UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS EVALUATION: Country Report ... · UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS...

UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS EVALUATION:

Country Report for Nicaragua

EDUCATION

PREPARED BY:

American Institutes for Research®

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007-3835

AUTHORS:

Elizabeth Spier Olivia Padilla David Osher

Nitika Tolani-Brown

JANUARY 4, 2009

EVALUATION OFFICE

December 2009

EVALUATION REPORT

UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS EVALUATION:

Country Report for Nicaragua

EDUCATION

PREPARED BY:

American Institutes for Research®

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007-3835

AUTHORS:

David Osher Elizabeth Spier

Olivia Padilla Nitika Tolani-Brown

JANUARY 4, 2009

EVALUATION REPORT

UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Evaluation: Country Report For Nicaragua © United Nations Children’s Fund, New York, 2009 United Nations Children’s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017 January 2010 The purpose of the evaluation reports produced by the UNICEF Evaluation Office is to assess the situation, facilitate the exchange of knowledge and perspectives among UNICEF staff and to propose measures to address the concerns raised. The content of this report does not necessarily reflect UNICEF's official position. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors. The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers. For further information, please contact: Evaluation Office United Nations Children’s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017, United States Tel: +1(212) 824-6322 Fax: +1(212) 824-6492

Preface TO BE PROVIDED

Finbar O’Brien Director Evaluation Office UNICEF New York Headquarters

American Institutes for Research

i

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER 1 – The UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Initiative ................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Need for CFS in Nicaragua ....................................................................................... 3

1.3 Nature of the Intervention ................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER 2 – The Current Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Approach ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Sample ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 3 – Findings: the State of Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua ........................................ 11

3.1 A Quality Learning Environment ................................................................................... 11

3.2 A Friendly and Secure Environment ............................................................................. 16

3.3 Water, School Hygiene and Sanitation ......................................................................... 19

3.4 Health and Nutrition ........................................................................................................ 23

3.5 Rights, Responsibilities and Participation ................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 4 – Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 35

References ................................................................................................................................................. 37

Appendix A: Scale Construction Items ................................................................................................... 39

Appendix B: School Head Survey Item-by-Item Responses ................................................................ 43

Appendix C: Teacher Survey Item-by-Item Responses ........................................................................ 46

Appendix D: Student Survey Item-by-Item Responses ......................................................................... 49

Appendix E: School Observation Item-by-Item Responses ................................................................. 52

Appendix F: Classroom Observation Item-by-Item Responses ........................................................... 54

Tables

Table 1 Duration of CFS Implementation by Department and School Type (Town or Rural) ...................... 7

Table 2 Student School Climate Survey Participant Grade Levels by Department and Gender .................. 7

Table 3 Teacher Survey Participants Years Teaching at School by Department and School Type ............ 8

Table 4 Teacher Survey Participants’ Community Residence by Department and Gender ......................... 8

Table 5 School Head Years in Position at Current School by Department and School Type ...................... 8

Table 6 Community Residence of School Head by Department and School Type (Town or Rural) ............ 8

Table 7 School Head Participants Community Residence by Region and Gender ...................................... 9

Table 8 Student Access to Safe Drinking Water at School by Department ................................................ 20


ii

Table 9 Routine Monitoring of School Water Supply by Department ......................................................... 21

Figures

Figure 1 CFS model of change ................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2 A Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment.............................................................. 12

Figure 3 Student-Centred Pedagogy and Student Academic Engagement ............................................. 14

Figure 4 A Safe and Welcoming Classroom Environment ........................................................................ 16

Figure 5 A Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation ........................................................ 20

Figure 6 A Healthy Learning Environment: Child-Centred Services ......................................................... 24

Figure 7 A Safe, Inclusive and Respectful climate ................................................................................... 27

Figure 8 Respect from Teachers and Student Academic Engagement ................................................... 28

Figure 9 An Inclusive Classroom Climate ................................................................................................. 30

Figure 10 An Inclusive Classroom Environment and Student Academic Engagement .............................. 31

Figure 11 Student Participation ................................................................................................................... 33

Photographs

Photograph 1 Traditional Pedagogy ........................................................................................................... 13

Photograph 2 Student-Centred Pedagogy .................................................................................................. 13

Photograph 3 Talking Walls ........................................................................................................................ 15

Photograph 4 Girls Reading in a School Library ......................................................................................... 15

Photograph 5 Unsafe Terrain on School Grounds ...................................................................................... 18

Photograph 6 Clean and Safe Latrines ....................................................................................................... 22

Photograph 7 Unusable Sink without Running Water ................................................................................. 22

Photograph 8 Students Washing Hands ..................................................................................................... 22


iii

Acronyms ADRA Agencia Adventisa para el Desarollo y Recursos Asistenciales (Adventist Agency for Development and Resource Asssistance) AIR American Institutes for Research CICAS Centro de Información y Servicios de Asesoría en Salud (Center for Health Information and Assessment Services) CFS Child Friendly Schools ENACAL Empresa Nicaragüense de Acueductos y Alcantarillado Sanitario (Nicaraguan Water and Sewer Enterprise) EXCELENCIA Expansion of Excellence Centers in Nicaragua with an Emphasis on the APA Methodology IPADE Instituto para el Desarrollo y la Democracia (Institute for Development and Democracy) MECD Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports) MINSA Ministerio de Salud (Ministry of Health) PINE Programa Integral de Nutrición Escolar (Integrated School Nutrition Program) PROGEDES Proyecto de Gestión Educativa para el Desarrollo (Educational Management for Development) RAAN Región Autónoma Atlántico Norte (North Atlantic Autonomous Region) RAAS Región Autónoma Atlántico Sur (South Atlantic Autonomous Region) UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development


iv

Executive Summary

UNICEF contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) in 2008 to conduct a global evaluation of its Child Friendly Schools (CFS) initiative. The evaluation was expected to serve as a baseline assessment that examined the effectiveness of UNICEF’s CFS programming efforts in the areas of inclusiveness, pedagogy, architecture and services, participation and governance, and systemic management. Nicaragua was selected as one of six countries for this global evaluation. The purpose of this report is to present a within-country evaluation of the effectiveness of UNICEF CFS intervention efforts in Nicaragua. Within Nicaragua, the CFS initiative is known as Escuelas Amigas y Saludables (Friendly and Healthy Schools). UNICEF has identified three principles of CFS: Child-Centredness, Democratic Participation and Inclusiveness. These three principles encompass the CFS program components that were formulated within Nicaragua: (1) Quality Learning and Achievement; (2) Friendly and Secure Physical and Environmental Conditions; (3) School Hygiene and a Clean Environment; (4) School Health and Nutrition; and (5) Rights, Responsibilities and Participation.

The UNICEF vision for CFS in Nicaragua was to give ownership to and build capacity within the Nicaraguan Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECD) to sustain the initiative independently. To that end, all resources were funnelled through the MECD and other governing bodies (e.g., Ministry of Health to support the health and nutrition components of the program), and no UNICEF resources were allocated directly to schools or to regional educational offices.

For this evaluation, AIR visited 25 of the 206 schools in Nicaragua that had received support under the CFS initiative. During school visits, local trained data collectors observed the school grounds and buildings; watched teachers in action; surveyed school heads, teachers and students; and conducted interviews and focus groups with school heads, teachers, families, students and other key stakeholders. Within the constraints of the global evaluation, we were not able to tailor all of our evaluation questions specifically to the Nicaraguan context. However, we were able to benefit from the data gathered in Nicaragua in the course of the global evaluation; these data speak to the country’s own focus. Overall, Nicaragua has made significant strides in meeting its goals for the CFS initiative. Most teachers were observed to be using child-centred pedagogical methods, and students showed a greater level of academic engagement where a child-centred approach had been taken by their teachers. Students were engaged in keeping their schools clean, and in observing healthy practices such as hand washing. Most schools had active student governments that had real involvement in their schools. Areas for further improvement included student nutrition, the maintenance of wells for safe drinking water, and the provision of age- and height-appropriate classroom furnishings. Recommendations include building local capacity in conjunction with the initiation of infrastructure projects to ensure that improvements can be locally maintained, providing a means to match school needs with the capacities and interests of NGOs to ensure fair and effective use of resources, and the provision of capacity-building at the local level to improve the ability of communities to leverage local resources and support to help Nicaraguan schools better meet their own needs in a sustainable manner. These needs include provision of safer and more accessible routes to school grounds from the community, and the provision of a comprehensive nutritional support programme that reaches all students in need.


1

CHAPTER 1 – The UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Initiative

The Education Section of UNICEF’s Programme Division introduced the Child Friendly Schools (CFS) framework for schools that “serve the whole child” in 1999.

1 Today, the CFS initiative is UNICEF’s

flagship education programme, and UNICEF supports implementation of the CFS framework in 95 countries

2 and promotes it at the global and regional levels. This chapter introduces the first global

evaluation of CFS.

1.1 Background

UNICEF grounded the CFS framework in the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child’s principles of children’s rights, as well as other international human rights instruments and international declarations such as the Declaration of Education for All (1990). These principles emphasize the right of all children to receive free and compulsory education in settings that encourage enrolment and attendance; institute discipline humanely and fairly; develop the personality, talents and abilities of students to their fullest potential; respect children’s human rights and fundamental freedoms; respect and encourage the child’s own cultural identity, language and values, as well as the national culture and values of the country where the child is living; and prepare the child to live as a free, responsible individual who is respectful of other persons and the natural environment.

3

Three other inputs shaped the early development of CFS. The first was effective school research, which emphasized the importance of school factors for disadvantaged students. The second was the World Health Organization’s mental health promotion initiatives, which focus on the importance of connectedness, caring and access to support. The third was UNICEF’s interest in child-, family- and community-centred approaches to school improvement.

UNICEF envisions and promotes CFS models not as abstract concepts or a rigid blueprint but rather as “pathways towards quality” in education that reflect three key, and interrelated, principles derived from the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, in press):

Child-centredness: Central to all decision-making in education is safeguarding the interest of the child.

Democratic participation: As rights holders, children and those who facilitate their rights should have a say in the form and substance of their education.

Inclusiveness: All children have a right to education. Access to education is not a privilege that society grants to children; it is a duty that society fulfils to all children.

UNICEF anticipates that CFS will evolve and move towards quality education through the application of these principles. The following features of CFS derive from these principles and as the principles gain traction these features are strengthened.

4

1 The Chabbott (2004) desk review, in which she reviewed earlier documents and interviewed key personnel, provides the base for these historical observations. 2 CFS is implemented in 95 countries, one of which is identified as the Pacific Region, which consists of 13 independent island countries and one territory under New Zealand administration (Tokelau). 3 See http://www.unicef.org/crc/ 4 Adapted from the UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Manual (UNICEF, 2009).


2

Although presented separately, the three principles are complementary, interactive, and to some degree overlapping. It is anticipated that when schools implement one principle they will inevitably touch on and begin to apply another. Democratic participation provides an example: Safeguarding the interests of the child (child-centredness) through child-centred pedagogy and a focus on the needs of the whole child should be enhanced both by the active participation of children in their learning and well-being and by the participation by families and communities to provide necessary supports. Similarly, being inclusive of all children and seeking out children should be enhanced by child-centredness and the active participation of students, families and the community.

Figure 1 (below) presents a conceptual framework of CFS models. This framework was developed for and guided this evaluation. It shows how the application of the three principles is expected to lead to quality education and positive student outcomes.

5 First, reflecting the principle of inclusiveness, schools

are accessible and welcoming to all children and seek out children. Within a school, child-centred pedagogical approaches are implemented in a healthy, safe and protective learning environment that encourages the democratic participation of children, parents and the community. Together, these lead to children being safe and included, engaged and challenged, and supported, all of which are important outcomes because children are, in turn, more likely to learn and stay in school. This dynamic leads to students having greater opportunity to learn and succeed in life. It also leads to reduced dropout rates because students and their families see the value of school. Moreover, successful schools are viewed positively by the community and this improved reputation leads to greater demand.

Schools are situated in a broader context than is depicted in this figure. National and local policies, advocacy efforts and multi-sector approaches will determine (to varying degrees) the availability and allocation of resources and school-level policies and practice. Another influence is the efforts of UNICEF, the government and other partners such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations to promote and support schools. Finally, a country’s economic health, demographic profile and political situation, and whether a country has recently experienced a natural disaster or political conflict will necessarily influence how the principles are implemented and realized.

5 While it is grounded in UNICEF’s theory of action, it is also grounded in empirical research that emphasized the importance of providing students, teachers and families with the supports necessary to address barriers to participation and learning and to build conditions for learning and development (e.g., Battistich & Horn, 1997; Christenson & Thurlow, 2004; Greenberg et al., 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Osher, Dwyer & Jimerson, 2006; Osher et al., 2007; Osher & Kendziora, in press; Osterman, 2000; Slap, Lot, Huang, Daniyam, Zink & Succop, 2003; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998).

Principle Features of a child-friendly school derived from principle

Child-centredness

Child-centred pedagogy in which children are active participants, provided by reflective practitioners

Healthy, safe and protective learning environment provided through appropriate architecture, services, policies and action

Democratic participation

Children, families and communities are active participants in school decision-making

Strong links among home, school and community

Policies and services support fairness, non-discrimination and participation

Inclusiveness Child-seeking

Inclusive and welcoming for all students

Gender sensitive and girl friendly

Policies and services encourage attendance and retention


3

Figure 1 CFS model of change

In the remainder of this chapter, we address the need for the intervention in Nicaragua, and the nature of the intervention created by UNICEF in collaboration with other stakeholders to improve Nicaraguan schools.

1.2 The Need for CFS in Nicaragua

Nicaragua is the second poorest country in the Western hemisphere, and the country faces significant challenges in meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015.

6 Nicaragua is classified by UNESCO as a “high enrolment, low survival” country for primary

education, meaning that a large percentage of children begin school but few persist – with only 53 percent still enrolled by grade 5. And the poorest 20 percent of children in Nicaragua receive an average of only 2.5 years of education (UNESCO, 2009). UNICEF’s implementation of the CFS initiative in Nicaragua has its roots in the 1990s. The country lagged behind the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean in many social and economic areas, and faced serious health and human development problems. In 1996, 80 percent of the rural population lacked access to safe drinking water and 68 percent lacked sanitation services. Stakeholders agreed that an existing network of small community-based schools was a convenient hub from which to work to influence and transform families and communities. UNICEF was successful in getting a compact with the government of Nicaragua signed in 1994, ensuring a collaborative effort to improve student education and health through improving the school environment. CFS Nicaragua started with a focus on hygiene and sanitation, and the initiative was eventually expanded to address five key issues within Nicaragua: pedagogy; physical conditions at schools; water, sanitation and hygiene; health and nutrition; and rights, responsibilities and participation.

6 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2 Session 55; United Nations Millennium Declaration; September 8, 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly

http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-55-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000


4

1.3 Nature of the Intervention

The UNICEF Nicaragua office spent significant time planning and adapting the CFS programming elements defined by UNICEF Headquarters to the Nicaraguan context. Within Nicaragua, the CFS initiative is known as Escuelas Amigas y Saludables (Friendly and Healthy Schools). UNICEF has identified three principles of CFS: Child-Centredness, Democratic Participation and Inclusiveness. These three principles encompass the five CFS program components that were formulated within Nicaragua:

1. Quality Learning and Achievement 2. Friendly and Secure Physical and Environmental Conditions 3. School Hygiene and a Clean Environment 4. School Health and Nutrition 5. Rights, Responsibilities and Participation

The UNICEF vision for CFS in Nicaragua was to give ownership to and build capacity within the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (Minsterio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes; MECD)

to sustain the

initiative independently. To that end, all resources were funnelled through the MECD and other governing bodies (e.g., Ministry of Health to support the health and nutrition components of the program), and no UNICEF resources were allocated directly to the schools or to regional educational offices.

Nicaragua leveraged parallel education programs sponsored by international donors to improve conditions in schools, such as the World Food Program (school feeding), World Vision (library materials), USAID EXCELENCIA, and other small programs. The most visible program the site visitors saw was EXCELENCIA, which shares a similar scope with CFS, but with less emphasis on health and infrastructure and more on pedagogy and community participation. The EXCELENCIA program, along with the MECD, developed an educational model that promotes active learning with community participation and a competency-based curriculum incorporating educational needs specific to the indigenous and ethnic communities found in Nicaragua. CFS has been implemented in approximately 200 poor communities throughout Nicaragua where agriculture is the primary source of livelihood. These areas consist of small rural villages and the larger market towns that make up the regional capitals. Some rural CFS schools were highly isolated; they could not be reached by bus, and as a result travel into and out of these communities was infrequent. There were no CFS intervention schools in or near the capital city of Managua. Compared to the other five countries that AIR visited as part of the global CFS evaluation, the average per school student population was noticeably smaller (approximately 30 percent smaller than the nearest other country that took part in the global evaluation, Guyana). This speaks to the rural nature of Nicaragua and the community-based school system that has been developed there.


5

CHAPTER 2 – The Current Evaluation UNICEF contracted with AIR in January 2008 to conduct a global evaluation of the CFS initiative. The evaluation was expected to serve as a baseline assessment that examined the effectiveness of UNICEF’s CFS programming efforts in the areas of inclusiveness, pedagogy, architecture and services, participation and governance, and systemic management. The evaluation was also intended to provide some information as to the cost of intervention. Nicaragua was selected as one of six countries for this global evaluation. This report is based on the data collected for the global evaluation, which featured the following methodology:

Employed site visits by teams – the data collection included one- and two-day site visits to approximately 25 schools in two or more regions in each country, for a total of 150 schools;

Focused on a range of CFS schools in terms of locality (urban versus rural environments) duration of implementation, and demography;

Employed randomization where feasible for surveys and focus groups conducted with students, teachers, and families and for classroom observations;

Addressed phenomenological issues such as learning directly from students and teachers about how they experienced their schools;

Balanced sensitivity to local context and analytical uniformity by combining AIR and local site visitors;

Created and/or tailored 14 instruments and 17 reporting scales to address the needs of the evaluation;

Employed a Web-based Delphi survey of UNICEF Education Officers to contextualize findings; and

Drew on AIR’s experience with other UNICEF CFS from other projects to evaluate and support social and emotional learning to inform this evaluation.

The purpose of this report is to present an evaluation of the effectiveness of UNICEF CFS intervention efforts within the country of Nicaragua. As described in Chapter 1, UNICEF in Nicaragua has focused its efforts in five areas, with an emphasis on health, democratic participation and pedagogy. For this report, evaluation questions and results have been organized across the five components of child-friendly schools as identified within Nicaragua: Quality Learning and Achievement; Friendly and Secure Physical and Environmental Conditions; School Hygiene and a Clean Environment; School Health and Nutrition; and Rights, Responsibilities and Participation. The five core research questions addressed in this report are as follows:

1. To what extent have Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua achieved a quality learning environment?

2. To what extent have Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua achieved friendly and secure physical and environmental conditions?

3. To what extent have Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua achieved access to safe drinking water, good school hygiene, and a clean environment?

4. To what extent have Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua achieved good school health and nutrition?


6

5. To what extent have Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua achieved increased student and community awareness of democratic rights, a shared sense of responsibility, and increased democratic participation in schools?

We will conclude with a section that summarizes themes that emerged in the course of this evaluation, and provides recommendations for the future success of CFS initiatives in Nicaragua.

2.1 Approach

This report is based upon data collected for the CFS global evaluation (AIR, 2009). The global evaluation sampled six countries (Guyana, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa and Thailand) and utilized mixed methods to evaluate how CFS models were implemented in multiple contexts to realize key principles of CFS – child-centredness, inclusiveness, and democratic participation. The data provided a baseline and created tools to monitor future progress. The evaluation combined quantitative, qualitative and visual data of diverse sources, which permitted the triangulation of data to test the consistency of findings obtained from different stakeholders. The evaluation focused upon the range of CFS schools within each country, so schools were selected to represent differences in locality, duration of implementation, and demography.

2.2 Instruments

Multiple assessment tools were developed for the purposes of the global CFS evaluation. These included a student survey (for use in grades 5 and up), teacher survey, school head survey, classroom observation tool, school-wide observation tool (including both indoor and outdoor areas), and interview and focus group protocols to learn more from students, parents, teachers, school heads and other key stakeholders.

7 Overall, the tools designed for the global evaluation aligned with the specific focus of

Nicaragua’s CFS efforts. However, there were a few areas of focus that were specific to Nicaragua that were not assessed as part of the global evaluation and that we could not evaluate here: the provision of dental fluoride at school; ensuring that children have vaccinations and birth certificates; preparation to prevent and confront emergencies; the presence of wastebaskets; the availability of support materials for teachers to integrate concepts such as children’s rights into the curriculum; and the presence of sports, recreational activities and cultural activities oriented toward the community. Nonetheless, the global evaluation produced a significant amount of data that allow us to comprehensively address specific areas of CFS focus in Nicaragua for this report.

2.3 Sample

The scope of this evaluation made it impossible to visit all regions or all of the 206 schools where CFS had been implemented, so AIR worked closely with UNICEF Nicaragua and the MECD to obtain a sample of 25 Nicaraguan schools that had received support from the CFS initiative. It was not feasible to visit schools located in the eastern autonomous regions of the country – Región Autónoma Atlántico Norte (RAAN) and Región Autónoma Atlántico Sur (RAAS) – due to costs and time constraints. These autonomous regions have different cultures and face different issues than schools in the rest of the country. For example, Spanish is not the first language in RAAN/RAAS, and students have to contend with learning Spanish as a second language upon entry to school. The regions are sparsely populated and it can be more difficult for the MECD to provide support to these schools due to their physical isolation. Therefore, findings from this evaluation of CFS in Nicaragua should not be generalized to RAAN/RAAS.

7 See the UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Final Report produced by AIR (2009) for a more complete description of these tools.


7

The selected 25 schools were located in the departments of Estelí, Madríz, Matagalpa and Nueva Segovia. These departments contained a high concentration of schools implementing CFS as compared to the entire country program. The departments were also chosen for their accessibility (relative proximity to the capital and good quality of the highway leading to the regions). Schools were selected to be representative based on the duration that they had participated in the intervention, location, and community characteristics (e.g., typical household income). Participating schools ranged from very small two-classroom schools to larger schools with 15 classrooms. The average school size was about six classrooms. As shown in Table 1, 80 percent of participating schools were in rural communities, with the remaining 20 percent in larger market towns (although the distribution of rural versus town schools was not the same in each department visited). Average CFS implementation time was 4.8 years, ranging from less than one year to over eight. Twenty of the schools had also received support from the USAID EXCELENCIA project.

Table 1 Duration of CFS implementation by department and school type (town or rural)

Matagalpa Estelí Madríz Nueva Segovia Total Nicaragua

Town Rural Town Rural Town Rural Town Rural Town Rural

2 years or fewer 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Between 2 and 4 years 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 6

5 years or more 1 1 1 6 0 4 2 1 4 12

At all schools, students in grades 5 and higher were invited to complete the school climate survey. Most primary schools only served students up to grade 5, so there were relatively few students from upper grades in the sample. Table 2 shows the grade levels of student participants, broken down by department and gender. With the exception of the department of Matagalpa, more girls attended grades 5 and higher than boys in the schools evaluated. Table 2 Student school climate survey participant grade levels by department and gender


Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Grade 5 30 45 112 88 34 26 46 47 222 206

Grade 6 30 36 98 66 32 33 63 48 223 183

Grade 7 0 0 34 22 15 8 0 0 49 30

Grade 8 0 0 0 0 11 10 0 0 11 10

Grade 9 or Higher 0 0 0 0 10 1 25 15 35 16

Total Participants 141 420 180 244 985

All teachers at each of the 25 schools were invited to take part in the school climate survey. Table 3 shows characteristics of teachers who completed the survey. It is worth nothing that as a group, teachers in the department of Madríz had fewer years of experience teaching at their current schools when compared with teachers from the other departments. Participating teachers from Matagalpa and Nueva Segovia only taught primary grades, and only three teachers from Estelí taught upper grades. In Madríz, teachers were distributed across all grade levels except grade 12.


8

Table 3 Teacher survey participants years teaching at school by department and school type



Less than 2 years 4 0 2 14 0 15 2 3 8 32

3 to 5 years 5 1 4 9 0 4 7 4 16 18

6 to 10 years 3 2 4 8 0 7 3 2 10 19

11 to 15 years 3 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 6 4

More than 15 years 6 2 8 11 0 1 2 1 16 15


Table 4 shows the distribution of male and female teachers across participating departments, and the number of teachers in each who reported they did or did not live in the community where their school was located. Nearly all teachers were female. Teachers were fairly evenly split as to whether they lived in their school’s community, with the exception of Madríz, where 86 percent lived outside of the community. Table 4 Teacher survey participants’ community residence by department and gender


Live in school

community Female Male

Female Male

Female Male

Female Male

Female Male

Yes 14 0 34 1 4 0 11 1 63 2

No 12 0 28 2 25 0 12 1 77 3

Most of the school heads who participated in this evaluation were relatively new to that role in their respective schools, especially in schools located in towns (Table 5).

Table 5 School head years in position at current school by department and school type

Matagalpa

Estelí

Madríz

Nueva Segovia Total

Nicaragua


Less than 2 years 2 0 0 3 0 4 2 0 4 7

3 to 5 years 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 6

6 to 10 years 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

11 to 15 years 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

More than 15 years 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2


As shown in Table 6, most school heads in rural areas (88 percent) assumed teaching duties in addition to serving as school head, but this was only true for one school located in a town (20 percent).

Table 6 Community residence of school head by department and school type (town or rural)

Matagalpa

Estelí

Madríz

Nueva Segovia Total

Nicaragua


Also currently teach at this

school 1 2

0 10

0 2

0 0

1 14

Do not also currently teach at this school

1 0

1 0

0 2

2 0

4 2


9

All participating school heads from Matagalpa reported that they lived in their school’s community, but school heads from other departments were mixed in this regard (Table 7). While 33 percent of participating school heads were male (Table 7), only 3 percent of teachers were (see Table 4 above).

Table 7 School head participants’ community residence by region and gender


Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Live in school

community 4 0

3 1

0 1

1 1

8 3

Do not live in school community

0 0

5 3

2 2

1 0

8 5

We also interviewed six key informants from across five organizations that UNICEF Nicaragua identified as influential and highly involved in the CFS initiative: the MECD; PROGEDES (Educational Management for Development); the EXCELENCIA project administered by USAID in collaboration with the MECD; the Instituto para el Desarrollo y la Democracia (IPADE); and the ENACAL National Water Agency. The evaluation team was unable to arrange a meeting with a representative from Handicap International, which had done significant infrastructure work in at least half of the schools visited for this evaluation.

2.4 Data Collection

Field data collection took place from July 22 through July 31, 2008. The nine local data collectors were highly experienced and all had collected data for USAID- or World Bank-funded programs. Data collectors were trained in person by AIR staff to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach to completing the evaluation. The training agenda consisted of an explanation of the program (provided by UNICEF), a description of and rationale for the evaluation (provided by AIR), review and final adaptation of instruments, review of the site visit protocol, and review of the data collection schedule. AIR staff also ensured that local data collectors were well informed regarding proper procedures for the protection of human subjects. There were two types of site visits: regular and intensive. The regular visits included the collection of the school records data; school and classroom observations; student, teacher and school head surveys; and the short form of the school head interview.

8 The intensive site visits also included the collection of

teacher, parent, and student focus group data; and an extended school head interview. A regular visit typically lasted about three and a half to four hours, whereas an intensive visit usually lasted at least five hours. The data collectors were organized into teams of two, leaving a “floating” data collector that accompanied one of the teams that was conducting an intensive site visit. The two AIR staff accompanied a different local data collector team each day, rotating groups. The data collection team found that the division of tasks worked best when upon arrival the team would leave the school records data sheet with a school administrator who had access to the appropriate files. Then one data collector administered the written student and teacher surveys in a classroom while the other observed a different classroom. Data collectors rotated classrooms until all observations and surveys were collected. Then, if it was an intensive site visit, data collectors would work together to conduct the student and parent focus groups. Student focus groups typically lasted approximately 30 minutes, and were well attended. Students were interviewed in focus groups of about four or five, with boys and girls being interviewed in separate focus groups. The students were usually identified by the school head, and tended to include the student leaders (e.g., student council president). In some cases it seemed that students had been prepared in advance to answer certain questions about CFS, based on their repeated use of formulaic phrases. In these cases, data collectors were able to use additional probing to get past any formulaic phrases to learn what students themselves were thinking.

8 See appendices B through F for copies of surveys and observation forms, including response frequencies for each tool.


10

Although most school heads knew that that the evaluation team would be visiting, almost none of them had been told that the visit should include a focus group with parents. In these cases, school heads usually sent a child out in to the community to find parents who were available to participate in the focus group. Parents participated in focus group discussions that typically lasted approximately 45-60 minutes. With only one exception, all parent focus group participants were female (mothers and grandmothers). School involvement has typically been viewed as a role for female relatives of children in these communities, so the absence of fathers and other male relatives in the focus groups was regrettable but not unexpected.

Teachers were interviewed in focus groups of two to eight individuals either during lunch/recess time or after school. Typically all teachers at the school participated in the focus group, with the exception of the larger schools, where some teachers had to monitor school grounds while others participated in the focus group. The school head interview was typically completed last to give data collectors the opportunity to first observe the school and get to know its teachers and students, allowing for more context-specific questions to be asked in the interview.

All data collectors had digital voice recorders to record all interviews and focus groups to ensure that participant views and quotes were captured accurately. To ensure adequate comprehension of survey questions among students who might be poor readers, data collectors read each survey item aloud and then gave students time to mark their responses on their survey sheets. Daily debriefings among the entire data collection team proved to be a useful way to share experiences and best practices, and to address questions or concerns.

UNICEF organized the one-on-one interviews with the key informants listed above. All meetings were attended by the AIR site visitors, along with a local data collector. For these interviews, data collectors used the specific interview protocols for the MECD, UNICEF, or local NGO interviewees as appropriate.

2.5 Limitations

This evaluation had several limitations. First, due to constraints of time and resources, it was not possible to visit a representative sample of schools in Nicaragua that had been involved in CFS programming as this would have involved travel to more than the four areas we were able to visit for this evaluation. As mentioned above in section 2.3, we were unable to visit schools in RAAS/RAAN due to time and cost constraints, and theses autonomous regions have significant differences in culture and language from the areas that we were able to visit. Second, we were unable to visit schools where CFS had not implemented, so we were not able to compare schools with CFS programming to “business as usual” in Nicaragua. Third, because CFS programming had already been implemented prior to the evaluation, we were limited in our ability to identify what had changed at the school as the result of CFS interventions. Some respondents spontaneously talked about how things had changed in their schools, but this information was not gathered systematically, was not triangulated with other sources of information, and relied on selective recall by participants. And finally, because schools were not selected randomly to receive CFS support and therefore may have had something about them that was different from other schools that had not been provided with support, we cannot be sure that CFS programming would lead to the same results if it were expanded into other schools that had previously not been selected for special support. Taken together, these limitations negatively impact our ability to generalize findings to all areas of Nicaragua, and leave us unable to identify unique impacts of CFS programming (versus changes that would have happened at schools anyway) due to our lack of comparison schools.


11

CHAPTER 3 – Findings: the State of Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua

In this chapter, we present key findings with regard to how well Nicaragua had achieved its goal of developing schools that were child friendly across the five Nicaraguan CFS focal areas. For each of the five core research questions, we present the indicators associated with that focal area that were developed by UNICEF Nicaragua and the MECD.

9 We then present quantitative and qualitative data

gathered in the course of the CFS global evaluation that can inform the reader about associations between school qualities and student engagement, successes, challenges and ongoing issues for those indicators.

10 The focal areas listed above will be addressed in this report to the extent that they were

assessed as a part of the global evaluation. Student disengagement from school is a significant issue in Nicaragua, so where feasible and relevant, we examined relationships between qualities of schools and teachers and student engagement in school – with a particular focus on the three core principles of CFS (child-centeredness, inclusiveness and democratic participation).

3.1 A Quality Learning Environment

We first sought to uncover the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua had achieved a quality learning environment? As described in Chapter 1, UNICEF Nicaragua and the MECD have defined a child-friendly school as having five characteristics that provide an environment that promotes quality learning and achievement: (1) teachers trained in child-centred methods, in a life-skills-focused pedagogical approach, and in the rights of children and adolescents; (2) textbooks and workbooks for each student, and comprehensive didactic guides and workbooks for each teacher; (3) learning corners, “talking walls” and murals created with support of students; (4) mini-libraries with materials regarding the rights of children and adolescents; and (5) sports, recreational activities and cultural activities that are oriented toward the community. In this report, we are unable to address the last item – the presence of sports, recreational activities and cultural activities – because data were not collected in this area as part of the global evaluation.

3.1.1 Teachers trained in child-centred methods, in a life-skills focused pedagogical approach, and in the rights of children and adolescents At the core of the CFS model is a pedagogical approach that conveys to students that learning is important and worthwhile, encourages students’ active engagement, and promotes learning – a challenging, student-centred learning environment. When students are encouraged to be actively engaged in the learning process and to do well by their teachers, and when they are presented with interesting learning opportunities, they are more likely to stay in school and succeed academically (National Research Council, 2004). Students’ active participation in learning reflects not only a child-centred approach to pedagogy but also the principle of democratic participation (Dewey, 1997).

In order to provide meaningful information about the provision of this type environment in CFS-supported schools, we developed a Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment scale made up of student survey items that together built a picture of the learning environment that was more informative than just looking at individual items or features.

11 The Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment scale

measures how much students perceive that teachers and other adults in the school challenge them, and encourage the active engagement of students in the learning process and the academic success of all students. The scale also measures how strongly students feel that what they are learning is interesting. See Appendix A, Table 1 for a full list of the student survey items that made up this scale. Figure 2 (below) shows that on the Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment scale, 95 percent of participating students in Nicaragua rated their schools satisfactory or above on this dimension, indicating

9 See ¿Qué es la Iniciativa de Escuelas Amigas y Saludables? produced by the MECD (2005).

10 See Appendices B-F for response frequencies for each item on each quantitative assessment tool.

11 The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was α = .79.


12

that their schools were providing interesting learning experiences in which students feel actively involved and academically supported.

Figure 2 A Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment (Student Survey)

Needs Improvement: Students think that teachers or other adults at the school do not expect all students to succeed academically and do not feel that their active participation in their own learning is encouraged often. They do not feel interested in what they are learning and may not like or see the value of school.

Satisfactory: Students generally think that their teachers and other adults in the school expect all students to succeed academically, encourage students to take school seriously, and provide challenging learning opportunities, although they may feel that students do not always put forth effort. Students feel that teachers encourage their active engagement in class most of the time. Students feel that for the most part, what they are learning is interesting.

Excellent: Students think that their teachers and other adults in the school expect all students to succeed academically, encourage students to take school seriously, and provide challenging learning opportunities. Students think that the teachers encourage students to participate in and share their ideas and opinions in class and that teachers will listen to students’ explanations. Students think that what they are learning is interesting.

Teachers and students were asked several survey questions regarding the use of student-centred teaching methods at their school. We also asked teachers about their attitudes toward aspects of student-centred teaching, and overall, Nicaraguan teachers seemed to have embraced this orientation. Research suggests that teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning play a significant role in teacher behaviour (Aubusson & Webb, 1992; Ernest, 1994). In Nicaragua, 96 percent of teachers (n = 145) believed that students have better academic achievement in classrooms where their active participation in learning is encouraged. However, 66 percent (n = 100) also indicated that learning is most effective when based primarily on lectures, with student responding when called on, and 11 percent (n = 16) indicated that allowing students to discuss and debate ideas on class takes time away from learning. In the classroom, 63 percent of teachers (n = 41) were observed to ask questions that facilitated higher-order thinking (e.g., application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation), and 51 percent (n = 32) related information presented in their lessons to students’ lives outside of the classroom or to life skills. Most teachers provided a positive and respectful environment, with 83 percent (n = 54) using positive methods to manage student behaviour and 97 percent (n = 62) consistently addressing students in a respectful manner. These observations were confirmed by student survey results: Ninety-one percent of students (n = 917) reported that students at their school were often encouraged to share their ideas and opinions in class, 92 percent (n = 927) reported that students were encouraged to work together, and 92 percent (n = 926) reported that teachers at their school would listen if students tried to explain their answers in class or on assignments.

16 14 4 7 11

5

58 63

48

70

57 67

25 24

48

22 32 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nigeria South Africa Philippines Thailand Guyana Nicaragua

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts

Needs Improvement Satisfactory Excellent


13

Photograph 1 (upper left) shows a classroom in Nicaragua in which the teacher lectured from the front of the classroom while students took notes, while Photograph 2 (lower left) shows a more student-centred approach with a group of students working together. These survey, interview and observational results together suggest that while most Nicaraguan teachers have embraced the idea of child-centred pedagogy to at least some degree, more traditional practices linger in many classrooms. For example, when asked if the school faced challenges in implementing child-centred pedagogy, one teacher responded, “At first we did not accept these changes and already had bad habits, but little by little we are acquiring better habits” (Teacher 2). Because student disengagement from school is such a serious issue in Nicaragua, we were interested to learn whether the use of more student-centred methods in the classroom was associated with greater levels of student academic engagement. The use of student-centred pedagogy is a key feature of the CFS core principle of child-centeredness (see section 1.1 above). We looked at academic engagement in two areas: the individual student wanting to come to school in the first place (captured by the student survey item I look forward to coming to school), and the desire of the individual student to remain engaged in his or her education (captured by the item I want to complete secondary school). We selected the six Nicaraguan schools where students had expressed the highest level of agreement with

the student survey item Students are encouraged to share their ideas and opinions in class (the most student centred schools) and compared their student academic engagement with students from the six schools with the lowest levels of agreement (the least student centred schools). As shown in Figure 3 (below), students who attend the most student centred schools were significantly more likely to report that it was very true that they wanted to complete secondary school when compared with students who attended the least student centred schools.

12 Differences were not statistically significant for the item I

look forward to coming to school.13

12

t(210.1) = – 4.84, p < .001 13

t(254) = –1.00, ns

Photograph 1 Traditional Pedagogy

Photograph 2 Student-Centred Pedagogy


14

Figure 3 Student-Centred Pedagogy and Student Academic Engagement

3.1.2 Textbooks and workbooks for each student, and comprehensive didactic guides and workbooks for each teacher The presence of specific learning materials, such as textbooks, was not directly observed as part of the CFS global evaluation, but we were able to obtain teacher reports in this area via surveys. Teachers gave mixed reports regarding the availability of pedagogical resources. Sixty-four percent of teachers (n = 98) indicated that teachers at their school had the resources they needed to plan effective lessons. Teachers were almost evenly split as to whether they felt that students at their school had the materials that they needed to learn, with 47 percent (n = 72) indicating that they did, but the other 53 percent (n = 80) indicating that they did not. Most information elicited in interviews regarding the availability of materials focused on ongoing challenges faced in this area. For example, teachers from one school said, “[A] challenge is didactic materials in that not all children have textbooks and the teachers need to be more dynamic to create materials and to be able to develop their classes” (Teachers 9). And a school head summed up the importance of materials this way:

An essential part [of child friendly schools] is this pedagogical component – learning – and we need to make sure that we have didactic materials. With these resources, I think that one can provide better support [for students]. I would say that it is proportional. These didactic materials should include text books… audio visual materials [and] models for practice (School Head 22).

3.1.3 Learning corners, “talking walls” and murals created with support of students As part of the global CFS evaluation, assessors looked for the presence of student work and other artwork on the walls of the classroom because these features provide evidence that the school has taken a student-centred approach – someone has made an effort to provide an attractive and stimulating environment for students. In 91 percent of classrooms observed (n = 59), posters, artwork, and/or maps (commercially produced or handmade) appeared on the walls. Examples of student work or projects were displayed in 46 percent of classrooms (n = 30). At a school where there were “talking walls” (walls that were decorated with materials meant to convey information to students or share student work), the school head stated: “We have decorated classrooms, and not just today. We have classrooms with talking walls that work in conjunction with students and teachers. You can see them” (School Head 9). And students said, “In each classroom we have a student government that supports the teacher in the creation of didactic materials, and we make murals…” (Girls 13) and, “We have also helped the teachers to make murals…” (Girls 22).

78%

55%

84% 84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Look Forward to School Want to Attend Secondary School

Least StudentCentred

Most StudentCentred


15

Photograph 3 (left) provides an example of student work prominently displayed at eye level for both children and adults in a kindergarten classroom. 3.1.4 Mini-libraries with materials regarding the rights of children and adolescents

School libraries were not directly assessed as part of the CFS global evaluation. However, several respondents addressed the presence, absence, or quality of libraries in their schools in the course of interviews in Nicaragua. Some spoke of the struggle they faced in securing an adequate library for their school. For example, one school head said, “To supply a complete library for our school is very difficult. Access

to communications is poor. This makes it difficult for teachers to find a lot of the information they need to develop their classes” (School Head 7). Others spoke about the benefits their school gained as a result of having a library, saying things like, “Having a library has motivated us” (School Head 3), and,

[At this school] the teaching is not like at other schools because [here] the teaching has become specialized. Here we have… good quality maps, a lot of materials that help the teacher, a mini-library. That is to say, we have a lot of things that other schools do not have (Parents 2).

Photograph 4 (left) shows two girls reading together in a mini library – but note that only some of the schools visited for this evaluation had a library of this quality, and that this school had been able to obtain books from other organizations in addition to UNICEF. A more modest library is typical of Nicaraguan CFS schools.

3.1.5 Section summary: A quality learning environment

In this section, we sought to explore the extent to which Nicaraguan schools have achieved a quality learning environment. We found that in schools where more student-centred instructional approaches were used, students were more likely to want to continue their education when compared to students who attended

schools that used less student-centred pedagogy. Most teachers seemed to believe in the value of child-centred pedagogies, but implementing new, more student-centred techniques in the classroom remained a challenge for some. A lack of educational materials was a concern for many teachers and school heads. The presence of an adequate school library was seen as a resource for teachers as well as students, and a source of encouragement for academic excellence. The lack of a good library was a source of disappointment in some schools. Despite the ongoing lack of resources, nearly all of the schools observed had managed to create a more cheerful and stimulating classroom environment with posters and maps (often made by students), and were encouraging students to take pride in their work by displaying it in the classroom.

Photograph 3 Talking Walls

Photograph 4 Girls Reading in a School Library


16

3.2 A Friendly and Secure Environment

UNICEF in Nicaragua and the MECD have defined a child-friendly school as having the following characteristics that make it friendly and secure: (1) doors, windows and roof in good condition; (2) classrooms that are clean, well ventilated, painted, and well lit, with functioning chalkboards; (3) desks, tables and chairs for each student that are in good condition; (4) planted areas for recreation and sport; and (5) safety, freedom from hazards (holes, open wells, ditches, clutter), a location that provides safety, and a design without architectural barriers. Results will be provided in each of these areas to the extent that they were assessed for the global evaluation. The provision of a safe and welcoming classroom environment has been a focal area for UNICEF efforts globally. As part of the global evaluation, we created a Safe and Welcoming Classroom Environment scale that captured the multiple elements that come together to create this type of environment, including protection from the elements and a comfortable temperature, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate work space for students, and neat classrooms with educational materials and/or artistic creations on the walls.

14 The Safe and Welcoming Classroom Environment scale measures the extent to which the

classroom’s architecture and design ensures the physical safety and comfort of students, thus creating an environment conducive to learning. See Appendix A, Table 2 for a list of the classroom observation items that made up this scale. As shown in Figure 4, Nicaragua was one of four countries where all schools were rated satisfactory or excellent on the Safe and Welcoming School Learning Environment scale. At a minimum, these schools had buildings that were structurally sound and in good physical condition, students were protected from the elements, and classrooms were neat and clean. Figure 4 A Safe and Welcoming Classroom Environment (Classroom Observation)

Needs Improvement: The classroom lacks adequate ventilation and lighting. Students may not be protected from the elements. Outside noises affect teaching and learning within the classroom. Students do not have sufficient space to work, and the classroom may be dirty or disorderly in appearance.

Satisfactory: The classroom is protected from the elements, and has adequate ventilation and lighting so that students may complete their assignments. The classroom is also neat in appearance with some artwork or educational posters on the walls. Each student has his or her own space to work.

Excellent: The classroom is well ventilated and lighted, and is a comfortable temperature so that students are comfortable working. Students also have sufficient space to complete their class activities and their own chairs. The classroom is neat in appearance and attractive and welcoming, with student artwork posted on the walls. The classroom has been arranged with students in mind – for example, all students can easily see the blackboard from their seats, and the furniture is appropriate for students to work comfortably.

14

The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was α = .73.

0 6

0 0 0 0

44

69

48 45

35 35

56

25

52 55

65 65

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f C

lass

roo

ms



17

3.2.1 Doors, windows and roof in good condition

Several aspects of physical structure were observed both inside and outside of classrooms as part of the CFS global evaluation. Overall, school buildings were observed to be in good structural condition in 84 percent of the schools visited (n = 21), and in good physical condition (e.g., no peeling paint, no broken windows) in 64 percent (n = 16). Ninety-one percent of classrooms (n = 59) were fully protected from the elements. Nicaraguan schools had the highest percentage of schools in good structural and physical condition when compared to schools in the other five countries in the global evaluation. 3.2.2 Classrooms that are clean, well ventilated, painted, and well lit, with functioning chalkboards Most classrooms were observed to be clean and comfortable, with 71 percent (n = 46) observed to be very clean and none observed to be very dirty. Eighty-six percent of classrooms (n = 56) had adequate ventilation, and 86 percent (n = 56) were a comfortable temperature for students on the day of the visit. There was adequate lighting for students to work in 77 percent of classrooms (n = 50), and 89 percent (n = 58) had a blackboard that students could see clearly from their seats. 3.2.3 Desks, tables and chairs for each student that are in good condition As part of the global evaluation, we assessed the adequacy of classroom furnishings for students. Seventy-seven percent of classrooms (n = 50) provided adequate space for students to work. All students were observed to have a chair or bench to sit on while working. Consistent with what was observed in classrooms, teachers and school heads from some schools also described having adequate tables, desks and chairs for all students, while others identified a lack of classroom furnishings as a school-wide issue. One school head said, “One of the most important things is to have adequate furniture for the smaller children because when their chairs are very tall, they tend to [have physical problems] if they spend a lot of time seated in these tall chairs” (School Head 8). Interviewees identified some issues with the suitability of the school’s furnishings for all students. For example, one school head said, “There are desks, but they are not appropriate for children in the lower grades, nor for children with differing abilities” (School Head 20). Teachers from another school said, “The desks are standardized. They cannot be adjusted to the needs of the children” (Teachers 12). Several school heads also identified a lack of appropriate desks for left-handed children at their schools, with one school head saying that these students had to be taught to write right handed because of this issue (School Head 3, School Head 5). Classroom observation confirmed these statements, with 20 percent of classrooms (n = 13) having furniture that was not completely adequate in terms of being the correct size or configuration for students to work comfortably. 3.2.4 Planted areas for recreation and sport Although the global evaluation did not specifically address the presence of planted areas, we did examine whether outdoor areas for recreation and sport were safe and comfortable for students. Outdoor play areas and equipment were safe and in good repair in only 16 percent of schools (n = 4). In 52 percent of schools (n = 13), students were completely unprotected from the elements in outdoor play areas (e.g., excessive sun, dust, rain or wind). Most schools were not designed in a way that allowed for a large enough playground or field for sports activities. Due to the lack of space, children tended to play in areas that were not meant for recreation – some of which were hazardous (e.g., near latrines or trash piles). Students were often seen playing in the street next to the school because of the lack of space on school grounds. One group of students described how a lack of safe play space affected students:

As there is no space to have physical education, sixth and fifth grade children do not have physical activities. The children from sixth grade take care of the well, giving it 300 turns in 15 minutes to bring up the water [and] the children from fifth grade clean the latrines during the time set aside for physical education (Girls 12).


18

3.2.5 Safety, freedom from hazards (holes, open wells, ditches, clutter), a location that provides safety, and a design without architectural barriers The CFS global evaluation included a number of observations and interview questions that addressed the safety and accessibility of school grounds. In this section, we will address physical safety at school, and accessibility of school grounds for all children and adults and specifically for those with physical disabilities. Eighty percent of schools (n = 20) were free of litter and garbage (except in designated containers), and 72 percent (n = 18) had school grounds that were free of unwanted animals (e.g., stay dogs) and animal waste. When students, teachers and parents voiced concerns about school safety, they tended to focus on the need for fences, hedges or other physical barriers. Seventy-six percent of schools (n = 19) had some kind of physical barrier between traffic and the school grounds if the school was located near a road, but the rest did not and there were often other hazards present, such as steep terrain or bodies of water. For example, boys from one focus group said:

We don‟t feel very safe. The school is near to a river, and sometimes when it is very full we are afraid. Plus we do not have a security fence. We have a hillside facing the fifth and sixth grade classes, and this can tumble down when we have rain. This is also not protected by a fence, and the littlest children can come up and [then] fall (Boys 24).

Other students also mentioned that the terrain where the school was located presented a safety concern:

In this school, there are a lot of classes and the small children have to climb the hill, and at the same time the bigger children can fall. The mothers do not like to come to meetings at the school while they are pregnant because they are afraid [of the terrain] (Girls 24).

Findings were mixed with regard to access for students and adults with physical disabilities. In 55 percent of schools (n = 12), all school buildings and classrooms were accessible to students with disabilities. Among the remaining schools, school buildings were only somewhat accessible in 23 percent (n = 5), and

not at all accessible in the remaining 23 percent (n = 5). At 45 percent of schools (n = 9), all outdoor play areas were accessible to students with physical disabilities, but outdoor play areas were not at all accessible at 35 percent (n = 7). Assessors noted that in many cases, school grounds were accessible to individuals with disabilities once they arrived at school, but that the school itself was inaccessible from the surrounding community. Photograph 5 (left) provides an example of terrain on school grounds that would be difficult for students with physical disabilities to traverse, and is dangerous for all students due to the presence of burning trash.

4.2.6 Section summary: A friendly and secure environment In this section, we explored the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved friendly and secure physical and environmental conditions. Nicaraguan schools were in reasonably good structural condition and comfortable for students overall. One issue was the lack of desks that were of suitable size or configuration to meet the needs of all kinds of students. And while Nicaraguan schools had made significant strides in ensuring that the school buildings were accessible to individuals with physical disabilities, students and community members often faced significant physical challenges travelling from home to the school grounds.

Photograph 5 Unsafe Terrain on School Grounds


19

3.3 Water, School Hygiene and Sanitation

“[At schools], one can observe things that seem insignificant but that in the end are very substantial, such as [students] brushing their teeth and washing their hands, and the maintenance of the water supply. The little that we have, we use wisely to create an ambient culture that empowers the children in ways that benefit them” (School Head 5).

In this evaluation, we addressed the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved access to safe drinking water, good school hygiene and a clean school environment. As described in Chapter 1, UNICEF Nicaragua and the MECD have defined a child-friendly school in the area of water, hygiene, and sanitation as having the following characteristics: (1) safe drinking water; (2) hygienic facilities (latrines, toilets, etc.) that are clean, separated by sex, appropriate for the age group(s) who will be using them, and adequate for students with different abilities; (3) hand washing facilities; (4) freedom from garbage, standing water and other sources of contamination; (5) wastebaskets in every classroom and wastebaskets with lids in common areas; and (6) an educational program with an emphasis on life skills regarding water, sanitation, and hygienic and healthy practices for students and members of the community. Results will be provided in each of these areas to the extent that they were assessed as a part of this global evaluation. Additional findings will also be provided regarding aspects of water, school hygiene and sanitation that may be of interest, even though they are not on the country-specific list of core characteristics of child-friendly schools. For the CFS global evaluation, we created a composite Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation scale that captured key elements of hygiene and sanitation across multiple areas, such as access to potable water; whether latrines are safe and in good repair and are clean and sanitary; whether students and staff wash their hands after using latrines; and whether school buildings are clean.

15 The

Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation scale measures the extent to which the school supports students’ health and hygiene through proper hygiene and sanitation facilities and practices. See Appendix A, Table 3 for a list of the school observation items that comprised this scale. Figure 5 (below) shows results for the Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation scale for the global evaluation. Nicaragua was the only country visited for this evaluation where no schools were observed to need improvement in hygiene and sanitation. However, note that there were significant issues at the school level with access to safe drinking water. This issue will be discussed further below.

15



20

Figure 5 A Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation (School Observation)

Needs Improvement: The school does not reflect a commitment to students’ health and hygiene. Access to drinking water is inconsistent, and latrines are not always safe or sanitary. Students and staff may not demonstrate hygienic personal habits. Litter and other debris may be present in the school or grounds more than occasionally. There are few systems in place to dispose of waste.

Satisfactory: The school facilities and practices reflect a commitment to students’ health and hygiene. Students have consistent access to drinking water and to safe and sanitary latrines, and for the most part, students and staff demonstrate hygienic personal habits. School buildings are mostly clean and sanitary, and the school is free of litter and other potential threats to school hygiene. The school has sanitary systems for disposal of waste water and latrine waste that are usually functioning.

Excellent: The school facilities and practices reflect a high commitment to students’ health and hygiene. Students have access to drinking water and safe and sanitary latrines, and students and staff consistently demonstrates hygienic personal habits. School buildings and grounds are clean and sanitary, and the school has effective sanitary systems for disposal of waste water and latrine waste.

Overall, 65 percent of Nicaraguan teachers reported that their school provided a very sanitary environment for staff and students (n = 99), and only one percent (n = 2) reported that the school environment was very unsanitary. 3.3.1 Safe drinking water The availability of safe drinking water at schools was a primary focus for UNICEF CFS programming efforts in Nicaragua, and students and staff had ongoing access to safe drinking water in 52 percent of schools (n = 13). However, students and staff had no access to safe drinking water at 12 percent of the schools (n = 3), and only some access at the remaining 36 percent (n = 9). In many schools, students and parents were asked to carry water to the school from home because the school well was either broken or the water was contaminated. Table 8 provides department-level information on student access to safe drinking water by region. Table 8 Student access to safe drinking water at school by department


Not at all true 1 2 0 0 3

Somewhat true 2 3 3 1 9

Very true 1 8 2 2 13

4

40

8 4 4 0

65

52 60 64

85 76

30

8

32 32

11

24

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pe

rcen

t ag

e o

f Sc

ho

ols



21

While at most schools, the school’s water supply was checked regularly to ensure that it was safe for drinking, more than one in three schools did not have routine water monitoring (Table 9).

Table 9 Routine monitoring of school water supply by department


Not at all true/A little bit true 2 2 2 1 7

Mostly true/Very true 2 10 3 2 17

The presence of safe drinking water emerged as an important area of concern in the course of interviews with school heads, teachers, parents and students. One school head summed up the issue:

The water. Always the water. Since they told us the [school] well was contaminated, I think this has been one of our main challenges. The Ministry of Health took a sample and they said it was contaminated and unfit for human consumption. For the past year, it has only been fit for plants, hand washing, and other uses for cleaning. Before that, we didn‟t know and the children drank the water. Since then we found out that it is not for human consumption. It was giving the children diarrhoea (School Head 19).

Another school head had a similar concern:

I would say that one of the challenges that we‟re confronted with right now is the water – always in this school – because it weighs on us heavily that we do not have water at our school. And in the area, the children are unhappy having to bring the water to wash their hands and all that. … This difficulty keeps us from progressing [academically] because we have to work more because we have to look for water. … But in the face of this [challenge] we always keep things clean, wash hands, and prepare food (School Head 25).

A third said, “In terms of water, the well that we were supplied with is contaminated with arsenic. The children cannot drink the water and therefore the well does not function” (School Head 11). It is important to note that in the 1990s, only about 20 percent of Nicaraguan communities had access to safe drinking water, and the finding that over half of all schools observed now have safe drinking water shows a significant level of improvement. 3.3.2 Hygienic facilities (latrines, toilets, etc.) are clean, separated by sex, appropriate for the age group(s) who will be using them, and adequate for students with different abilities

Several observations were made regarding the adequacy, appropriateness, and cleanliness of hygienic facilities as part of the global CFS evaluation. At all schools, latrines had been designed to allow students privacy. There was an adequate number of functioning latrines available for the student population at 71 percent of the schools (n = 17). Latrines were found to be fully safe and in good repair at 72 percent of the schools (n = 18), and latrines and sinks were found to be consistently clean and sanitary at 72 percent (n = 18). Students mentioned feeling safe in one school where latrines were available, saying this: We feel safe because before, in previous years, students had to take care of their needs outdoors and that was dangerous because an animal could peck/sting you. Now we are safer because we have latrines and no one can do anything [bad] to any boy or girl (Girls 22).

Some schools had indoor plumbing with clean and functioning toilets and sinks while others had indoor plumbing but poorly maintained or broken toilets or sinks. Some schools had outdoor latrines; in some schools these were clean and safe (see Photograph 6, next page), but in others they were dilapidated and students did not want to use them.


22

Photograph 6 Clean and Safe Latrines

3.3.3 Hand washing facilities

The presence and use of hand washing facilities was directly assessed in the course of the CFS global evaluation. Only 25 percent of Nicaraguan schools (n = 5) had a functioning sink with soap located close to food preparation areas. Students and staff consistently washed their hands prior to eating or handling food in 50 percent of schools (n = 11). Functioning sinks with soap were located close to latrines in 42 percent of schools (n = 10), and students were observed to consistently wash their hands after using latrines in 52 percent of schools (n = 12). Photograph 7 (below) shows an example of a child-friendly and accessible sink that had become unusable due to a lack of running water. Photograph 8 shows a teacher helping students wash their hands in the absence of running water. Photograph 7 Unusable Sink without Running Water

Photograph 8 Students Washing Hands

The presence and use of hand washing facilities was also discussed in the course of interviews with school heads, teachers, and parents. One school head summed up the issues at his/her school like this:

Well, we have difficulties with hand washing. [The students] are already in the habit of washing their hands for snack. But when they go to the toilet, they don‟t notify the teacher. … Therefore, we don‟t know if the child [has washed his/her hands before they] bring their hand to their mouth, touch a pencil, and they can cause contamination with some illness (School Head 19).

Teachers described how hand washing had become a part of early learning at school, saying this:

[As for] hygiene, we give advice to the boys and girls. In the beginning, this is difficult. But now they have come to practice hand washing with soap before and after eating and when using the latrines (Teachers 12).

Teachers from one school said, “The latrines are constructed of poor materials, and they have deteriorated as a result” (Teachers 3). A school head from another school stated, “Another slight problem that we have is the old latrines at our school. It is unsafe because the [installation] project was done carelessly and the latrines do not close and they have already broken” (School Head 12). Other respondents made very positive statements about the facilities at their school, such as, “Our latrines have been painted. The well has been cleaned. A toilet was put in for the little children, a hand washing sink…” (Teachers 5) and, “We rely on latrines that are separated by sex, that were constructed with the Friendly and Healthy program…” (School Head 23).


23

3.3.4 Freedom from garbage, standing water and other sources of contamination

All but one school head reported that their school followed procedures to reduce the presence of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes) on or near school grounds. Data collectors also observed schools directly for the presence of sanitary conditions. They found that 76 percent (n = 19) had a sanitary system for the disposal of waste water, and 96 percent (n = 24) had a sanitary system for the disposal of latrine waste.

3.3.5 Wastebaskets in every classroom and wastebaskets with lids in common areas School grounds were observed to be free of litter and garbage (except in designated containers) at 80 percent of the schools visited (n = 20). The presence of wastebaskets was not assessed directly as part of the CFS global evaluation. 3.3.6 An educational program with an emphasis on life skills regarding water, sanitation, and hygienic and healthy practices for students and members of the community All school heads surveyed in Nicaragua reported that their school provided health education to all students in the promotion of healthy daily living (e.g., nutrition, dental hygiene), and provided health education to all students regarding the avoidance of high-risk behaviours (e.g., HIV/AIDS education, prevention of substance abuse). School heads were not asked about educational programs specific to water and sanitation as part of the global evaluation. However, several made statements regarding the implementation of good practices at school that carried over to the community. For example, one school head said this:

We have been working across all components [of the intervention], strengthening [healthy practices] with the students so that they put them into practice at home and in the community. We make use of civic events and parent meetings. … We count on the support of parents regarding hygiene, cleanliness and nutrition (School Head 2).

A teacher from another school said, “We encourage hygiene in the children, and the most important thing of all is that they put what they learn [at school] into practice in their homes” (Teachers 9). 3.3.7 Section summary: Safe drinking water, school hygiene and a clean environment In this section, we explored the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved access to safe drinking water, good school hygiene, and a clean environment. In sum, students and school staff seemed aware of the importance of basic hygiene, although hand washing was somewhat inconsistent. The biggest challenge that communities still faced was a lack of a reliable supply of clean drinking water at their school. In some communities, wells, sinks, and other plumbing had been installed but were useless because there was no one within or accessible to the community able to properly maintain and repair them.

3.4 Health and Nutrition

In this evaluation, we assessed the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved good school health and nutrition. As described in Chapter 1, UNICEF Nicaragua and the MECD have defined a child-friendly school in the area of health and nutrition as one that has the following characteristics: (1) children have been vaccinated and have their vaccination cards; (2) the school promotes the use of dental fluoride and control of internal parasites; (3) the school has a basic first aid kit; (4) there is oversight of the quality of food that is sold, prepared and consumed at the school; (5) the school implements educational activities regarding health and nutrition for both students and parents; and (6) there is coordination of activities in health promotion and prevention between the school community and a local health centre.


24

As part of the global evaluation, we created a Healthy Learning Environment: Child-Centred Services composite scale to capture the level of service provision across areas of health in schools. This scale included aspects such as health and hygiene practices, health education, nutrition, water safety, and provision of health services or access to health services.

16 The Healthy Learning Environment: Child-

Centred Services scale measures the extent to which the school provides academic and health and hygiene services that support students’ well-being, including actions the school takes to reach out to students often left out of the educational process. See Table 4 in Appendix A for a complete list of the school head survey items that made up this scale. As shown in Figure 6 (below), 88 percent of Nicaraguan schools fell into the satisfactory range, and the remaining schools needed improvement. Nicaragua compared favourably to other countries in the CFS evaluation in this area, although there was significant room for growth in all six countries visited. Figure 6 A Healthy Learning Environment: Child-Centred Services (School Head Survey)

Needs Improvement: The school head reports that there are few services that support students’ health and well-being and little in the way of health education. The water supply is not regularly checked. There are few services that reach out to vulnerable students.

Satisfactory: The school head reports that key services that support students’ health and hygiene are provided. The school curriculum includes health education that promotes healthy daily living and teaches students how to avoid high-risk behaviours. There is some attention to students’ social and emotional development. A feeding program is in place for all students in need. The school has procedures in place to ensure that the water supply is safe. The school has services in place to encourage enrolment of students with disabilities and in minority groups.

Excellent: The school head reports that there are many services in place to support students’ health and hygiene, such as medical examinations and screenings, mental health screenings, and medical assistance or referrals for assistance. Job-readiness education and education to support students’ social and emotional development are firmly established. The school has a strong set of services to encourage the enrolment and retention of students with disabilities and in minority groups.

Results at the country level for Nicaragua will be provided in each of these areas to the extent that they were assessed as a part of this global evaluation. Additional findings will also be provided regarding aspects of health and nutrition that may be of interest, even though they are not on the country-specific list of core characteristics of child-friendly schools. Overall, health and nutrition remain an issue of concern in Nicaragua’s CFS-supported schools. Sixty-two percent of teachers (n = 94) reported that health issues kept students from learning as much as they should at their school, and only 15 percent (n = 22) did not feel that this was at all an area of concern. Twenty-eight percent of participating students (n = 282) reported that that they were sometimes too hungry to pay attention in school. Nearly all teachers also expressed concern regarding student nutrition

16


39

64

0 8

62

13

61

36

100 92

38

88

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Nigeria South Africa Philippines Thailand Guyana NicaraguaPe

rce

nta

ge o

f Sc

ho

ol H

ead

s



25

in their response to the survey item, with 91 percent (n = 138) indicating that inadequate nutrition kept students at their school from learning as much as they should. 3.4.1 Children have been vaccinated and have their vaccination cards This indicator was not assessed as part of the global evaluation. One school head did state in an interview that the school conducted health updates for students twice per year and that these included vaccinations where needed (School Head 13). 3.4.2 The school promotes the use of dental fluoride and control of internal parasites The use of dental fluoride was not assessed as part of the global CFS evaluation, but school heads, teachers and parents in Nicaragua did mention the promotion of dental health in the course of interviews. Three school heads stated that MINSA had provided toothbrushes, toothpaste and/or fluoride treatments for students (School Heads 8, 23 and 24). Parents from another school stated that the provision of toothbrushes and toothpaste was very beneficial when parents were too poor to purchase these things for their children. These parents stated that the children had learned to brush their teeth correctly, and that she often saw them doing so as a matter of routine when she visited the school (Parent 5). A teacher and the school head from that same school also mentioned that in a friendly and healthy school, it was very important for children to learn dental hygiene (Teachers 5, School Head 5). Sixty-seven percent of school heads (n = 16) reported that school provided de-worming and treatment of parasitic infections to students when needed. One school head also mentioned that parents worked with the school to help control of lice and other parasites in their children (School Head 24). 3.4.3 The school has a basic first aid kit Assessors checked to see whether schools had a stocked first aid kit that was accessible at all times. Only one school had a fully stocked and accessible first aid kit, and assessors did not observe any stocked first aid kits in 46 percent of schools (n = 10). The remaining 50 percent (n = 11) had a first aid kit, but it was not adequately stocked and/or was inaccessible. In the course of interviews, several school heads, teachers and parents discussed the presence of first aid kits in their schools (often mentioning that this had been supplied by MINSA). For example, one head stated, “Yes, we have a first aid kit. If a child has an accident and it is not very serious, we can attend to it here [in the school]” (School Head 12). And another school head said, “MINSA gives us [first aid] training and also helps us to have an everyday first aid kit that contains the essentials” (School Head 21). However, two other school heads mentioned that they did not have a functioning first aid kit. For example, one said, “We do not have a complete first aid kit. One exists, but it is non-functional” (School Head 11). Sixty-seven percent of school heads (n = 16) reported that there was a staff member present at their school at all times who knew basic first aid. 3.4.4 There is oversight of the quality of food that is sold, prepared and consumed at the school The actual oversight of food quality was not assessed as part of the global CFS evaluation (but see Section 3.3.3 above for information regarding sanitation in food preparation and consumption at schools). 3.4.5 The school implements educational activities regarding health and nutrition for both students and parents All school heads surveyed in Nicaragua reported that their school provided health education to all students in the promotion of healthy daily living (e.g., nutrition, dental hygiene). In the course of interviews, several respondents discussed the education of students regarding health and nutrition. For example, one school head described the school’s approach to educating students this way:

In the teaching of classes… we talk about how one can improve their diet with national [i.e., local] products. … We teach [students] things that they can practice at home that


26

they learned in the classroom, such methods of hygiene, that one should wash fruits and vegetables before consuming them, that they should brush their teeth after eating. We also teach them how to improve their diet through the cultivation of greens in family gardens (School Head 9).

There was little or no discussion regarding the provision of direct health education to communities, although as can be seen in the example above, there was some expectation that the students would share their knowledge of health and nutrition with others outside of school. 3.4.6 There is coordination of activities in health promotion and prevention between the school community and a local health centre As part of the global evaluation, school heads were asked several survey questions regarding the school’s use of community resources to support student health. Fifty percent of Nicaraguan school heads (n = 12) reported that their school was able to make referrals to community-based providers of medical and mental health services that were not offered by the school. According to their heads, 25 percent of schools (n = 6) provided students with access to annual health examinations, and one school provided students with access to annual mental health screening. Fifty-eight percent of school heads (n = 14) reported that their school provided routine vision and hearing screenings to students, and referred students to free or affordable follow-up services if needed. School staff identified Nicaragua’s Ministry of Health (MINSA) as a significant resource for technical assistance in the area of student health. Teachers from one school said this:

[Our school has] an excellent relationship with the staff at the Ministry of Health. They give us advice about health and hygiene, provide fluoride, give us toothbrushes and toothpaste, and have taught us how and why we should wash our hands and maintain hygiene at the school as well as at home (Teachers 9).

And a school head from another school said this:

The MINSA is always aware of what is happening in our school and supports us -- for example, in the provision and application of fluoride, giving advice on how often to brush teeth, the provision of kitchen utensils, the provision of training to teachers and parents in the preparation of food, [and] the provision of medicines to keep our first aid kit stocked (School Head 10).

3.4.7 A welcoming school environment ensures the physical and emotional safety of all

students and engages the community to promote health and nutrition Creating an environment in which students feel safe, respected, and cared about by adults and in which they can trust adults is an important element of CFS models. There is substantial evidence for the importance of safety and bonding to the school (Hawkins & Weis, 1985; Osher, Dwyer & Jimerson, 2006; Wehalage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko & Fernandez, 1989) and of a sense of community (Battistich & Horn, 1997). Research also shows that this bonding is linked to positive as well as negative academic and behavioural outcomes (McNeely & Falci, 2004; McNeely, Nonnemaker & Blum, 2002; Osterman, 2000; Osher, Dwyer & Jimerson, 2006), particularly for disadvantaged students and students at risk of dropping out (Muller, 2001; Osher, 2008). This section describes student perceptions of safety and adult-student relationships at school – including the belief that adults care about, listen to and notice them. As part of the global evaluation, we created a Safe, Inclusive and Respectful Climate composite scale to capture several important aspects of safety – physical safety in school and going to and from school, emotional safety in the presence of both peers and adults at school, and a sense that the school environment is respectful and fair to the individual.

17 The Safe, Inclusive, and Respectful Climate scale

measures how physically safe students feel, how emotionally safe students feel, and the extent to which

17



27

students perceive the school as inclusive of all types of students. See Table 5 in Appendix A for a complete list of the student survey items that made up this scale. As seen in Figure 7 (below), 67 percent of Nicaraguan schools fell into the satisfactory range, but more schools needed improvement than were in the excellent range. Figure 7 A Safe, Inclusive and Respectful Climate (Student Survey)

Needs Improvement: Students do not feel physically safe at school; they worry about their safety and sometimes stay home because they do not feel safe. Students do not feel emotionally safe; students are disrespectful of one another, or adults do not demonstrate care and respect for students. Students do not feel that the school treats them all fairly or gives equal opportunities to all.

Satisfactory: Students feel physically safe at school but they may occasionally worry about their safety going to or from school. They feel emotionally safe because students treat one another with respect, get along well together, and look out for one another, although they may occasionally feel that peers are disrespectful to one another. Students feel that they are treated fairly and that the school makes an effort to be inclusive and welcoming.

Excellent: Students feel physically safe in the school at all times. Adults are caring and treat students with respect. Students feel they are treated fairly and that all students are welcome and included.

Overall, physical safety from harm by other students or by adults was not a significant concern for most participating Nicaraguan students, with 92 percent (n = 925) stating that they felt safe at school, and only 10 percent (n = 97) feeling that their school was badly affected by crime and violence in their community. However, 26 percent (n = 259) indicated that that they did not feel safe walking to and from school. We did not find significant differences between boys and girls with regard to their feelings of safety at school,

18 or walking to and from school.

19

The provision of a respectful environment for all students is a cornerstone of CFS philosophy, and is part of both the provision of a child-centred environment and part of the provision of an inclusive environment where all students feel valued. Nicaraguan students reported receiving a high level of respect and caring from their teachers, with 93 percent (n = 933) indicating that their teachers treated them with respect, and 92 percent (n = 929) indicating that the teachers at their school really cared about students like them. Students may be more likely to be engaged in an academic environment where they feel that they are being treated well. We looked at whether the provision of a respectful environment had any relationship to student academic engagement in the same two areas examined above: The individual student wanting to come to school in the first place (captured by the student survey item I look forward to coming to school), and the desire of the individual student to remain engaged in his or her education (captured by the item I want to complete secondary school). We selected the six Nicaraguan schools where students had expressed the highest level of agreement with the student survey item My teachers treat me with respect (the most respectful schools) and compared their student academic engagement with students from the six schools with the lowest levels of agreement (the least respectful schools). As shown in Figure 8

18

t(910.9) = –1.04, ns 19

t(984) = – 0.70, ns

46

56

19

41 44

24

51 42

68

54 51

67

3 2

12 5 5

9

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts



28

(below), students who attend the most respectful schools were significantly more likely to state that it was very true that they wanted to complete secondary school when compared with students who attended the least respectful schools.

20 There was a five percentage point difference for the item I look forward to

coming to school, but this difference was not statistically significant.21

Figure 8 Respect from Teachers and Student Academic Engagement

3.4.8 Section summary: Health and nutrition

In this section, we sought to uncover the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved good school health and nutrition? In the above discussion, we included the promotion of mental health and well-being through the provision of a safe, respectful and caring school environment. Student health and nutrition remain an ongoing concern in many Nicaraguan schools, with most teachers expressing concern for their students in these areas. Anecdotal evidence from interviews suggests that schools have been successful at teaching students health practices that they carry over to their home environment (e.g., brushing teeth). Only one school was observed to have a stocked, accessible first aid kit, and only about half of the schools visited were able to refer students to needed medical care. Overall, students felt safe from harm by others, and felt that teachers were respectful and caring of them. Students who attended schools where they received a high level of respect from teachers were more likely to want to continue their education to secondary schools when compared with students attending schools with less respectful teachers.

3.5 Rights, Responsibilities and Participation

In this evaluation, we explored the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved increased student and community awareness of democratic rights, a shared sense of responsibility, and increased democratic participation in schools. As described in Chapter 1, UNICEF Nicaragua and the MECD defined a school as child friendly in the area of rights, responsibilities and participation based on eight characteristics: (1) community awareness regarding the rights of children and adolescents; (2) the school has support materials for curriculum development (e.g., rights of children and adolescents, citizenship and values); (3) all students have birth certificates; (4) girls, boys and adolescents with differing abilities are integrated into the school; (5) out-of-school girls, boys and adolescents become integrated into the school; (6) preparation to prevent and confront emergency situations and natural disasters; (7) student government and academic advisory groups are organized and active in supporting the school and the community; and (8) the school receives support from government institutions and civil society.

20

t(410.1) = –4.09, p < .001 21

t(425) = –0.22, ns

79%

64%

84% 86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


LeastRespectful

MostRespectful


29

3.5.1 Community awareness regarding the rights of children and adolescents As a rights-based approach, CFS emphasizes the participation of children and those who facilitate their rights in determining the structure, content and process of education. The principle of democratic participation means that in child-friendly schools, children, parents and communities are actively engaged in school decision-making and management. Surveys administered to school heads, teachers and students as a part of the global evaluation asked multiple questions regarding whether students and their families were informed of their rights, as well as asking about school policies and practices that were in place to protect those rights. The surveys also asked whether teachers had received training in student rights, and whether students were indeed treated fairly and with respect by adults at school. Seventy-one percent of school heads (n = 17) reported that students in their school were informed of their rights, and 67 percent (n = 16) reported that staff from their school talked to families about child labour and children’s rights. Only 11 percent of teachers (n = 16) reported that some types of students at their school were treated better than others by teachers and school staff, and 88 percent (n = 133) indicated that their school placed a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights. Among students, 71 percent (n = 706) also indicated that their school placed a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights. Compared to teachers, students gave mixed responses to the survey item Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by teachers and school staff, with 41 percent (n = 411) reporting that this was at least somewhat true. In the course of interviews, school heads discussed building awareness of children’s rights among students and the community. For example, one said this:

First, we conduct training with the children to allow them to express what they dislike about their teachers, because at times, they have been mistreated by schoolteachers. The awareness begins with us and then from us to the parents, because the children tell us that they don‟t like to be shouted at (School Head 12).

Another said, “[We have had] trainings in different areas such as life skills…responsibilities and rights, etc., in which fathers and mothers, teachers, and the student government [participated]” (School Head 16). 3.5.2 The school has support materials for curriculum development (e.g., rights of children and adolescents, citizenship and values) This indicator was not assessed as part of the global evaluation, and was not addressed by participants in the course of interviews. 3.5.3 All students have birth certificates This indicator was not assessed as part of the global evaluation, and was not addressed by participants in the course of interviews. 3.5.4 Girls, boys and adolescents with differing abilities are integrated into the school Equality was addressed in the global evaluation both in terms of opportunities for both boys and girls and in terms opportunities for children with disabilities. We developed a scale called Inclusive Student Environment, made up of classroom observation items that together build a holistic picture of the inclusiveness of classrooms for all types of students.

22 The Inclusive Classroom Climate scale measures

the extent to which classrooms are free from biases against particular groups of students, such as male or female students, students with disabilities, or students from minority groups. See Appendix A, Table 6 for a full list of the items that made up this scale. In Nicaragua, the majority of classrooms observed were found to be highly inclusive, although 8 percent were found to need significant improvement in this area (see Figure 9).

22

The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s alpha) is α = .76.


30

Figure 9 An Inclusive Classroom Climate (Classroom Observation)

Needs Improvement: Teachers display an obvious bias against a particular group of students, for example male or female students, students with disabilities, or students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, students with disabilities are not given the appropriate guidance or support they need to succeed in the classroom.

Satisfactory: Teachers often encourage and support struggling students. Teachers usually pay similar amounts of attention to male and female students, as well as students from disadvantaged backgrounds or minority groups.

Excellent: Teachers demonstrate similarly high expectations for both male and female students, and give both groups of students consistently equal attention. Regardless of students’ race, ethnicity, language, or other socio-demographic characteristic, teachers usually provide each student with equal guidance, time, and attention. Students who have special learning needs receive the necessary encouragement and guidance from teachers.

Within Nicaragua, less than 13 percent of teachers (n = 19) felt that teachers should focus their attention on those students who had the best chance in life – showing an exceptionally high level of inclusiveness. Ninety-six percent of school heads (n = 23) reported that boys and girls were equally permitted and encouraged to participate in school activities, and 96 percent (n = 23) reported that boys and girls were equally permitted and encouraged to participate in academic classes. Ninety percent of teachers (n = 137) reported that both boys and girls had equal opportunities to succeed at their school. Students’ feelings were also mostly positive, with 71 percent (n = 713) reporting that both boys and girls had equal opportunities to succeed at their school. In focus groups, students provided positive statements regarding the equal treatment of boys and girls at school, saying things like this:

Yes, the teachers treat both genders equally. There is no difference. We feel like we have the same rights and responsibilities, and we share the same expectations. In terms of leadership, we do everything equally. We have the same opportunities to occupy leadership positions in student government (Boys 16).

Students from another school said this:

In the fifth and sixth grades, most [students] are female and almost all members of the student government are female. There are also boys and girls [acting as] classroom monitors. We respect one another and we respect the teacher and the head, and they also respect our decisions (Girls 21).

Female students were significantly more likely than male students to report that they looked forward to coming to school,

23 but there were no significant differences in responses between female and male

students to the items I feel safe at school24

or My teachers treat me with respect.25

23

t(794.7) = –3.12, p < .01 24

t(910.9) = –1.04, ns 25

t(891.1) = –1.43, ns

7 13

2 8

46

27

10 20

43

23

46

60

90 80

56

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nigeria South Africa Philippines Thailand Guyana NicaraguaPe

rce

nta

ge o

f C

lass

roo

ms



31

Seventy-nine percent of school heads (n = 19) reported that students with disabilities were offered equal opportunities to participate in school activities, and 81 percent of teachers (n = 123) felt that it was very true that teachers and staff at their school believed that all children could learn. Eighty-nine percent of students (n = 707) indicated that their school was a welcoming place for all types of students, and 94 percent (n = 940) reported that teachers at their school expected students like them to succeed in life. Teachers from one school said, “Another challenge [in being a child friendly school] is to… eliminate architectural barriers in hallways, integrate all students into recreational activities…” (Teacher 21). Inclusiveness is a core principle of the CFS model (see section 1.1 above). An inclusive environment is one where all students feel engaged in their education, and feel like they belong at their school. Because student disengagement from school is such a serious issue in Nicaragua, and students who feel marginalized at school are more likely to drop out, we looked at whether the provision of an inclusive environment had any relationship to student academic engagement in the same two areas examined above: The individual student wanting to come to school in the first place (captured by the student survey item I look forward to coming to school), and the desire of the individual student to remain engaged in his or her education (captured by the item I want to complete secondary school). Based on the anonymous nature of the student survey, we were not able to identify which students had risk factors for being marginalized at school (for example, coming from a troubled family), so we used the words “like me” in the survey item Teachers expect students like me to succeed in life to encompass the types of students present. We selected the six schools where students had expressed the highest level of agreement with the student survey item Teachers expect students like me to succeed in life (the most inclusive schools) and compared their student academic engagement with students from the six schools with the lowest levels of agreement (the least inclusive schools). As shown in Figure 10 (below), students who attended the most inclusive schools were significantly more likely to state that it was very true that they wanted to complete secondary school when compared with students who attended the least inclusive schools.

26 As

in earlier cases, while there was a nine point difference between groups on the item I look forward to coming to school, the difference did not reach the level of statistical significance.

27 It is quite possible that

we would have been able to find statistical significance here with a larger sample size. Figure 10 An Inclusive Classroom Environment and Student Academic Engagement

3.5.5 Out-of-school girls, boys and adolescents become integrated into the school School heads were asked several survey questions regarding students who are out of school or at high risk for dropping out. All participating school heads reported that staff from their school make direct contact with families whose children drop out of school or are at risk of dropping out to encourage the child’s continued enrolment (n = 24), and 96 percent (n = 23) indicated that staff from their school went out into the community to encourage the enrolment of minority students, students living in poverty, or others at risk for poor educational outcomes. Assessors reported that students with physical disabilities were usually kept at home because their families were unable to get them to and from school, despite outreach from school staff. They also observed that students with learning and attention difficulties were

26

t(196.4) = –5.02, p < .001 27

t(320) = – 0.94, ns

72%

55%

81% 83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


LeastInclusive

Most Inclusive


32

integrated into classes and were usually sitting in the front of the classroom closest to the teacher for extra monitoring and support as needed. All but one school head reported that when students were absent from their school for more than a few days, school staff made direct contact with their families to identify the problem and to facilitate the child’s return to school (96 percent, n = 23). Findings were mixed regarding whether pregnant and parenting students were permitted to attend school, with 54 percent of school heads (n = 13) reporting that they were able to attend. The issue of out-of-school children was not addressed by participants in the course of interviews, except in the case of students with disabilities (see above).

3.5.6 Preparation to prevent and confront emergency situations and natural disasters This indicator was not directly assessed as part of the global evaluation. One school head did state in an interview, “We have not completed an [emergency] action plan. For example, we don‟t have … materials to deal with natural disasters” (School Head 16). And another school head said, “[The student council has] carried out drills that simulate disasters and how the sixth graders need to help the smaller children” (School Head 12). 3.5.7 Student government and academic advisory groups are organized and active in supporting the school and the community As part of the global evaluation, school heads, teachers and students were asked about both formal and informal mechanisms for student participation in supporting the school and decision making. We created a Student Participation composite scale to capture teacher perceptions of the level of student participation and engagement in their school, including having opportunities to voice their opinions and make decisions regarding their school.

28 The Student Participation scale measures the level of student participation and

engagement in school decision-making as perceived by teachers. See Appendix A, Table 7 for a list of the items that made up this scale. This type of democratic participation has been encouraged in Nicaraguan schools in general (not just within UNICEF CFS schools), and with the hope that this type of participation will develop a sense of ownership of the school among the students and the larger community. Nicaragua had the highest level of student involvement, based on teacher report, when compared with the other participating countries (see Figure 11).

28

The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s alpha) is α = .77.


33

Figure 11 Student Participation (Teacher Survey)

Needs Improvement: Teachers do not believe that school leadership asks students for their input in solving problems the school may have. The school head places little value on student opinion.

Satisfactory: Teachers perceive that students are often involved in decision-making at their school. The principal often asks students for their input so that students have the opportunity to be involved.

Excellent: Teachers believe students are always given the chance (and take advantage of the opportunity) to become involved in decision-making at their schools. Teachers believe the principal places a high value on students’ ideas.

Ninety-two percent of participating school heads in Nicaragua (n = 22) reported that students played a formal role in decision making at school (e.g., through student government), planned and implemented community outreach activities, and/or had opportunities to serve in leadership roles (e.g., on student council, governing board or prefect). Teachers also reported a high level of student involvement, with 94 percent (n = 142) reporting that students at their school were given a chance to help make decisions, and 88 percent (n = 133) reporting that students were involved in helping to solve school problems. Students’ reports of their level of involvement in decision making at school were mixed. While 76 percent (n = 765) felt that the school head asked students about their ideas, 13 percent (n = 132) indicated that this was not at all true. Girls from one school said, “We have a student government where we make decisions that help us to improve our schools” (Girls 20). And boys from another school said this:

When there are activities, the student governments from each section are involved in activities to raise funds such as bazaars, raffles… With the funds [we raise], we buy materials that the school needs and we have activities to celebrate Teachers‟ Day, Parents‟ Day, and we also celebrate Children‟s Day (Boys 23).

3.5.8 The school receives support from government institutions and civil society Sixty-three percent of school heads (n = 15) reported that their school had partnerships with local businesses or community organizations to support student learning. In the course of interviews, school heads identified numerous sources of significant support among government institutions and non-governmental organizations. Aside from UNICEF, some of the most noted by evaluation participants were MINSA (for health), ENACAL (for safe water), CISAS (for nutrition), the EXCELENCIA project (supported by USAID and the MECD), PINE (for nutrition), IPADE (for democratic participation) and ADRA (for reforestation). Some schools in Nicaragua have also partnered with community organizations, most often to improve the physical infrastructure and capacities of the school environment. For example, in one school, the sixth grade class was building a dais. The school only had a small portion of the funds necessary, but with the financial support of community groups and the labour provided by many parents, the school was able to complete construction.

24

41

10 12

27

5

35 42 44

67

47 47 42

17

47

20 26

48

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pe

rcen

tage

of

Teac

her

s



34

3.5.9 Section summary: Rights, shared responsibilities and democratic participation In this section, we explored the extent to which Child Friendly Schools in Nicaragua have achieved increased student and community awareness of democratic rights, a shared sense of responsibility, and increased democratic participation in schools. In the majority of schools, school heads, teachers and students saw an effort being made to increase awareness of children’s rights. While most students believed that boys and girls were treated equally at their school, and most believed that their school was a welcoming place for all types of students, these feelings were not universal. Among the schools identified by students as more inclusive, students were significantly more likely to report that they wished to continue to secondary education when compared with students in the least inclusive schools. There was evidence that in most schools, an effort was made by teachers or others to reach out-of-school children to encourage their enrolment or continuation in school. One area of ongoing concern is that while many school buildings have been made accessible to individuals with physical disabilities, the school grounds themselves are often inaccessible from the surrounding community due to problems such as steep terrain. This lack of community access to school grounds meant that students with physical disabilities were sometimes excluded from education.


35

CHAPTER 4 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Nicaragua elected to focus its CFS interventions across five key areas:

1. Quality Learning and Achievement

2. Friendly and Secure Physical and Environmental Conditions

3. School Hygiene and Clean Environment

4. School Health and Nutrition

5. Rights, Responsibilities, and Participation Our evaluation revealed that Nicaragua has achieved a noticeable degree of success in each of these areas. In the area of Quality Learning and Achievement, most teachers were observed to be implementing child-centred pedagogical approaches. Students felt that they were learning what they needed to know in life. Many (but not all) classrooms were decorated with murals, posters and other materials that supported children’s learning. Teachers identified a lack of textbooks and other materials as an ongoing challenge. In the area of Physical and Environmental Conditions, most classrooms were observed to be clean, to provide students with adequate light and ventilation, and to be equipped with a blackboard. Usually all students had a desk or chair in class and an adequate work space, but sometimes these were not the right size or configuration for students of different heights, left-handed students, and students with disabilities. While many schools were free from hazards on school grounds (e.g., no open wells), stakeholders did express concern about physical hazards students faced while travelling to and from school (such as steep terrain). The area of School Hygiene and a Clean Environment seemed to be an important one in many schools. Stakeholders expressed interest and pride in the cleanliness of their respective schools. Students had become engaged in maintaining a clean and hygienic school environment. One ongoing area of concern was safe drinking water. Although the situation seems to have improved dramatically over the past few years, with wells being provided to schools, it seemed that when these wells became contaminated or needed repairs, the schools were left with a problem that they did not have the means to resolve. In the area of School Health and Nutrition, efforts were being made to address these issues at schools, but this remains an area of concern. Most stakeholders seemed aware of the need to protect and promote student health, and most schools seemed to have some way of getting medical screening or care for children who needed it. Students seem to have internalized healthy practices such as brushing their teeth and washing their hands, and there was evidence that students were sharing these practices with the larger community. Some schools had also reached out to the community to provide health information. Schools did not seem to be doing as well in the area of student nutrition. Some schools had comprehensive feeding programs, but others did not, and many students reported that they were often too hungry to pay attention in school. Assessors also observed a large number of cases where vendors sold food of very poor nutritional quality on or near school grounds. In the area of Rights, Responsibilities, and Participation, Nicaragua seemed to be doing very well. Schools had student governments that were active and included both girls and boys. Most students had been made aware of their rights. Student participation in the school permeated the discussion during the assessment, with students helping to care for the school (e.g., keep it clean), to make decisions, to provide support (e.g., hold a raffle to buy school supplies), and to educate the community regarding healthy practices. Overall, Nicaragua has made significant strides in meeting its goals for child-friendly schools. Note that this evaluation did not cover the RAAS or RAAN areas of the country, so we are uncertain to what extent these findings are applicable to these regions.


36

Six key recommendations have emerged in the course of this within-country evaluation:

School improvement efforts by outside agencies involving infrastructure would be more sustainable if the effort included building capacity within the local community to carry out maintenance and repairs as needed once the work was complete.

Several school heads reported that wells that had been provided for their school had become contaminated or otherwise unusable, and they were not sure how to address the issue. So support for ongoing maintenance or an identified source of support would be extremely beneficial in ensuring that students had access to safe drinking water.

Infrastructure projects that involve accessibility would benefit students and the larger community further if they ensured that individuals with disabilities could get to and from the school, as well as ensuring accessibility within school grounds.

Nutrition seems to be an ongoing issue for many students at Nicaragua’s schools. While school heads and teachers understand the critical importance of adequate nutrition, and parents are willing to help prepare food at school, a more comprehensive approach to improving student nutrition across schools would be beneficial. This strategy should include the banning of vendors of food with low nutritional value from operating on or near school grounds, and the implementation of at least minimal provision of food to children who need it across all schools.

There are a large number of NGOs working across Nicaragua. Some schools were observed to have support from as many as five different organizations, while others had little support (but at least as many needs). One possible remedy is the establishment of a formal channel for schools to identify their needs, with NGOs then stepping in to address these needs as they are able.

And finally, we recommend the provision of capacity building at the local level that is oriented toward how communities can leverage local resources and support to help schools better meet their own needs in a sustainable manner.


37

References

Aubusson, P., & Webb, C. (1992). Teacher beliefs about learning and teaching in primary science and technology. Research in Science Education, 22, 20-29.

Battistich, V., & Horn, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001.

Chabbott, C. (2004). UNICEF‟s Child-Friendly Schools Framework: A Desk Review. Unpublished manuscript.

Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36-39.

Dewey, J. (1997). Education and Experience. NY: Touchstone.

Ernest, P. (1994). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In A. Bloomfield & T. Harries (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Derby: Association of Teachers of Mathematics.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466-474.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth-grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.

Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, 73-97.

McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284-299.

McNeeley, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138–146.

Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacher students’ relationship for at-risk students. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 241-255.

National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students‟ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Osher, D. (2008) Improving conditions for learning for youth who are neglected or delinquent. Washington, DC: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk.

Osher, D. & Kendziora, K. (in press). Building conditions for learning and healthy adolescent development: A strategic approach. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Prevention Science. New York: Routledge.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jimerson, S. (2006). Foundations of school violence and safety. In S. Jimerson & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp.51–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Osher, D. Sprague, S., Axelrod, J., Keenan, S., Weissberg, R., Kendziora, K., & Zins, J. (2007). A comprehensive approach to addressing behavioral and academic challenges in contemporary schools. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (5th ed., pp. 1263–1278). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.


38

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323.

Slap, G. B., Lot, L., Huang, B., Daniyam, C. A., Zink, T. M., & Succop, P. A. (2003). Sexual behaviour of adolescents in Nigeria: A cross sectional survey of secondary school students. British Medical Journal, 326, 1-6.

Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness research and the social and behavioral

sciences. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 301-321). London: Falmer.

UNESCO (2009). Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Paris: Author.

Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 155-175.

Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R.A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. London: Falmer.


39

Appendix A: Scale Construction Items

Table 1 Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment scale student survey items

Q49 When students master their lessons, they are given more challenging work.

Q51 The topics we are studying at this school are interesting.

Q64 Lessons at this school are boring. (R)

Q56 Every student is encouraged to participate in class discussions.

Q59 Teachers at this school will listen if you want to explain your answers in class or on assignments.

Q67 Students are encouraged to work together in class.

Q68 Students are encouraged to share their ideas and opinions in class.

Q12 I have given up on school. (R)

Q15 I want to complete secondary school.

Q20 Adults in the community encourage me to take school seriously.

Q23 Teachers and school staff believe that all students can learn.

Q44 Teachers at this school expect students like me to succeed in life.

Q52 Students at this school think that it is okay to cheat. (R)

Q53 Students at this school try to do a good job on their lessons, even if they are difficult or not interesting.

Table 2 Safe and Welcoming School Learning Environment scale student survey items

GO1 Students are protected from access by unauthorized adults while at school.

GO2 Students are within sight or hearing of school staff at all times except for brief periods (e.g., when using the latrine).

GO3 Students are not permitted to roam the hallways or school grounds when class is in session.

GO4 Students are not permitted to leave school grounds without the knowledge and permission of school staff.

GO5 Older students do not have unsupervised access to younger students while on school grounds (except siblings or other close family members).

GO6 School buildings are in good structural condition.

GO7 School buildings are in good physical condition (e.g., no peeling paint, broken windows, etc.)

GO21 Students have adequate space to work and play without being disturbed by others.

IA2 Toxic materials (e.g., cleaning chemicals) are kept inaccessible to students at all times.

IA3 The school keeps a stocked first aid kit accessible at all times.

OA1 If the school is located near a road, there is a physical barrier between traffic and school grounds.

OA2 School buildings and grounds have a welcoming appearance.

OA3 Examples of student work or achievements are displayed in common areas.

OA9 Outdoor play areas and equipment are safe and in good repair.

OA10 Students are protected from the elements while using outdoor play areas (e.g., protected from excessive sun, dust, rain, or wind).


40

Table 3 Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation scale school observation items

GO8 Students and staff have ongoing, easy access to drinking water.

GO10 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to latrines.

GO12 Latrines are designed to allow students privacy.

GO13 There is an adequate number of functioning latrines available so that students do not have to wait an excessive amount of time to use them.

GO14 Latrines are safe and in good repair.

GO15 Latrines are accessible to classrooms.

GO16 Latrines and sinks are clean and sanitary.

GO17 Students and staff wash their hands after using latrines.

GO18 Students and staff wash their hands prior to eating or handling food.

GO19 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to food preparation areas.

GO20 Any food prepared and served at school is prepared and stored in sanitary conditions.

IA1 The school buildings are clean.

IA4 School buildings provide adequate protection from the elements (rain, heat, cold, wind, dust)

OA4 The school grounds are kept free of litter and garbage, except in designated containers.

OA5 The school grounds are kept free of unwanted animals and animal waste (e.g., stray dogs). Any school pets are kept in sanitary conditions.

OA6 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of waste water.

OA7 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of latrine waste.

OA8 Smoking is prohibited on the school grounds.


41

Table 4 Healthy Learning Environment: Child-Centred Services scale school head survey items

Q14 This school screens students for learning disabilities, such as difficulty with reading or mathematics.

Q15 This school has teachers who have been specially trained to work with students with disabilities.

Q16 Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the enrollment of children with disabilities.

Q17 Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the enrollment of minority students, students living in poverty, or others at risk for poor educational outcomes.

Q49 This school recruits teachers who speak the home language(s) of the students.

Q50 Students at this school have daily contact with a teacher who speaks their home language.

Q57 The school provides job-readiness skills education to all students in grades 5 and up.

Q51 The school is able to make referrals to community-based providers of medical and mental health services that are not offered by the school.

Q52 The school is able to access child welfare services and other support systems for orphans and vulnerable children.

Q54 The school provides health education to all students regarding the avoidance of high-risk behaviors (e.g., HIV/AIDS education, prevention of substance abuse).

Q55 The school provides health education to all students in the promotion of healthy daily living (e.g., nutrition, dental hygiene).

Q56 The school provides education to all students in the development of positive social and emotional skills.

Q58 Student health and development programs are adapted to meet local socio-cultural norms, values, and beliefs.

Q59 The school provides students with access to annual health examinations.

Q60 The school provides students with access to annual mental health screening.

Q61 The school provides micronutrient supplements to students who need them.

Q62 The school provides de-worming treatment of parasitic infections to students who need them.

Q63 The school provides routine vision and hearing screenings to students, and refers students to free or affordable follow-up services if needed.

Q64 The school uses height/weight screening to identify malnourished children.

Q65 The school has a feeding program for under-nourished students. [Mark „very true‟ if the program is provided to all students]

Q66 Students have an opportunity to eat at least every 4 hours while at school.

Q68 Students are allowed access to latrines and drinking water whenever they need them (not only at specified times).

Q71 The school’s water supply is checked regularly to ensure that it is always safe for drinking.

Q72 The school follows procedures to reduce the presence of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes) on or near school grounds.

Q76 There is at least one staff member present at all times who knows basic first aid.


42

Table 5 Safe, Respectful and Inclusive scale student survey items

Q24

I feel safe at my school.

Q25 I feel safe walking both to and from school.

Q26 I sometimes stay home from school because I am worried about my safety. (R)

Q30 This school is badly affected by crime and violence in the community. (R)

Q09 Students at this school help each other, even if they’re not friends.

Q13 Students at this school treat each other with respect.

Q19 If students see another student being picked on, they try to stop it.

Q27 Students at this school like to put each other down. (R)

Q28 This school is being ruined by bullies. (R)

Q34 There are some students in this school who nobody talks to. (R)

Q35 There are some students at this school who everybody teases. (R)

Q36 Students at this school think it is okay to fight someone who insults them. (R)

Q42 Students at this school know how to disagree without starting a fight or an argument.

Q31 My teachers treat me with respect.

Q38 This school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights.

Q39 Teachers at my school say unkind things to students. (R)

Q41 Sometimes I do not want to come to school because of how the teachers treat me. (R)

Q45 Teachers at this school are interested in what students like me have to say.

Q21 I think that this school respects families like mine.

Q29 I look forward to coming to school.

Q32 Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by teachers and school staff. (R)

Q33 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school.

Q43 This school is a welcoming place for all types of students.

Q46 When students break rules, they are treated fairly.

Q55 Adults in this school apply the same rules to all students equally.

Q63 I wish I went to a different school. (R)

Q65 The school is a welcoming and inviting place for families like mine.

Table 6 Inclusive Classroom Environment scale classroom observation items

I30 In general, boys and girls receive equal time and attention from the teacher.

I31 The teacher shows similar expectations for both boys and girls (e.g., asks questions of similar difficulty).

I32 In general, students receive equal time and attention regardless of their background (e.g., ethnicity, religion, language, etc).

I33 The teacher encourages and supports participation by struggling students.

Table 7 Student Participation scale teacher survey items

Q19 Students are involved in helping to solve school problems.

Q20 In this school, students are given a chance to help make decisions.

Q33 The principal (school director) asks students about their ideas.


43

Appendix B: School Head Survey Item-by-Item Responses

Table displays the percentage of the 24 participating school heads that provided each response

Not at All

True A Little Bit True

Mostly True

Very True

6 Some students in the community are unable to attend this school because they cannot pay school fees or school costs.

87.5 8.3 4.2 0.0

7 Students at this school are informed of their rights. 0.0 0.0 29.2 70.8

8 There is a procedure in place for students to safely report instances of bullying, harassment, or harm from other students without fear.

4.2 0.0 33.3 62.5

9 There is a procedure in place for students to safely report instances of bullying, harassment, or harm from teachers without fear.

4.2 4.2 33.3 58.3

10 Boys and girls are equally permitted and encouraged to participate in school activities.

0.0 0.0 4.2 95.8

11 Boys and girls are equally permitted and encouraged to participate in academic classes.

0.0 0.0 4.2 95.8

12 Boys and girls are equally permitted and encouraged to participate in physical activity at school.

0.0 0.0 4.2 95.8

13 Some students have difficulty attending school here because of transportation problems.

8.3 8.3 33.3 50.0

14 This school screens students for learning disabilities, such as difficulty with reading or mathematics.

8.3 8.3 16.7 66.7

15 This school has teachers who have been specially trained to work with students with disabilities.

45.8 25.0 25.0 4.2

16 Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the enrollment of children with disabilities.

8.3 16.7 37.5 37.5

17 Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the enrollment of minority students, students living in poverty, or others at risk for poor educational outcomes.

0.0 4.2 37.5 58.3

18 Staff from this school makes direct contact with families whose children drop out of school or are at risk of dropping out to encourage the child’s continued enrollment.

0.0 0.0 20.8 79.2

19 When students are absent from school for more than a few days, school staff makes direct contact with their families to find out what the problem is and to facilitate the child’s return to school as soon as possible.

0.0 4.2 12.5 83.3

20 My school has a written policy on educating all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion.

0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7

21 Pregnant and parenting students are permitted to attend this school. 29.2 16.7 12.5 41.7

22 School staff regularly keeps families informed of student progress (at least twice during the school year).

0.0 0.0 4.2 95.8

23 School staff contacts families promptly if there are concerns about a student’s learning or behavior.

0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3

24 School staff talks to families about how to help their children with their academic studies.

0.0 0.0 20.8 79.2

25 School staff talks to families about child labor and children’s rights. 0.0 4.2 29.2 66.7

26 All teachers, students and parents have been told about the teacher code of conduct.

8.3 4.2 50.0 37.5

27 My school has a policy on appropriate teacher-student behavior. 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0

28 This school has a policy prohibiting the release of student information or displaying or posting student information such as exam scores for the public to see.

29.2 8.3 12.5 50.0


44

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

29 Students play a formal role in decision-making at school (for example, through student government).

0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0

30 Students at this school plan and implement community outreach activities.

8.3 29.2 41.7 20.8

31 Students at my school have opportunities to serve in leadership roles, such as a member of the student council, governing board, or prefect.

0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8

32 This school actively informs the community about what is happening at the school at least several times a year.

0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7

33 This school provides information about what is happening at the school to families in a language and format they understand (written or oral).

0.0 4.2 16.7 79.2

34 This school provides information to all families about school policies on bullying, harassment, and physical and sexual violence to families in a language and format they understand (written or oral).

0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3

35 Teachers are given an opportunity to help plan school activities and participate in long term planning for the school.

0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5

36 This school includes community members on all decision-making and advisory committees.

4.2 4.2 16.7 75.0

37 This school provides training for community representatives on the school's decision-making or advisory committees.

8.3 0.0 41.7 50.0

38 All types of families are encouraged to participate in decision-making at this school, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion.

4.2 0.0 12.5 83.3

39 This school has partnerships with local businesses or community organizations to support student learning.

20.8 16.7 29.2 33.3

40 The school conducts conferences with parents at least twice a year. 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0

41 This school provides information on student progress to families in a language and format they understand (written or oral).

0.0 0.0 20.8 79.2

42 This school has an active Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or School Management Council (SMC).

0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8

43 This school holds regular teacher staff meeting on how to improve students' achievement.

0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3

44 This school conducts classroom observations of teachers. 4.2 4.2 29.2 62.5

45 This school teaches students about the history, culture, and traditions of different ethnic groups in our country.

0.0 0.0 29.2 70.8

46 Students regularly take part in activities like group projects, field trips, group brainstorming, etc.

0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5

47 Teachers in this school receive training on appropriate teacher conduct. 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0

48 Teachers in this school have received training on how to use child-friendly methods of student discipline.

4.2 8.3 37.5 50.0

49 This school recruits teachers who speak the home language(s) of the students.

4.2 0.0 12.5 83.3

50 Students at this school have daily contact with a teacher who speaks their home language.

0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3

51 The school is able to make referrals to community-based providers of medical and mental health services that are not offered by the school.

25.0 25.0 20.8 29.2

52 The school is able to access child welfare services and other support systems for orphans and vulnerable children.

33.3 16.7 29.2 20.8

53 The school is able to teach students how to protect themselves from risks in the community.

0.0 4.2 29.2 66.7

54 The school provides health education to all students regarding the avoidance of high-risk behaviors (e.g., HIV/AIDS education, prevention of substance abuse).

0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7


45

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

55 The school provides health education to all students in the promotion of healthy daily living (e.g., nutrition, dental hygiene).

0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5

56 The school provides education to all students in the development of positive social and emotional skills.

0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3

57 The school provides job-readiness skills education to all students in grades 5 and up.

4.2 20.8 29.2 45.8

58 Student health and development programs are adapted to meet local socio-cultural norms, values, and beliefs.

4.2 4.2 41.7 50.0

59 The school provides students with access to annual health examinations. 29.2 29.2 16.7 25.0

60 The school provides students with access to annual mental health screening.

45.8 33.3 16.7 4.2

61 The school provides micronutrient supplements to students who need them.

20.8 25.0 37.5 16.7

62 The school provides de-worming treatment of parasitic infections to students who need them.

4.2 29.2 29.2 37.5

63 The school provides routine vision and hearing screenings to students, and refers students to free or affordable follow-up services if needed.

45.8 12.5 16.7 25.0

64 The school uses height/weight screening to identify malnourished children.

0.0 37.5 20.8 41.7

65 The school has a feeding program for under-nourished students. [Mark „very true‟ if the program is provided to all students]

8.3 4.2 12.5 75.0

66 Students have an opportunity to eat at least every 4 hours while at school.

4.2 16.7 29.2 50.0

67 Students are given a break in their studies of at least 15 minutes at least every 3 hours while at school.

8.3 0.0 20.8 70.8

68 Students are allowed access to latrines and drinking water whenever they need them (not only at specified times).

0.0 0.0 4.2 95.8

69 Teachers have a break away from students for at least 15 minutes, at least every 4 hours.

66.7 4.2 4.2 25.0

70 The school director is on site and accessible to staff and students at least half of the time.

4.2 4.2 20.8 70.8

71 The school’s water supply is checked regularly to ensure that it is always safe for drinking.

4.2 25.0 20.8 50.0

72 The school follows procedures to reduce the presence of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes) on or near school grounds.

0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8

73 School grounds are kept free from weapons. 0.0 0.0 4.2 95.8

74 School grounds are kept free from drugs and alcohol. 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

75 School staff has been trained in managing emergencies that impact the school.

8.3 16.7 33.3 41.7

76 There is at least one staff member present at all times who knows basic first aid.

4.2 29.2 37.5 29.2

77 Students with disabilities are offered equal opportunities to participate in school activities.

0.0 8.3 12.5 79.2


46

Appendix C: Teacher Survey Item-by-Item Responses

Table displays the percentage of the 144 participating teachers that provided each response

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

5 At this school, students and teachers get along really well. 0.7 2.6 21.7 75.0

6 Students in this school help each other, even if they are not friends. 0.7 8.6 44.1 46.7

7 This school fails to involve parents in most school events or activities. 45.4 10.5 19.7 24.3

8 At school, decisions are made based on what is best for students. 0.7 2.6 11.8 84.9

9 Teachers and students treat each other with respect in this school. 0.0 6.6 22.4 71.1

10 I trust the principal (school director) will keep his or her word. 0.0 4.6 28.9 66.4

11 At this school, it is difficult to overcome the cultural barriers between teachers and parents.

52.0 29.6 11.2 7.2

12 Teachers in this school treat each other with respect. 0.0 3.3 20.4 76.3

13 The principal (school director) and other leaders in this school make good decisions.

0.0 5.3 31.6 63.2

14 The school is a welcoming and inviting place for parents. 0.7 2.0 20.4 77.0

15 Adults in the community support this school. 0.7 14.5 48.7 36.2

16 Lots of parents come to events at this school. 0.7 9.9 44.7 44.7

17 The principal (school director) looks out for the personal welfare of school staff members.

1.3 7.9 25.0 65.8

18 Adults in the community encourage youth to take school seriously. 1.3 19.7 46.7 32.2

19 Students are involved in helping to solve school problems. 1.3 11.2 42.1 45.4

20 In this school, students are given a chance to help make decisions. 2.0 3.9 35.5 58.6

21 Adults in the community know what goes on inside schools. 0.7 15.1 40.1 44.1

22 Teachers and school staff believe that all students can learn. 0.0 3.3 15.8 80.9

23 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school. 0.0 0.7 9.2 90.1

24 I feel safe at my school. 3.3 5.3 21.7 71.7

25 My students are safe at school. 2.0 5.9 23.7 68.4

26 This school is being ruined by bullies. 78.9 9.9 5.3 5.9

27 This school is badly affected by crime and violence in the community. 78.3 14.5 3.3 3.9

28 I am satisfied with my involvement with decision-making at this school. 0.7 5.3 30.3 63.8

29 When students break rules, they are treated fairly. 2.6 4.6 36.2 56.6

30 School staff members have a lot of informal opportunities to influence what happens here.

28.9 19.1 27.0 25.0

31 Crime and violence are or should be major concerns at school. 67.1 20.4 3.3 9.2

32 The work rules at this school make it easy for teachers to their jobs well.

1.3 2.6 21.1 75.0


47

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

33 The principal (school director) asks students about their ideas. 3.9 6.6 29.6 59.9

34 Health issues keep students at this school from learning as much as they should.

14.5 23.7 26.3 35.5

35 Hygiene is or should be a concern at this school. 9.2 8.6 11.8 70.4

36 All students should be encouraged to participate in class discussions. 1.3 1.3 22.4 75.0

37 Inadequate nutrition keeps students at this school from learning as much as they should.

5.3 3.9 25.0 65.8

38 Classroom learning is most effective when based primarily on lectures, with students responding when called on.

25.0 9.2 29.6 36.2

39 It is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that all students in their class are successful.

0.0 1.3 11.2 87.5

40 Students can benefit academically from learning that takes place outside the classroom.

11.2 27.6 34.9 26.3

41 When teachers allow students to discuss or debate ideas in class, it takes time away from learning.

82.9 6.6 3.3 7.2

42 Students have better academic achievement in classrooms where their active participation in learning is encouraged.

3.3 1.3 9.9 85.5

43 It is the teacher’s responsibility to find a way to meet the learning needs of every student in their class.

0.7 1.3 15.8 82.2

44 This school provides me with adequate resources to help every student in my class to succeed.

3.3 25.0 34.2 37.5

45 This school provides a sanitary environment for staff and students. 1.3 11.2 22.4 65.1

46 Teachers should not make a lot of effort to help students who are behind in their work because it takes too much time away from the other students.

94.1 1.3 3.3 1.3

47 Teachers should focus their efforts on those students who have the best chance to succeed in life.

80.9 6.6 6.6 5.9

48 I am able to speak the home language of the students in my class. 3.3 4.6 24.3 67.8

49 Teachers at this school help each other. 0.7 2.6 18.4 78.3

50 Teachers in this school trust each other. 2.6 8.6 27.6 61.2

51 Teachers at this school are given ongoing opportunities to learn better techniques through workshops, seminars, or trainings.

2.0 11.8 24.3 61.8

52 I have been provided with professional development opportunities that have helped me to be a better teacher at this school.

15.1 11.8 28.9 44.1

53 School leadership provides teachers at this school with adequate support to continually improve their teaching methods.

2.6 11.8 38.2 47.4

54 School leadership provides teachers at this school with adequate support to continually improve their relationships with all types of students.

2.6 9.2 35.5 52.6

55 Teachers at this school provide each other with helpful feedback to improve their teaching methods.

0.7 5.9 21.7 71.7

56 Students at this school have the materials they need to learn. 5.3 47.4 36.2 11.2

57 Teachers at this school have the resources they need to plan effective lessons.

2.6 32.9 40.1 24.3

58 Teachers at this school are provided with an effective curriculum to guide their teaching.

2.0 12.5 30.9 54.6

59 Teachers at this school have adequate opportunities to prepare their lessons.

0.0 11.2 32.2 56.6


48

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

60 Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by teachers and school staff.

89.5 3.3 3.9 3.3

61 This school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights.

0.7 0.0 11.8 87.5

62 I am unable to implement the curriculum as well as I would like because I don’t have the right materials available.

34.9 31.6 21.1 12.5

63 Families are involved in making decisions that affect this school. 14.5 14.5 35.5 35.5

64 This school is a welcoming place for all types of children. 1.3 1.3 18.4 78.9


49

Appendix D: Student Survey Item-by-Item Responses

Table displays the percentage of the 985 participating students that provided each response

Yes No Not

Applicable

3 Is the language that the teachers at your school use the same as the language you use at home?

98.0 2.0

4 Is the religion you practice at home the same as most other students at your school?

61.4 32.4 6.2

Mostly

Excellent Mostly Good

Mostly Fair

Mostly Poor/ Failing

5 What kind of grades do you usually get? 37.3 47.5 13.8 1.4

Yes No

6 Do you expect to continue your education next year? 98.7 1.3

Never Less than Once

per Month Once per Month

or More

7 During the past year, how many days did you miss school without permission from the school or from your family?

63.4 28.0 8.6

Never 15 Days or Less

16 to 30 Days

More than 30

Days

8 During the past year, how many days did you have to miss school in order to work or to help out at home?

82.6 16.2 0.4 0.8

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

9 Students at this school help each other, even if they are not friends. 3.9 15.3 15.9 64.9

10 At school, decisions are made based on what is best for students. 4.1 7.8 25.8 62.4

11 I can talk with at least one adult at school about things that are bothering me.

17.2 18.4 17.5 46.9

12 I have given up on school. 15.0 8.9 11.8 64.3

13 Students at this school treat each other with respect. 8.9 21.7 16.6 52.8

14 The principal (school director) and other leaders in this school make good decisions.

2.3 3.4 17.7 76.6

15 I want to complete secondary school. 3.1 5.2 17.9 73.8

16 In this school, students are given a chance to help make decisions. 5.8 13.7 28.6 51.9


50

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

17 Teachers at this school really care about students like me. 2.4 5.2 18.5 73.9

18 Students are involved in helping to solve school problems. 9.8 15.0 25.2 50.0

19 If students see another student being picked on, they try to stop it. 10.5 20.3 22.2 47.0

20 Adults in the community encourage me to take school seriously. 4.4 8.3 23.0 64.4

21 I think that this school respects families like mine. 1.6 5.2 22.9 70.3

22 My family knows what goes on inside this school. 8.9 17.4 24.2 49.6

23 Teachers and school staff believe that all students can learn. 2.1 6.1 17.3 74.5

24 I feel safe at my school. 1.4 6.6 21.2 70.8

25 I feel safe walking both to and from school. 6.4 19.4 24.1 50.1

26 I sometimes stay home from school because I am worried about my safety.

51.1 20.3 10.8 17.5

27 Students at this school like to put each other down. 47.0 23.1 10.8 19.1

28 This school is being ruined by bullies. 55.7 19.5 6.6 18.2

29 I look forward to coming to school. 2.1 3.3 14.9 79.7

30 This school is badly affected by crime and violence in the community. 78.0 12.3 4.8 4.9

31 My teachers treat me with respect. 3.4 3.8 13.7 79.1

32 Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by teachers and school staff.

59.1 15.3 10.0 15.5

33 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school. 3.8 5.8 19.5 70.9

34 There are some students in this school who nobody talks to. 51.7 25.7 8.3 14.3

35 There are some students at this school who everybody teases. 52.4 23.2 10.7 13.6

36 Students at this school think it is okay to fight someone who insults them.

72.1 15.2 4.6 8.1

37 This school does a good job teaching students what they really need to know in life.

2.0 2.2 14.9 80.9

38 This school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights.

2.4 4.8 22.6 70.6

39 Teachers at my school say unkind things to students. 59.3 14.9 10.0 15.8

40 I feel safe everywhere at my school. 5.5 10.6 16.2 67.7

41 Sometimes I do not want to come to school because of how the teachers treat me.

81.7 8.7 5.8 3.9

42 Students at this school know how to disagree without starting a fight or an argument.

30.4 18.9 13.5 37.1

43 This school is a welcoming place for all types of students. 4.6 6.9 18.2 70.3

44 Teachers at this school expect students like me to succeed in life. 2.8 3.7 17.5 76.0

45 Teachers at this school are interested in what students like me have to say.

7.3 13.2 17.9 61.7

46 When students break rules, they are treated fairly. 22.1 20.4 18.4 39.1


51

Not at All


Mostly True

Very True

47 This school does not try to help students who are behind in their work to catch up.

63.7 10.1 8.8 17.4

48 My teachers give me feedback on my assignments that help me to improve my work.

4.3 4.7 20.0 71.0

49 When students master their lessons, they are given more challenging work.

11.9 18.7 21.9 47.5

50 This school does a good job in preparing students to continue on for more education after they graduate.

3.3 8.2 17.2 71.3

51 The topics we are studying at this school are interesting. 2.5 3.0 21.0 73.5

52 Students at this school think that it is okay to cheat. 82.3 9.3 3.6 4.9

53 Students at this school try to do a good job on their lessons, even if they are difficult or not interesting.

5.2 11.6 22.0 61.2

54 Adults in this school are usually willing to give students extra help. 3.7 11.6 22.4 62.3

55 Adults in this school apply the same rules to all students equally. 6.4 14.9 20.6 58.1

56 Every student is encouraged to participate in class discussions. 14.1 12.6 20.9 52.3

57 Teachers notice if I am having difficulty with my lessons. 3.9 9.8 23.4 63.0

58 Teachers give students opportunities to improve their work if they do poorly on an assignment.

3.1 8.7 24.8 63.5

59 Teachers at this school will listen if you want to explain your answers in class or on assignments.

2.6 5.3 20.5 71.6

60 Students at this school have the materials they need to support their learning.

9.2 21.4 23.3 46.2

61 Sometimes I am too hungry to pay attention in school. 53.6 18.3 9.8 18.3

62 I can talk to teachers or other adults at school if I am having problems in class.

6.1 6.8 18.6 68.6

63 I wish I went to a different school. 70.0 12.6 8.0 9.4

64 Lessons at this school are boring. 72.6 14.7 5.6 7.1

65 The school is a welcoming and inviting place for families like mine. 4.6 6.4 20.0 69.1

66 Families like mine are involved in making decisions that affect this school.

44.5 14.7 14.6 26.2

67 Students are encouraged to work together in class. 2.3 5.5 21.6 70.6

68 Students are encouraged to share their ideas and opinions in class. 2.1 6.7 26.9 64.4

69 It is difficult for students like me to get extra help from teachers. 21.6 13.6 14.6 50.1

70 The principal (school director) asks students about their ideas. 13.1 10.7 19.5 56.6


52

Appendix E: School Observation Item-by-Item Responses

Table displays the percentage of the 25 observed schools that received each rating

Not at All

True Somewhat

True Very True

Outdoor Areas

1 If the school is located near a road, there is a physical barrier between traffic and school grounds.

0.0 24.0 76.0

2 School buildings and grounds have a welcoming appearance. 0.0 28.0 72.0

3 Examples of student work or achievements are displayed in common areas. 50.0 12.5 37.5

4 The school grounds are kept free of litter and garbage, except in designated containers.

0.0 20.0 80.0

5 The school grounds are kept free of unwanted animals and animal waste (e.g., stray dogs). Any school pets are kept in sanitary conditions.

12.0 16.0 72.0

6 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of waste water. 8.0 16.0 76.0

7 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of latrine waste. 4.0 0.0 96.0

8 Smoking is prohibited on the school grounds. 8.0 4.0 88.0

9 Outdoor play areas and equipment are safe and in good repair. 36.0 48.0 16.0

10 Students are protected from the elements while using outdoor play areas (e.g., protected from excessive sun, dust, rain, or wind).

52.0 20.0 28.0

11 All outdoor play areas are accessible to students with physical disabilities. 35.0 20.0 45.0

Indoor Areas

1 The school buildings are clean. 0.0 12.0 88.0

2 Toxic materials (e.g., cleaning chemicals) are kept inaccessible to students at all times.

24.0 16.0 60.0

3 The school keeps a stocked first aid kit accessible at all times. 45.5 50.0 4.5

4 School buildings provide adequate protection from the elements (rain, heat, cold, wind, dust)

4.0 16.0 80.0

General Observations

1 Students are protected from access by unauthorized adults while at school. 4.0 16.0 80.0

2 Students are within sight or hearing of school staff at all times except for brief periods (e.g., when using the latrine).

0.0 20.0 80.0

3 Students are not permitted to roam the hallways or school grounds when class is in session.

0.0 20.0 80.0

4 Students are not permitted to leave school grounds without the knowledge and permission of school staff.

0.0 8.0 92.0

5 Older students do not have unsupervised access to younger students while on school grounds (except siblings or other close family members).

13.6 36.4 50.0

6 School buildings are in good structural condition. 8.0 8.0 84.0

7 School buildings are in good physical condition (e.g., no peeling paint, broken windows, etc.)

4.0 32.0 64.0

8 Students and staff have ongoing, easy access to drinking water. 12.0 36.0 52.0

9 Drinking water is accessible to students with disabilities. 22.7 27.3 50.0


53

10 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to latrines. 8.3 50.0 41.7

11 Latrines and sinks are accessible to students with disabilities. 13.0 8.7 78.3

12 Latrines are designed to allow students privacy. 0.0 0.0 100.0

13 There is an adequate number of functioning latrines available so that students do not have to wait an excessive amount of time to use them.

0.0 29.2 70.8

14 Latrines are safe and in good repair. 4.0 24.0 72.0

15 Latrines are accessible to classrooms. 0.0 8.0 92.0

16 Latrines and sinks are clean and sanitary. 0.0 28.0 72.0

17 Students and staff wash their hands after using latrines. 4.3 43.5 52.2

18 Students and staff wash their hands prior to eating or handling food. 9.1 40.9 50.0

19 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to food preparation areas. 45.0 30.0 25.0

20 Any food prepared and served at school is prepared and stored in sanitary conditions.

4.5 45.5 50.0

21 Students have adequate space to work and play without being disturbed by others.

12.0 20.0 68.0

22 All school buildings and classrooms are accessible to students with physical disabilities.

22.7 22.7 54.5

23 Students with disabilities are grouped with non-disabled students whenever possible.

5.3 10.5 84.2

24

Students are not separated into different groups for instruction or school activities based on cultural or social background (with the exception of language instruction or transitional programs if needed). (Mark Not Applicable in places where it is the norm for older boys and girls to be kept separate from one another).

4.5 0.0 95.5


54

Appendix F: Classroom Observation Item-by-Item Responses

Table displays the percentage of the 65 observed classrooms that received each rating

Not at All

True Somewhat

True Very True

1 The classroom is protected from the elements (solid roof, walls, and floor). 0.0 9.2 90.8

2 The classroom has adequate ventilation. 1.5 12.3 86.2

3 The classroom is a comfortable temperature. 1.5 12.3 86.2

4 The classroom lighting is adequate for students to work. 1.5 21.5 76.9

5 The classroom is clean and orderly (the floor is clean, the tables are orderly, no garbage on the floor).

0.0 29.2 70.8

6 Outside noise does not affect communication within the classroom. 7.7 33.8 58.5

7 Students each have sufficient space to work. 1.5 21.5 76.9

8 Students each have a chair or bench to sit on while working. 0.0 0.0 100.0

9 Furniture is of the right size for students to work comfortably. 0.0 20.0 80.0

10 There is a blackboard/whiteboard in the classroom that all students can see clearly from their seats.

1.5 9.2 89.2

11 Posters, artwork, or maps (commercially produced or handmade) appear on the walls of the classroom.

1.5 7.7 90.8

12 There are examples of student work or projects visible in the classroom. 27.7 26.2 46.2

13 The teacher presents lessons in a well-prepared and organized manner. 0.0 24.6 75.4

14 The teacher maintains an engaging class, without pressuring the students. 0.0 18.8 81.3

15 The teacher facilitates discussions among students. 14.1 29.7 56.3

16 The teacher gives the students the opportunity to present their work to the rest of the class in groups or on their own. [Ask teacher for examples if not observed.]

9.8 26.2 63.9

17 The teacher asks questions that facilitate higher order thinking activities (e.g., application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, etc).

7.7 29.2 63.1

18 The teacher relates information presented in the lesson to students’ lives outside of the classroom, or to life skills or social emotional learning.

22.2 27.0 50.8

19 While the students are working, the teacher moves around the classroom to provide support and guidance.

7.7 26.2 66.2

20 The teacher addresses students by name. 3.1 24.6 72.3

21 The teacher communicates both verbally and nonverbally in a positive and friendly manner.

0.0 10.8 89.2

22 The teacher interacts with the students in a respectful manner. 0.0 3.1 96.9

23 The teacher uses positive methods to manage student behavior. 1.5 15.4 83.1

24 The teacher adapts lessons for student with special learning needs. [Ask teacher for examples if not observed.]

13.0 21.7 65.2

25 The students pay attention when the teacher gives them instructions. 0.0 31.3 68.8

26 The students ask the teacher questions. 12.7 34.9 52.4


55

Not at All

True Somewhat

True Very True

27 The majority of the students participate in class activities. [Note any observable patterns of non-participation (girls, minorities, etc.) in comments].

1.6 31.7 66.7

28 The students spend little time (less than 20%) copying the lesson literally from the textbook or chalkboard into their notebooks.

7.9 46.0 46.0

29 The students interact with the teacher in a respectful manner. 0.0 12.3 87.7

30 In general, boys and girls receive equal time and attention from the teacher. 1.5 9.2 89.2

31 The teacher shows similar expectations for both boys and girls (e.g., asks questions of similar difficulty).

4.6 10.8 84.6

32 In general, students receive equal time and attention regardless of their background (e.g., ethnicity, religion, language, etc). [Leave blank and note in the comments section if cannot identify these students by observation.]

4.3 2.2 93.5

33 The teacher encourages and supports participation by struggling students. [Leave blank and note in the comments section if cannot identify these students by observation.]

18.2 12.1 69.7


56

Acknowledgements Many people contributed to the evaluation and preparation of this report and the authors acknowledge their important contributions.

AIR staff who led the site visits to the six countries provided both superb technical leadership in the field and valuable insights to help us interpret the data that was collected: Mona Habib and Susan Skipper Caceres (Guyana); Markus Broer and Olivia Padilla (Nicaragua); Elizabeth Spier and Gwen Willis-Darpo (Nigeria); Luke Shors and Nitika Tolani-Brown (the Philippines and Thailand); and Tom Bewick and Cassandra Jessee (South Africa). Laurence (Lolo) Dessein organized the country site visits in collaboration with UNICEF country offices and supported the field teams from the home office with the support of Rob Hurtekant. Rima Azzam managed the project during the inception phase. Roy Zimmermann managed project logistics in the home office throughout the data collection period. Corbrett Hodson contributed to data analysis and report production. Miguel Socias developed the cost model and conducted analyses for the cost analysis. Elizabeth Spier played a key role in the development of many instruments. Judy Benjamin, Jeff Davis and Jerry Mindes provided quality assurance oversight throughout the project and reviewed drafts of the report and provided valuable suggestions. Mark Strickland of Schoolhouse Partners provided valuable consultation on the cost model and analyses.

The authors would like to thank the staff of the UNICEF country offices for the extraordinary effort they made to facilitate our country site visits, before, during and after our time in-country: in Guyana, Sekeywi Carruthers, Deguene Fall and Bhagmattie Bhojedat; in Nicaragua, Anyoli Sanabria, Maria Elena Ubeda and Fatima Aguado; in Nigeria, Maman Sidikou, Valentina Solarin and George Igelegbai; in the Philippines, Lulay de Vera and Martin Ignatius Bernardo; in Thailand, Rangsun Wiboonuppatum and Marut Jatiket; and in South Africa, Andries Viviers, Nadi Albino and Rosaria Kunda.

We thank Cream Wright and Changu Mannathoko of the Education Section and Sam Bickel and Kathleen Letshabo of the Evaluation Unit of UNICEF Headquarters for their guidance and support throughout the evaluation.

Finally, we thank the school heads, teachers, parents and students in the schools we visited for speaking with us about their experiences and the government, donor and NGO representatives that we met with during our site visits for taking the time to meet with us and help us understand CFS in their countries.

UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS EVALUATION: Country Report ... · UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS...

Documents

Transcript of UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS EVALUATION: Country Report ... · UNICEF CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS...