whether most of

the teachers have high motivation levels or not.

Method 1

Step 1: Calculate a total score (maximum score of 50) for each teacher for the 10 questions and

divide this by 10.

Teacher mean score = Add the scores obtained for 10 questions

10

= 29

10

= 2.9

Step 2: Add the total scores for each of the teachers together and divide this by the number of

teachers in the school (see Table 1).

Teacher motivation = Add all teachers mean scores

/ 10 Total no. of teachers

= (1036/28)/10

= 3.7

Method 2

The second approach would be to collapse strongly agree and agree together and recode as high

motivation and collapse strongly disagree and disagree together and recode as low motivation

and look at the percentage of teachers who fell in each category (see Table 2).

Teacher motivation = No. of teachers who scored on average a 4 or a 5


= 21

X 100 28

= 75%

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by gender and by grade level

25

Table 1: Mean scores disaggregated by gender and grade

Male teachers Female teachers School total

Grade 1 4.2 4.3 4.3

Grade 2 3.9 3.7 3.8

Grade 3 3.5 3.6 3.6

Grade 4 3.8 3.7 3.8

Grade 5 3.9 3.8 3.9

Grade 6 3.2 3.7 3.5

Grade 7 3.5 3.6 3.6


Table 2: Percentage of teachers with high motivation by gender and grade

Male teachers with

high motivation

Female teachers with

high motivation

Total school teachers

with high motivation

Grade 1 81% 82% 82%

Grade 2 77% 75% 76%

Grade 3 73% 74% 74%

Grade 4 76% 75% 76%

Grade 5 77% 76% 77%

Grade 6 68% 76% 72%

Grade 7 72% 73% 73%


Interpretation: In order to interpret the mean scores (maximum mean score of 5), the following

cut points are recommended:

i) a mean score of 4.2 and above indicates a high level of motivation;

ii) a mean score between 3.4 and 4.2 indicates an acceptable level of motivation;

iii) a mean score of between 2.6 and 3.4 indicates a neutral response, which indicates room

for improvement;

iv) a mean score of less than 2.6 indicates that the teacher has a low motivation level.

For example the interpretation of Table 1, would be that the teachers in this school have an

acceptable level of motivation, with female teachers being slightly more motivated than the male

26

teachers. The interpretation for Table 2, would be that 75% of the teachers in the school have

high motivation and male teachers seem less motivated than female teachers.


Problems: Teachers may not feel free to be honest.

27

Which approach will be taken, is this indicator calculated using all teachers in the school

(including the principal) or only full-time teachers?

May need to represent this index as a learner/teacher ratio

Indicator 6: Teacher/learner ratio (TLR)

Definition: The average number of learners per teacher in a given school year. Class size is

regarded as one of the most important factors affecting learner performance, although there is no

agreement as to its effect and cost-effectiveness in regard to learner performance. Teachers are

defined as persons whose professional activity involves the transmitting of knowledge, attitudes

and skills that are stipulated in a formal curriculum programme to learners enrolled in a formal

educational institution.

Relevance: The teacher/learner ratio is used to measure the level of human resources input in

terms of number of teachers in relation to the size of the learner population.

Data required: Number of learners enrolled and number of teachers in your school.

Data source: School registers, teaching records, school census or surveys for data on enrolment

and teaching staff.

Calculation method: Teacher/learner ratio is calculated by dividing the number of learners

enrolled in the school, by the number of teachers.

Teacher/learner ratio = No. of teachers

No. of learners

= 28

956

= 1:34

28

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by grade for the teacher/learner ratio.


TLR

Grade 1 1:33

Grade 2 1:33

Grade 3 1:34

Grade 4 1:34

Grade 5 1:34

Grade 6 1:35

Grade 7 1:35

School total 1:34

Interpretation: A high teacher/learner ratio suggests that each teacher has to be responsible for a

large number of learners. In other words, the higher the teacher/learner ratio, the lower is the

relative access of learners to teachers. It is generally assumed that a low teacher/learner ratio

signifies smaller classes, which enables the teacher to pay more attention to individual learners,

which may in the long run result in a better performance of the learners. The teacher/learner ratio

in this school is 34:1, which means that there is one teacher for every 34 learners in the school.

Depending on the policy of your education system, this is generally an acceptable ratio.

Quality standards: In comparing and interpreting this indicator, one should take into account the

existence of part-time teaching, school-shifts, multi-grade classes and other practices that may

affect the precision and meaningfulness of the teacher/learner ratio and teacher/classroom ratio.

If feasible, the number of part-time teachers should be converted to ‘full-time equivalent’

teachers; a double-shift teacher is to be counted twice, etc. Care should be taken to include all

staff involved in teaching.

Problems: One of the difficulties in calculating this indicator is that not all the teachers in the

school are involved in full-time teaching. Also, not all teachers are qualified and/or trained.

29

How strict are we going to be as to what is defined as a classroom? Standards need to be set as to

what the optimum number of learners to a classroom should be, will depend on urban/rural

environment and national standards.

Indicator 7: Learner/classroom ratio (LCR)

Definition: The average number of learners per classroom in a given school year.

Relevance: The learner/classroom ratio is used to measure the classroom resources that the

school has.

Data required: Number of learners enrolled and number of classrooms in a school.

Data source: School registers, teaching records, school census or surveys for data on enrolment

and physical resources.

Calculation method: The learner/classroom ratio is calculated by dividing the number of

learners enrolled in the school, by the number of classrooms.

Learner/classroom ratio = No. of learners in the school

Total no. of classrooms in the school

= 956

28

= 34:1

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by grade for the learner/classroom ratio.


LCR

Grade 1 33:1

Grade 2 33:1

Grade 3 34:1

Grade 4 34:1

Grade 5 34:1

Grade 6 35:1

Grade 7 35:1

School total 34:1

30

Interpretation: A low learner/classroom ratio indicates that your school has a sufficient number

of classrooms for its learners. A high learner/classroom ratio indicates that your school needs

resources in terms of classrooms for the learners. For example as indicated in the table above,

there is one classroom for every 34 learners, thus indicating that each class has its own

classroom.

Quality standards: Only fully functioning classrooms should be included, structures not

intended for classrooms such as a garage should not be included?

Problems: Standards need to be determined for the optimum number of learners to a classroom

for a school. Norms and standards are important (how big is a ‘classroom’, and what is this made

of, cement block, mud, open air?).

31

Indicator 8: Learner/textbook ratio (LTR)

Definition: The average number of textbooks available to learners in a given school year.

Relevance: The learner/textbook ratio is used to measure the access that learners have to

textbooks in the school.

Data required: Number of learners enrolled and number of textbooks by grade level in a school.

Data source: School registers, school records on resources.

Calculation method: The learner/textbook ratio is calculated by dividing the number of learners

enrolled in the school, by the number of textbooks.

Learner/classroom ratio = No. of learners in the school

Total no. of textbooks by grade level

= 435

320

= 1.4:1

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by grade.


LCR

Grade 1 3.3:1

Grade 2 4:1

Grade 3 1.2:1

Grade 4 1:1

Grade 5 2.1:1

Grade 6 2.5:1

Grade 7 2:1

School total 2.3:1

Interpretation: A low learner/classroom ratio indicates that your school has a sufficient number

of textbooks. For example as indicated in the table above, there is an average of one textbook for

every two learners.

32

Quality standards: No information is provided on the relevance and ‘condition’ of the textbooks.

Problems: Standards need to be determined for the optimum number of textbook required for

learners.

33

Indicators from the CFS outcome: An equity and equality promoting school have been included

in Indicator 8, as the achievement outcomes of orphans, females and mentally challenged

learners can be attained using this one indicator. Definitions of what cut offs should be used to

determine mastery or achievement levels. A need for national standards. Do we need to say ‘on

nationally defined core-curriculum’ as part of the indicator name?

Indicator 9: Mastery of basic learning competencies (MLC)

Definition: The percentage of learners in the primary school who mastered their specific grade

and learning areas.

Relevance: This indicator links directly to EFA goal 6, which refers to the need for learners to

achieve recognised and measurable learning outcomes, especially in literacy, numeracy and

essential life skills. Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in measuring learner

achievement, as it is recognised as a central measure of education quality and outcomes. Mastery

of basic learning competencies by Grade 4 of the primary education is of particular interest since

this is commonly considered a prerequisite for sustainable literacy.

Data required: Learner performance on relevant achievement tests.

Data source: Learner scores from national or district achievement tests.

Calculation method: Divide the number of learners attaining the competency by the number of

learners in Grade 4 and multiply the result by 100.

MLC =

No. of learners in Grade 4 attaining

competency X 100

No. of learners in Grade 4

= 95

X 100 138

= 69%

34

Types of disaggregation: This indicator can be disaggregated by gender, by ethnic group, by

grade, by learning area, by mental and physical disability, and orphan status.


Male Female School total

Literacy 75% 77% 76%

Numeracy 47% 45% 46%

Life skills 85% 87% 86%


Interpretation: High competency rates indicate that learners have mastered a set of nationally

defined basic learning competencies by Grade 4. However, low percentages indicate that

learning outcomes have not been mastered.

Quality standards: Levels of competency and national standards will need to be agreed upon and

a definition of mastery needs to be formulated.

Problems: Notwithstanding the importance of this indicator in providing information on learning

achievement, there are several problems associated with it. Firstly, there is a need for national

standards. Secondly, learner assessment, per se, provides limited insight into what learners

actually know and do not know. This is particularly true where written tests are the sole source

of information about learner’s knowledge, skills and competencies. Thirdly, conducting large-

scale tests is an extremely costly exercise, and cannot be repeated too frequently. In addition,

cost and efficiency factors often circumscribe how learner achievement is measured, resulting in

many schools resorting purely to written tests based largely on multiple-choice questions.

Fourthly, the concept of ‘learning competencies’, as defined above is left open to interpretation

by schools, thereby reducing the possibility for comparison.

35

Indicator 10: Repetition rate (RR)

Definition: Repetition rate is defined as the number of repeaters in a given grade in a given

school year, expressed as a percentage of enrolment in that grade for the previous school year.

Relevance: This indicator is based on the reconstructed cohort method, which uses data on

enrolment for two consecutive years and data on repeaters for the second year and is a measure

of the internal efficiency of the education system. Although the Dakar goals are not explicit

about efficiency, it is essential that optimal use be made of resources to achieve the goals of

EFA, especially in countries where human and financial resources are inadequate. Sometimes

repetition rate can be used as a measure of education quality, particularly in those countries that

do not have a policy of ‘automatic promotion’, or where learners are permitted to repeat a grade

only once.

Data required: Enrolment by grade for two consecutive years and the number of repeaters from

the same cohort by grade for the second year.

Data source: School register, annual school survey or census for data on enrolment and repeaters

by grade.

Calculation method: Divide the number of repeaters in a given grade in a school year by the

number of pupils from that grade (same cohort) in the previous school year, and multiply the

result by 100. For example the number of Grade 5 learners that did not move on to Grade 6

would entail taking the number of learners who stayed in Grade 5 and dividing this by the

original number of Grade 4 enrolments.

RR =

No. of repeaters in Grade 5

X 100 No. of pupils in Grade 5 the year

before

= 10

X 100 138

= 7%

Types of disaggregation: For each grade level, this indicator can be disaggregated by gender, by

mental and physical disability, and orphan status.

36


Boys Girls Repetition rate

Grade 3 13% 11% 12%

Grade 4 5% 7% 6%

Grade 5 8% 6% 7%

Interpretation: Repetition rate ideally should approach 0%; a high repetition rate reveals

problems in the internal efficiency of the school. When compared across grades, the patterns can

indicate specific grades for which there is higher repetition, hence requiring more in-depth study

of causes and possible remedies. For example, as seen in the table above, 7% of the learners

from 2005 had to repeat Grade 5 and more boys seem to repeat Grade 5 than girls. Inspection of

the repetition rate across grades, the table above reveals that Grade 3 has the highest repetition

rate.

Quality standards: Like other pupil-flow rates (promotion and drop-out rates), the repetition rate

is derived by analysing data on enrolment and repeaters by grade for two consecutive years. One

should therefore ensure that such data are consistent in terms of coverage over time and across

grades. Special attention should also be paid to minimising some common errors which may bias

these flow-rates, such as: over-reporting enrolment/repeaters (particularly in Grade 1); incorrect

distinction between new entrants and repeaters; transfers of pupils between grades and schools.

Problems: Care should be taken when interpreting this indicator as the cohort may have changed

due to drop-out or migration. Also, in countries with automatic promotion, this indicator may not

be valid.

37

This indicator is vague and problems such as defining disruptive behaviour need to be addressed.

What types of discipline issues should be included (e.g. talking in class, detention, violence at

school). Need to review definition of discipline.

Should be measured at different levels i.e. parental, management.

There is a need for a code of conduct to be developed and consensus should be obtained and

guided by local norms to define this indicator.

Participants noted that it may not be feasible to use this as an objectively measurable indicator.

Indicator 11: Discipline in school (DIS)

Definition: Percentage of learners who are demonstrating disruptive behaviour in primary

school.

Relevance: The school environment in terms of safety as well as disciplined learners and

educators is an essential prerequisite for effective learning to take place. Educators’ abilities to

manage and control their learners’ learning and behaviour in the classroom can affect learner

performance (Brophy & Good, 1986).

Data required: Number of learners who are demonstrating disruptive behaviour.

Data source: School records, observations, interviews.

Calculation method: Divide the number of learners who are demonstrating disruptive behaviour

by the number of learners registered in the primary school and multiply the result by 100.

DIS = No. of disruptive learners

X 100 No. of learners registered in the primary school

= 825

X 100 956

= 86%

Types of disaggregation: This indicator can be disaggregated by gender, by grade and by ethnic

groups.

School total Boys Girls

Disruptive learners 86% 87% 85%

38

Interpretation: A high percentage of disruptive behaviour may lead to poor learner performance.

Quality standards: Ensure the definition of discipline or disruptive behaviour is similar if

comparisons are to be made.

Problems: This indicator is vague and problems such as defining disruptive behaviour need to be

addressed.

39

Further discussion around other types of learning material that may need to be included. What

about supplementary learning material available in richer schools. What is meant by access, that

learners share learning materials or that each learner has his or her own learning materials.

Standards are needed. The quality of the learning material should be monitored as well.

Comment on usage versus access.

Need to base on standards.

Need indicators of actual usage of materials.

Need indicator for replacement of materials…life of a book.

Factor in number of learners who cannot afford the book as well as teaching aids.

Indicator 12: Access to learning material (ALM)

Definition: The access that learners have to learning material in the classroom.

Relevance: In many schools learning materials serve as the most valuable resource for learners.

Data required: The number of learners who have the required learning material.

Data source: School or national surveys.

Calculation method: Divide the number of learners with access to learning material by the total

number of learners in the school and multiply the result by 100.

ALM = No. of learners access to learning material

X 100 Total no. of learners in the school

= 679

X 100 956

= 71%

Types of disaggregation: This indicator should be disaggregated by grade, learning area, gender,

and orphan status.

40


Literacy Numeracy Life skills School total

Grade 1 80% 76% 67% 74%

Grade 2 86% 66% 65% 72%

Grade 3 85% 76% 65% 75%

Grade 4 86% 64% 66% 72%

Grade 5 77% 70% 64% 70%

Grade 6 76% 67% 62% 68%

Grade 7 70% 69% 63% 67%

School total 80% 70% 65% 71%

Interpretation: All learners should have access to learning materials such as textbooks. In other

words one learner should have one textbook for each learning area, but this depends on national

policy. For example, as presented in the table above, 71% of the learners in the school have

access to learning materials needed. The results also point out that Grade 7 learners have less

access to learning materials than the other grades and the access to the life-skills learning

materials is less than other learning areas.

Quality standards: This indicator should be monitored before the first term. The quality of the

learning material needs to be investigated monitored as well.

Problems: Standards are needed to govern what materials all learners should have access to and

this should encompass more than just the textbook.

41

May need further discussion around the definition of ‘contact time’ and the period over which

the measurement takes place. Other factors may also need to be taken into consideration such as

teacher presence, while there may be time allocated for teaching the teacher may be absent

frequently. How often should monitoring occur, every term or monthly? Do we need to calculate

this per teacher?

In addition, this indicator should be linked to national guidelines for contact time, and also

consider schools that use the shift system.

Indicator 13: Teacher/learner contact time (TLCT)

Definition: The total amount of time spent on learning and teaching in a week.

Relevance: The more time that is spent on teaching the more learning should occur.

Data required: The hours allocated for learning and teaching in a week.

Data source: School records.

Calculation method: Step 1, divide the number of teaching hours in a week per teacher by the

total number of school hours in a week, divide this by 5, and this will result in the average number

of hours spent on teaching per day. Step 2, divide the sum of teaching hours per day for all

teachers by the number of teachers in the school, and multiply the result by 100.

Step 1 per teacher

TLCT = No. of teaching hours in a week

/ by 5 Total no. of school hours in a week

= 31

35

= 31

5

= 6.2

Step 2 school average

% TLCT = Sum of teaching hours per day for all teachers

X 100 Total no. of teachers in the school

= 189 X 100

42

28

= 6.8

Types of disaggregation: This indicator should be disaggregated by grade and learning area.


TLCT

Grade 1 7.5

Grade 2 7.6

Grade 3 7.3

Grade 4 7.1

Grade 5 4.3

Grade 6 6.9

Grade 7 6.7

School total 7.5

Interpretation: Each country will need to develop a benchmark based on national policy, for

instance according to South African policy, the school day is expected to comprise of seven

hours and teachers are expected to spend 85% of their time during the day on teaching. Therefore

in South Africa teaching time of 85% and above would be expected. As presented in the table

above, this school meets the criteria, although variation in the time spent on learning and

teaching, with Grade 5 teachers spending on average only 4.3 hours per day teaching.

Quality standards: This indicator should be monitored every term. Required time as stated in

policy rarely is translated to practice given teacher workloads, administrative duties and so forth

and these issues need to be taken into account.

Problems: Difficult to compare teacher time as responsibilities differ as do administrative

requirements.

43

May need further discussion around the training referred for school management and SGB

members, as at present this is vague. Cut-off scores will need to be established for the mean

score obtained from the interview schedule. This indicator also needs to be linked to national

policy and standards.

Indicator 14: Effective school management (ESM)

Definition: The structures and systems within a school management team to ensure effective

functioning.

Relevance: The structures and systems that are in place within schools have an important effect

on how schools function, as do the experience and capacity of relevant school management staff.

Data required: Information on the existence of committees and school-governing bodies (SGB)

and training undertaken by these members. Evidence of up-to-date school records and objectives

met by the SGBs.

Data source: School records, structured interviews.

Interview schedule

1 Existence of a functional school

management committee

Yes 1 No 0

2 Existence of a school management system Yes 1 No 0

3 Existence of up-to-date school records Yes 1 No 0

4 Existence of a school-governing body Yes 1 No 0

If yes to anyone of above questions,

please answer Questions 5, 6 and 7. All

Most

Som

e

None

5 Number of school management team

members that has received training 3 2 1 0

6 Number of members of SGB that are

trained 3 2 1 0

7 Number of completed objectives annual

plans of governance bodies 3 2 1 0

44

Calculation method: Add the scores of the seven questions with a maximum score of 13.

Types of disaggregation: Disaggregation is not necessary.

Interpretation: Scores approaching the maximum score of 13 would indicate that an effective

management team is in place. For example school A received a score of 0 as they do not have a

school management team.

Quality standards:

Problems:

45

3. A safe and protective school

You may want to consider incorporating the mode of transport and time taken to get to school

with distance travelled.

A question was raised whether this indicator was a performance indicator or for planning

purposes?

In addition, the complexities relating to time, distance and mode of travel need to be addressed

as well, for example, in urban areas, the schools could be close, but traffic could increase

travelling time or be dangerous to the learner.

Indicator 15: Distance from school

Definition: The distance taken for a learner has to travel to school.

Relevance: The distance that learners have to travel to school must be considered when one

develops a picture of the extent to which learners can take advantage of the schooling

opportunities available. It is reasonable to assume that learners who need to travel long distances

will spend less time at school.

Data required: The number of kilometres the learner travels to get to school.

Data source: Learner questionnaire, learner interviews.

Calculation method: The sum of the distance travelled by each learner divided by the number of

learners in the school, will provide you with the average distance travelled by the learners in

your school.

Method 1

Average distance = The sum of the distance travelled by each learner

No. of learners in the school

= 9 859

956

= 10.3

46

Alternatively you could provide categories:

Method 2

Distance Category

Less than 1 km 5

Between 1 and 3 km 4



More than 8 km 1

The calculation method would then be:

Category 1:

Less than 1 km = No. of learners who travel less than 1 km


= 19

X 100 956

= 2%

Category 2:

1 – 3 km = No. of learners who travel between 1 and 3 km


= 153

X 100 956

= 15%

Category 3:



= 507

X 100 956

= 53%

47

Category 4:



= 95

X 100 956

= 10%

Category 5:

More than 8 km = No. of learners who travel more than 8 km


= 192

X 100 956

= 20%

This procedure would be repeated for each category and presented in a table as follows:

Distance Percentage of learners

Less than 1 km 2%

Between 1 and 3 km 15%



More than 8 km 20%

Total 100%

Types of disaggregation: Data could be disaggregated by ethnic group and gender.

Interpretation: If the average distance is high for a school (or you have a high percentage of

students travelling more than 8 km to school), then this points to access issues that may need to

be addressed.

Quality standards:

Problems:

48

Other indicators to consider under this section:

Indicator of percentage of teachers who have received training on human rights.

# of teachers trained vs. not trained.

Indicator: Presence of teacher/school counsellor to deal with psycho-social issues.

# of X per school or per # of students….

OR # of students who access school counselling services.

But similar to another indicator in Section 6.

49

4. An equity and equality promoting school

Need to have something to compare your findings with in order to interpret. For instance if there

are 50% female teachers is that a good or bad thing?

Focus on equity…needs an indicator for equality.

And qualification, urban-rural deployment.

Indicator 16: Percentage of female teachers

Definition: The percentage of female teachers in your primary school.

Relevance: Gender representivity is important in education.

Data required: Number of female teachers in the primary school.

Data source: School records.

Calculation method: Divide the total number of female teachers in the primary school by the

total number of teachers in the primary school, and multiply the result by 100.

% female teachers = No. of female teachers in the school X

100 Total no. of teachers in the school

= 19

X 100 28

= 68%

Types of disaggregation: Data could be disaggregated by grade level.

% female teachers = No. of female teachers teaching Grade 7

X 100 Total no. of teachers teaching Grade 7

= 3

X 100 4

= 75%

50


Female teachers

Grade 1 100%

Grade 2 100%

Grade 3 75%

Grade 4 50%

Grade 5 50%

Grade 6 25%

Grade 7 75%

School total 68%

Interpretation: As can be seen in the table above, 68% of the teachers in the school are female.

Across grade levels, the table reveals that female teachers are over-represented in Grades 1 and 2

and under-represented in Grade 6.

Quality standards:

Problems:

51

This indicator needs to be divided into two different indicators that focus on toilets and washing

facilities, and/or definition of washrooms need to be clarified as in some instances washrooms

refers to toilets.

It was noted that the formulas were complicated and that this indicators seems to be measuring

quality and when information is needed on quantity.

Indicator 17: Facilities for girls

Definition: Ratio of usable segregated toilets by gender, and number of hand-washing facilities

and disposables for girls.

Relevance: If these facilities are not present, it may lead to less girls attending school.

Data required: Number of segregated toilets, washrooms and sanitary towel disposables for girls

in the school.

Data source: Survey or interviews.

Str

ongly

agre

e

Agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

1 Girls and boys have separate toilets 3 2 1 0

2 The toilets are clean 3 2 1 0

3 There are enough toilets at school 3 2 1 0

4 There are hand-washing facilities for girls and

boys 3 2 1 0

5 The washrooms are clean 3 2 1 0

6 There are enough washrooms at school 3 2 1 0

7 There are enough sanitary towel disposables in

the girls bathroom 3 2 1 0

Number of sanitary towel disposables in the girls

bathrooms in the school

Number of girls toilets

Number of hand-washing facilities for girls

Calculation method: There are two approaches; firstly the mean score could be calculated and

used to determine on average whether there are sufficient facilities for girls in the school.

52

Method 1

Step 1: Calculate a total score (maximum score of 21) for each learner for the 7 questions and

divide this by 7.

Facilities for girls = Add the scores obtained for 8 questions

8

= 18

7

= 2.5

Step 2: Add the total scores for each of the learners together and divide this by the number of

learners in the survey (see Table 1).

Facilities for girls = Add all learners in the survey mean scores

/ 7 Total no. learners in the survey

= 1800

100

= 18

7

= 2.5

Method 2

The second approach would be to collapse strongly agree and agree together and recode as

sufficient facilities and collapse strongly disagree and disagree together and recode as

insufficient facilities and look at the percentage of learners who fell in each category (see Table

2).

Sufficient facilities = No. of learners who scored on average a 3 or a 2

X 100 Total no. of learners in the survey

= 75

X 100 100

= 75%

53

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by gender.



Grade 1 2.8 2.7 2.3

Grade 2 2.7 2.6 2.4

Grade 3 2.6 2.6 2.6

Grade 4 2.5 2.4 2.5

Grade 5 2.5 2.2 2.4

Grade 6 2.3 2.1 2.2

Grade 7 2.4 2.0 2.2


Table 2: Percentage of learners who indicated there are sufficient facilities in the school by

gender and grade

Boys sufficient

facilities

Girls sufficient

facilities

Total sufficient

facilities

Grade 1 91% 62% 77%

Grade 2 89% 65% 77%

Grade 3 92% 59% 76%

Grade 4 88% 49% 69%

Grade 5 93% 61% 77%

Grade 6 96% 53% 75%

Grade 7 97% 59% 78%


Interpretation: Mean scores approaching 3 indicates that there are sufficient facilities for girls in

the school. Percentages lower than 2 indicate that the facilities for girls need to be improved (see

Table 1). Interpreting Table 2, percentages approaching 100% would indicate sufficient facilities

in the school. For example, 75% of the learners indicated that the facilities are sufficient in the

school; however, the school needs to investigate the 25% of the learners who are not satisfied

with the facilities. In addition, Tables 1 and 2 reveal that girls (58%) are more dissatisfied with

the facilities.

54

Interpretation: Low index scores imply low accessibility of facilities for girls.

Quality standards: Regular monitoring should occur.

Problems:

55

Indicator 18: Facilities for learners with disabilities

Definition: The accessibility of physical facilities for learners with disabilities.

Relevance: If all children are to have access into schools, schools should be able to

accommodate learners with disabilities.

Data required: The accessibility of physical facilities for learners with disabilities.

Data source: Survey or interviews.

The accessibility of physical facilities for learners with

disabilities

Str

ongly

agre

e

Agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

1 Are classrooms accessible to learners with disabilities 3 2 1 0

2 Do learners with disabilities have access in the classroom 3 2 1 0

3 Are learners with disabilities able to gain access to the toilets 3 2 1 0

4 Do learners with disabilities have access to sports facilities 3 2 1 0

Calculation method: There are two approaches, firstly the mean score could be calculated and

used to determine on average whether learners with disabilities have access to the facilities in the

school.

Method 1

Step 1: Calculate total score (maximum score of 12) for each learner for the 3 questions and

divide this by 3.

Teacher mean score = Add the scores obtained for 12 questions

3

= 5

3

= 1.7

56

Step 2: Add the total scores for each of the learners together and divide this by the number of

learners in the survey (see Table 1).

Facilities for the disabled = Add all learners in the survey mean scores

/ 3 Total no. of learners in the survey

= 500

100

= 5

3

= 1.7

Method 2

The second approach would be to collapse strongly agree and agree together and recode as

facilities for the disabled and collapse strongly disagree and disagree together and recode as no

facilities for the disabled and look at the percentage of learners who fell in each category (see

Table 2).

Facilities for the disabled = No. of learners who scored on average a 3 or a 2

X 100 Total no. of learners in the survey

= 75

X 100 100

= 75%

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by gender.




Table 2: Percentage of learners who indicated learners with disabilities have access to the

facilities in the school by gender

Boys facilities for the

disabled

Girls facilities for the

disabled

Total facilities for the

disabled


57

Interpretation: Mean scores approaching 3 indicates that learners with disabilities have access to

the facilities in the school. Mean scores lower than 2 imply low accessibility of facilities for

disabled learners (see Table 1). Interpreting Table 2, percentages approaching 100% would

indicate that learners with disabilities have access to the facilities in the school. For example,

75% of the learners with disabilities have access to the facilities in the school. However, this

implies that there are still facilities that are not accessible to learners with disabilities.

Quality standards: Regular monitoring should occur.

Problems:

58

Standards, how many teachers that are trained in gender education should each school have?

What is a high percentage score 80% or 100%?

Level of training needs to be specified and by whom.

Indicator 19: Percentage of teachers trained in gender education

Definition: The percentage of teachers that have been trained in gender education.

Relevance: Trained teachers would be more sensitive to the needs of girls.

Data required: Number of trained teachers in gender education.

Data source: School records and interviews.

Calculation method: Divide the number of teachers trained in gender education by the total

number of teachers in the primary school, and multiply the result by 100.

% teachers trained in gender ed = No. of teachers trained in gender education


= 18

X 100 28

= 64%

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by gender and by grade.



Grade 1 62% 70% 66%

Grade 2 59% 68% 64%

Grade 3 46% 67% 57%

Grade 4 46% 67% 57%

Grade 5 56% 84% 70%

Grade 6 62% 79% 71%

Grade 7 43% 80% 62%


59

Interpretation: High percentage scores would imply high awareness and sensitivity to the needs

of girls. For example as seen in the table above, only 64% of the teachers are trained in gender

education.

Quality standards:

Problems:

60

Standards, how many teachers that are trained in special education should each school have?

What is a high percentage score 80% or 100%?

Level of training needs to be specified as well as where training received.

Indicator 20: Percentage of teachers trained in special education

Definition: The percentage of teachers that have been trained in special education.

Relevance: Trained teachers would be more sensitive to the needs of learners with special needs.

Data required: Number of trained teachers in special education.

Data source: School records and interviews.

Calculation method: Divide the number of teachers trained in special education by the total

number of teachers in the primary school, and multiply the result by 100.

% teachers trained in special ed = No. of teachers trained in special education


= 15

X 100 28

= 54%

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by gender and by grade.



Grade 1 52% 60% 56%

Grade 2 49% 58% 54%

Grade 3 36% 57% 47%

Grade 4 36% 57% 47%

Grade 5 46% 74% 60%

Grade 6 52% 69% 61%

Grade 7 43% 70% 57%


61

Interpretation: High percentage scores would imply high awareness and sensitivity to the needs

of girls and learners with special needs. For example as seen in the table above, only 54% of the

teachers are trained in special education.

Quality standards:

Problems:

62

The definition of primary school aged population needs to be clarified.

There is a need to report on above aged children as well.

Indicator 21: School learner profile

Definition: Percentage of primary school-age children in your school by gender, orphan status,

mental disability, physical disability, and marital status.

Relevance: Important to know the profile of the school population to address specific needs of

the learners.

Data required: School records.

Data source: School-age children by gender, orphan status, mental disability, physical disability,

and marital status.

Calculation method:

Example 1

% school-age children by gender = No. of girls in the school


= 490

X 100 956

= 51%

Example 2

% school-age children by orphan status = No. of orphans in the school


= 400

X 100 956

= 42%

63

Example 3

% school-age children by men. dis. =

No. of men. dis learners in the

school X 100


= 150

X 100 956

= 16%

Example 4

% school-age children by phy. dis. =

No. of phy. dis. learners in the

school X 100


= 70

X 100 956

= 7%

Example 5

% school-age children by marital status = No. of married learners in the school


= 10

X 100 956

= 1%

Types of disaggregation: Data is to be disaggregated by age.

Example 1

% 7 year olds by gender =

No. of 7 year olds girls in the

school X 100

No. of 7 year olds in the school

= 71

X 100 138

= 51%

64


Girls Orphaned

Mentally

disabled

Physically

disabled Married

7 year olds 54% 46% 10% 6% 0%

8 year olds 51% 47% 15% 7% 0%

9 year olds 53% 45% 16% 5% 0%

10 year olds 52% 46% 18% 7% 0%

11 year olds 50% 38% 16% 8% 0%

12 year olds 48% 34% 18% 6% 1%

13 year olds 46% 41% 20% 7% 3%

School total 51% 42% 16% 7% 1%

Interpretation:

Quality standards:

Problems:

65

The following items, listed by workshop participants, do not form indicators but should form

part of the information collected from the school.

3. A safe and protective school

Indicator Comment

1 Reporting systems/mechanisms and

enforcement in place

This indicator is unclear; please clarify what

specifically is being measured. Reporting systems

of principal or teachers? Reporting system

encompasses what?

2 State of buildings/grounds according

to minimum standards

Not sure how to define or measure this? More

information and clarity is needed. As it stands, this

indicator is too broad and could be interpreted in

many ways. Are we asking if the buildings are safe

for learners?

3 Protective policy at school level

(participation of children)

This indicator is unclear, what about the policy?

4. An equity and equality promoting schools

Indicator Comment

1 Number of schools with a female

teacher assigned to girl/children

issues

This indicator is not at the school level. Should

rather ask if there is a teacher assigned to girl issues.

What is meant by girl issues? Further clarification is

needed.

2 Percentage of schools with life-skills

based education programme

Indicator is unclear, are we talking about learners or

teachers? This is not at school level.

5. A health promoting schools

Indicator Comment

1 Number of schools with separate

permanent toilet. Pupil ratio by

gender utiliswation, e.g. toilet for

This indicator is not at the school level. Also not

clear, is the indicator trying to find out if there is

one toilet or many. Also the pupil ratio, not sure if

66

boys and girls by type of toilets. trying to find out how often it is used? Need to

consider learner with disabilities as well.

2 Number of schools with water points

available within school compound

This indicator is not at the school level. Cannot do a

calculation, just a yes/no answer.

3 Number of schools that have

integrated health, hygiene and

HIV/AIDS education based on life

skills as part of curriculum

This indicator is not at the school level. Cannot do a

calculation, just a yes/no answer. Also this

information can be obtained from other sources.

4 Number of learners who participate

in extra-curricular activities related

to health issues

Would need to provide examples, not quite sure

what is being measured here.

5 Number of learners who apply the

knowledge with regard to

health/hygiene and HIV/AIDS

This would be difficult to measure.

67

6. School/community linkages and partnerships

Three new indicators proposed:

a. % of schools with school councils/PTAs and % of women members in the school

councils/PTAs

b. % of school councils/PTAs with annual plan of action

c. % of school councils/PTAs that submit annual report to the local community

Indicator Comment

1 Functional representative

school/community structures in place

The word functional is subjective and will need

further clarification to make it measurable

2 Number of community groups

actively participating in regular

(monthly) meetings, school

development activities

Not necessary to do a calculation formula

3 Number of quarterly monitoring

reports documented by the

community


4 Use of monitoring reports by the

community in planning, reviewing

strategies/activities etc.


5 Number of women assuming critical

leadership roles

Unclear – what does this have to do with primary

school level education, or are you referring to

female teachers that have leadership roles in the

school?

6 Existence and use of a framework for

planning at school/community level

Needs further clarification. Planning for what aspect

of the school?

Lesotho Child-Friendly Schools

Documents

Transcript of Lesotho Child-Friendly Schools