unicef’s data must speak project - thegpsa.org · department of education planning and evaluation...
Post on 10-Sep-2018
231 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Overview of Data Must Speak
• A technical assistance program using data for increased community engagement, improved system management and accountability.
• Project implemented by UNICEF HQ, ROs, COs and UNESCO-IIEP Pole de Dakar, supported financially by the Global Partnership for Education, Hewlett foundation and UNICEF Education Thematic Fund.
• Implementation: since August 2014.
• Participating countries: Madagascar (2014), Togo (2014), Zambia (2015), Nepal (2015), Peru (2015, financial support through EduTrac project), the Philippines (2016) requests from Indonesia, Tanzania, DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Chad, Timor-Leste etc.
Rationale
Issues:• Lack of equity in resource distribution• Lack of value for moneyFrom traditional accountability route -> direct accountability
Community empowerment
Providing user-friendly relevant information to stakeholders at all levels
Central Level
Budgeting and planning
Region
Some resource allocation decision
District / Inspectorate
Pedagogic supervision
School / Community
School Based Management
Working at several interrelated levels
Benefits
Improved data quality
Informed resource
allocation
Targeted pedagogic
support
School/District
Profile CardCode:
Region
Number of schools
Total number of students:
Schools with water 25
CP1
CP2
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
Total
Teachers Textbooks
Current Need Current Need Math Reading
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Inspectors and advisors Grade 5
Grade 5
Inspectors Total
Advisors
Total
A. Results C. Indices of context & resources and results
NB: Efficiency = Results/Context and resources
B. Resources
Reading textbook to pupil ratio
Math textbook to pupil ratio
% of seats per pupil
% of temporary classrooms
Pupil to classroom ratio
Pupil to teacher ratio
% of volunteer teachers
R2
School to inspector ratio
School to advisor ratio
Teacher to inspector ratio
Teacher to advisor ratio
R2= Consistency in distribution of teachers
Ministry of Primary and Secondary
Education PLATEAUX
KPELEDistrict
Secretariat
-----------
-----------
Department of Education Planning and
Evaluation
47.3
47.6
47.9
49.5
47.2
32.5
29.7
28.0
27.2
Enrolled
124
121 3209
3712
5022
3612
3215
Survival Rate 47.1 51.1
Parity index of CEPD pass rate
42.4
43.8
42.3
0.4
31
68.0 62.6
46
22.9
77.0
1.1
1.0
1 1 2
32.1
30.1
32.8
121
5233
207 416 335
60 66 68
0 0 0
1 1 2
63 47
0.3
27.3
Assistant 71 12 83
Parity index of repeaters
Parity index of survival rate 0.80 0.85
0.80 0.71
0.85
0.82
0.74 0.76% of Repeaters 28.9
0.98
Results
0.46 0.41
0.90 0.93
Context & resources 0.47
District Region TOGOCEPD Pass rate 77.1 80.6
Efficiency
3706 0 3659 0
4146
0 3319Need
24.5
Total 372 42 414
Private 88 7 95
4. Comparaison of District at Regional and National Levels
75.1
District Region TOGO
Government
50.8
71.1
44
32.5
74.5
0.3
0.5
0.76
1.62 1.861.63
45.6
Level
1.01
1.17 1.16
1.17
92 0.992436
Female TotalMale 0.76
2495
0
20724 142 19265 879
2131 0 1378 436
1.15
0.96
3333
33
1.08
1.14
21.1
26.0
19.5
119
119
121 2853
28.730.6
1814
46.7
46.4
43.8 44.5
% girl Enrolled % girl
48.8
49.3
49.5
725
2687
2564
1868
1917919138
2528
28.9
213
Reading
47.6 29.5
Pupil book Ratio
4913
47.9
Mathematics
109 0.98 0.93
3 Resources
Male Female Total
23 236
4671 351
1.020 1.123802 0
2. Bottleneck Analysis
Schools accesible year round ? 90Number of double shift
schools99 Number of schools with a sportsfield 58
Number of urban schools? 12
313
Level
551 Number of schools with electricity
Section % repeaters % repeaters
120
19,138School Year: 2012-2013 District Profile
1. General Statistics
Community: Schools with latrines 25
12 Number of classrooms
Government 96 3 Private: 21
2012-2013 2011-2012
71.9
34.7
55.8
38.7
#DIV/0! 395 231
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Context & resources Results
District Region TOGO
Improved community
Involvement
Informed school
based management
Major activities
• Community level:
“Simplified school profiles”: comparative information that can be understood by communities (Madagascar, Togo, etc.).
Real time monitoring by communities (Peru etc.).
School based management using the profiles.
• System level e.g. linking EMIS and learning data, district profiles for targeted support & resource allocation, equity index (Nepal).
• Global level: knowledge sharing – what works in which context, global public good.
Lessons learnt / principles
• Lessons learnt: Impact of information feedback on absenteeism/repetition
(Madagascar), learning (Pakistan), grant reception rate (Uganda), EMIS data (Niger).
But… Sustainability issues. Tools often too technical / not comprehensive.
• Hence principles: National ownership (at all levels) / flexibility. Cost-effective systems, integrated in national sector plans. Synergies with other initiatives. Learning by doing. Knowledge sharing. Global public good.
Togo school profile(extract)
Using EMIS & exams (central) data
Provide comparative (with district) information to communities
Peru school profile
Community discussion around profile
Issue: student absenteeism
Reason: fear of snakes
Decision: cutting the grass around the school to ensure the school is a snake-free zone.
Results at other levels
Zambia: school profiles developed, extensive consultation (400 headteachers), EMIS-generated, distributed to all schools alongside the EMIS questionnaire.
Results at other levels
• Togo, Madagascar: composite indices to contrast resource, context, and performance for typology of districts/schools.
• Equity Index in Nepal on access, completion, learning (dimensions of gender, caste, location, disability, etc.), jointly supported by UNICEF and the WB endorsed and used by government for financial allocations to districts.
13
Thank you!
More information:
Gabrielle Bonnet: gbonnet@unicef.org
Mathieu Brossard: mbrossard@unicef.org
Short / long accountability route
Source: World Development Report 2004, Making Services Work for Poor People, World Bank, 2003
Ministry of Basic & Secondary Education School Scorecard
Directorate of Planning 2009/10
Based on the information collected from the school by the CMs
Nb of Students
Nb of classrooms ##1.0
0.5
0.8
0.3
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
## ##
## ##
District
0.3
M
0.8
0.8
0.5
School
15
NAT G3
Maths
NAT G5
Englis h
Region
Dro p-o ut
ra te G1-6
Student
teacher rat io
% o f qualified
teachers
Nb o f
s tudents per
Eng lish
textbook
663
Albion
Banjul
Region1
Nb o f
s tudents
p er Maths
textbook
NAT G3
Englis h
NAT G5
Maths
####
##
##
## ## ##
Performance
Resources
Simplified School Profile in
Gambia
Fewer indicators
Use of icons for concepts and comparisons
School Profile in Madagascar
Highlight on notably high or low indicators
Automatically generatedanalysis text
School Profile: Togo
Includes school indices (context/resources and
results) used in the calculation of school grants with an equity perspective
Code:
DRE:
Inspection:
Statut: PUBLIC
Directeur: BIMIZI TOCTAWONGOU
Canton Localité
CP1
CP2
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
Total
Enseignants tenant classe Equipements et manuels scolaires
Niveau
CP1
CP2
CE1
CE2
Montant reçu (en FCFA) CM1
CM2
Total
A. RESULTATS C. INDICES DE CONTEXTE/MOYENS ET DE RESULTATS
NB: Efficience = Résultat/Contexte et moyens
B. MOYENS
Ratio Elèves/Maître
% d'Enseignants Volontaires
% de places assises /élève
Ratio Manuel de lecture/élève
Ratio Manuel de calcul/élève
% de salles en matériaux provi
Rapport élèves/salle de classe 44
0.87
39
75,000
44
0.84
0.66
0.75
35
54
68
0.54
0.71
33.25
0.48
0.28
37
39
44
36
70
0.40
42.9
0 0 - -
0
0
24
Indice de parité de % de redoublants
Indice de parité de rétention 0.91
0.81 0.67
0.71
0
75,000
73
14
27
0.67
0 0 -
78.8
0 3
Manuels de calcul
Existant Besoin
0.31
Ecole
ONG 0
35
0
1
30
% de redoublants
Indice de parité de réussite au CEPD
79
54
24
0.92
23
0.95
87
Total
0
0.4
0.23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.14
0
0
- -
47.7 30.7
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
- 0
4. Moyens
54
Ratio manuel/élève
4 160 51.9 37.5 153
0
3
404P004PMinistère des Enseignements Primaire
et Secondaire
-----------
Secrétariat Général
-----------
Direction de la Planification de
l'Education et de l'Evaluation
37 51.4
2011-2012
Inscrits % fi l les %redoublant
47 40.4 51.1
2. Contexte de l'école
Accès à l'école toute l'année ?
RURAL
40.6
Année scolaire: 2012-2013 FICHE ECOLE
1. Localisation de l'école
OUI
Electricité ?
Manuels de lecture
15
8
32
Niveau2012-2013
Homme Femme
Sections Inscrits % fi l les %redoublant
1 54 53.7 35.2
1 38 50.0 34.2
1 27.0
43.6 33.3
0Terrain de sport?
3. Effectifs d'élèves
39
43.8
0
Besoin
Volontaires
Cours jumelés?
37.5
0.92
5. Comparaison des résultats et des moyens de l'école à ceux de l'IEPP, de la DRE et du Pays
Tx de rétention 14.6 61
IEPP DRE TOGO
Besoin CalculLecture
Tx de réussite au CEPD en 2012
1
0
0Auxiliaires
0
1
0
159
0.30
0.67
2.2
Résultat
40
53
0
69
0.23
0.14
100.0
Efficience
32
47
82
0.5
0.8
1.6
DRE
0.4
0.8
1.7
TOGO
Contexte/moyens 0.40
0.74
1.9
IEPPEcole
0
Autre
Total
0
Dotation budgétaire de l'Etat
Subvention du PERI
0
1 0
Cotisation des parents 0
Fonctionnaires
22 0
136
0
1
Existant
0
38
32
35
0
CENTRALE
EPP ADJENGRE CENTRE/C
SOTOUBOUA_NORD
Ecole:
0 - -
ADJENGRE ADJENGRE
Total
Nb salles occupéesZone urbaine?
NB: 1 = oui / 0 = non
4
1
0
0
1 36 61.1 38.9 30 60.0
Eau?
Latrines ?
0.0
32
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Contexte/moyens Résultat Efficience
Ecole IEPP DRE TOGO
School Profile: Zambia (draft, abstract 1)
Distribution of scores by level
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 1
Pre school Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr 7 2013196 196 189 181 173 170 168 151 1595
98 98 95 91 87 85 84 76 850
98 98 94 90 86 85 84 75 745
5
2%
5
5%
5
1%
(%)
Children with Special Education Needs
(%)
Readmited after pregnancy 17
SCIENCE: 25% of boys and 23% of girls achieved Division 1 and 18% of boys and 40% of girls failed.SDS: 23% of boys and 25% of girls achieved Division 1 and 4% of boys and 19% of girls failed.
Refugees
Total (2014)1510616
612
ENGLISH: 6% of boys and 31% of girls achieved Division 1 and 21% of boys and 17% of girls failed.
Enrolment
Learning outcomes: Grade 7 Pass Rates
The overall results in 2014 have increased from 2013 (but
are lower than in 2012)
There is little difference in 2014 between the results of boys
and girls.
Learning outcomes: Grade 7 results by division
EnrolmentBoys
Girls
Orphans and Vulnerable Children
(%)
MATHEMATICS: 21% of boys and 24% of girls achieved Division 1 and 25% of boys and 18% of girls failed.ZAMBIAN LANGUAGES: 5% of boys and 2% of girls achieved Division 1 and 45% of boys and 41% of girls failed.
70%
89%
75%
87%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2012 2013 2014 District Province Zambia
school 2014Boys Girls
21% 17%25%
18%
45% 41%
18%
40%
4%19%
6%
31%21% 24%
5% 2%
25% 23% 23% 25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
English Maths Zambian languages Science Social and DevelopmentStudies
Fail Div. 4 Div. 3 Div. 2 Div. 1
5%
41%
39%
15%Age of new entrants in Grade 1
Under 7
Age 7
Age 8
Over 8
Automated
Text
School Profile: Zambia (draft, abstract 2)
Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr 7 Last year District1 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 23 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 21 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr 70 0 0 9 27 28 0
23 29 22 0 3 24 180 0 24 21 28 0 0
10 11 0 4 16 0 0
34 40 46 34 75 52 18
School environment: Your school environment is more favourable than the district average.
Resources: Your school resources are above the district average, and are approximately equal to the provincial and national averages.
Performance: Your school performance is below the average district, provincial and national performance.
Science 42
# of textbooks needed TotalEnglish 65
Learning Materials
2
Pupil- Textbk. RatioEnglish
MathematicsZambian languages
Science
Total23
Rating of School environment, Resources and Performance
2
Total 299
Mathematics 120Zambian languages 73
Pupil-Textbook Ratios: More children have to share a single textbook in Grades 5 and 6 in English, and in Grade 2 in Mathematics.
Needs: The greatest textbooks needs are in Grade 2 for mathematic and Grade 5 for Zambian languages.
School environment Resources Performance
District average
School is well above average
School is about average
School is well below average
Automated
Text
District Profile in
Madagascar
Performance and Resources
of District -compared to the
regional averages
10-01-00
DISTRICT: ANDOHARANOFOTSY
CP1 Enrolled in CM2
CP2 Sat
CE Passed
CM1 Pass Rate
CM2 Passed/Enrolled in CM2
Average
Nb of schools
As a % of total number of primary schools
Nb of students Nb of students per school
Nb of teachers Nb of students per teacher
In a classroom % community teachers
Civil servants and Contracts % of teachers not in classroom
Community
Substitutes and others
Not in a classroom
Total
Drop-out Rate A
Drop-out Rate
Repetition Rate
Repetition Rate A Exam Pass Rate
Student-Teacher Ratio
Exam Pass Rate A
41
Your District
Worse than your
Department Average
Ratsy raha oharina amin'ny
salan'isa hita eo anivon'ny
CISCO
In Difficulty
Mahakivy
(Tsy ampy ny enti-manana
sady ratsy ny voka-
panadinana)
Better than your
Department Average
Tsara kokoa raha oharina
amin'ny salan'isa hita eo
anivon'ny CISCO
HOW DOES YOUR DISTRICT FARE IN TERMS OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO?
Aiza ho aiza no misy ny District raha ny lafiny fahombiazana sy ny hamaroan'ny mpampianatra miasa ao aminy no jerena?
Better than your
Department Average
Tsara kokoa raha oharina
amin'ny salan'isan'ny hita eo
anivon'ny CISCO
Worse than your
Department Average
Ratsy raha oharina amin'ny
salan'isa hita eo anivon'ny
CISCO
OutstandingLafatra
(Tsy ampy aza ny enti-
manana: mpampianatra,
boky, sns. nefa tsara ny voka-
panadinana)
24.5
71.8
Your
Department
Your District Your Department
281
41
28.4
4.7
Type of District
Fisokajiana
Academic Performance
Vokatra azo
Student:Teacher RatioIsan'ny mpianatra tazonin'ny
mpampianatra iray
Worse than your
Department Average
Ratsy raha oharina amin'ny
salan'isa hita eo anivon'ny
CISCO
Better than your
Department Average
Tsara kokoa raha oharina
amin'ny salan'isa hita eo
anivon'ny CISCO
Disappointing
Mandiso fanantenana
(Ampy ny enti-manana
nefa ratsy ny voka-
panadinana)
Better than your
Department Average
Tsara kokoa raha oharina
amin'ny salan'isa hita eo
anivon'ny CISCO
Good
Mahafapo
(Ampy ny enti-manana
sady tsara ny voka-
panadinana)
Worse than your
Department Average
Ratsy raha oharina amin'ny
salan'isa hita eo anivon'ny
CISCO
Your District
30.4
19.0
CE
CM1
Your
Department
CP1
CP2
Your DistrictYour
Department
Public and Community Primary Schools
Exam Pass RateDrop-Out Rate Repetition Rate
PERFORMANCE
Your DistrictYour
Department
ANTANANARIVOANTANANARIVO ATSIMONDRANO
(According to data collected in the schools of your district in school years 2004 and 2005)
MENRSREGION:DPT:
DISTRICT PROFILE: YEAR 2005
4.1
12.1
83.5
54
4.8
65536
2.8
3.6
1.6
27.2
7.5
1.4
3.5
3.8
3.6
1.7
5.8
4.0
4.5
4.8
CM2
Average
Your District vs Your
Department
4.1
5.9 442
410
369
90.0
12.1
18.1
28.421.2
4
79.2
71.8
5
17.9
24.8
24.5
83.5
SCHOOLS, STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
Your District
56
516
54
5.8
7.1
2831
52
47
3
2
Madagascar: Classification of schools for district education officers
Exam Pass RateDrop-out Rate Repetition Rate
HOW DO YOUR SCHOOLS FARE IN TERMS OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO?
Good schools EF1 AMBALAVAO
EFPC AMBOHIBARY
EPP MORATSIAZO
EPP LOHAMANDRY
EPP D'AMPANGABE
EF1 AMBALAVAO
EFPC AMBOHIBARY
EPP AMBONIANDREFANA
EPP MORATSIAZO
EPP LOHAMANDRY
EPP D'AMPANGABE
EPP AMBOHIDAHY
EFPC AMBOHIBARY
EPP AMBONIANDREFANA
EPP MORATSIAZO
EPP LOHAMANDRY
EPP D'AMPANGABE
EPP AMBOHIDAHY
Outstanding schools EPP AMBOHIBARIKELY
EPP AMBOHITSILAZAINA AMBALAVAO
ANTAMBOHO
EPP AMBOHIBARIKELY
EPP AMBOHITSILAZAINA AMBALAVAO
ANTAMBOHO
EPP AMBOHITSILAZAINA AMBALAVAO
Disappointing schools EPP AMBONIANDREFANA
EPP AMBOHIDAHY EF1 AMBALAVAO
Schools in difficulty EPP AMBOHIBARIKELY
ANTAMBOHO
District Profile in Togo
Bottleneck analysis integrated into the profile
(cf. Annex for details)
Code:
Region
Number of schools
Total number of students:
Schools with water 25
CP1
CP2
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
Total
Teachers Textbooks
Current Need Current Need Math Reading
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Inspectors and advisors Grade 5
Grade 5
Inspectors Total
Advisors
Total
A. Results C. Indices of context & resources and results
NB: Efficiency = Results/Context and resources
B. Resources
Reading textbook to pupil ratio
Math textbook to pupil ratio
% of seats per pupil
% of temporary classrooms
Pupil to classroom ratio
Pupil to teacher ratio
% of volunteer teachers
R2
School to inspector ratio
School to advisor ratio
Teacher to inspector ratio
Teacher to advisor ratio
R2= Consistency in distribution of teachers
Ministry of Primary and Secondary
Education PLATEAUX
KPELEDistrict
Secretariat
-----------
-----------
Department of Education Planning and
Evaluation
47.3
47.6
47.9
49.5
47.2
32.5
29.7
28.0
27.2
Enrolled
124
121 3209
3712
5022
3612
3215
Survival Rate 47.1 51.1
Parity index of CEPD pass rate
42.4
43.8
42.3
0.4
31
68.0 62.6
46
22.9
77.0
1.1
1.0
1 1 2
32.1
30.1
32.8
121
5233
207 416 335
60 66 68
0 0 0
1 1 2
63 47
0.3
27.3
Assistant 71 12 83
Parity index of repeaters
Parity index of survival rate 0.80 0.85
0.80 0.71
0.85
0.82
0.74 0.76% of Repeaters 28.9
0.98
Results
0.46 0.41
0.90 0.93
Context & resources 0.47
District Region TOGOCEPD Pass rate 77.1 80.6
Efficiency
3706 0 3659 0
4146
0 3319Need
24.5
Total 372 42 414
Private 88 7 95
4. Comparaison of District at Regional and National Levels
75.1
District Region TOGO
Government
50.8
71.1
44
32.5
74.5
0.3
0.5
0.76
1.62 1.861.63
45.6
Level
1.01
1.17 1.16
1.17
92 0.992436
Female TotalMale 0.76
2495
0
20724 142 19265 879
2131 0 1378 436
1.15
0.96
3333
33
1.08
1.14
21.1
26.0
19.5
119
119
121 2853
28.730.6
1814
46.7
46.4
43.8 44.5
% girl Enrolled % girl
48.8
49.3
49.5
725
2687
2564
1868
1917919138
2528
28.9
213
Reading
47.6 29.5
Pupil book Ratio
4913
47.9
Mathematics
109 0.98 0.93
3 Resources
Male Female Total
23 236
4671 351
1.020 1.123802 0
2. Bottleneck Analysis
Schools accesible year round ? 90Number of double shift
schools99 Number of schools with a sportsfield 58
Number of urban schools? 12
313
Level
551 Number of schools with electricity
Section % repeaters % repeaters
120
19,138School Year: 2012-2013 District Profile
1. General Statistics
Community: Schools with latrines 25
12 Number of classrooms
Government 96 3 Private: 21
2012-2013 2011-2012
71.9
34.7
55.8
38.7
#DIV/0! 395 231
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Context & resources Results
District Region TOGO
top related