What is Quality Education?

A Research Report on Citizens’ Perspectives and Children’s Basic Skills

May 2008

ii

Acknowledgements

This research study was designed jointly by HakiElimu staff and by Suleman Sumra, a member of HakiElimu and retired Professor of Education at the University of Dar es Salaam. Prof. Sumra trained staff on data collection procedures and oversaw the research process. The following HakiElimu staff served as researchers, travelling to the study sites and collecting data: Kellie Bonnici, Emmanuel Dedu, Grace Frederick, Sylvand Jeremiah, Godfrey John, David Kagondi, Stephen Kasambo, Richard Lucas, Daniel Luhamo, Agnes Mangweha, Esther Mashoto, Fiona McGain, Robert Mihayo, Glory Mosha, Fausta Musokwa, Mariam Mwambalaswa, Rosemary Mwenda, Mary Nsemwa, Linus Nzabhayanga, Lilyan Omary, Magreth Paul, Frederick Rwehumbiza, Nyanda Shuli, Peter Tupa, and Gervas Zombwe. The following HakiElimu staff members—Naina Vira, Gervas Zombwe, Ruth Carlitz, Fiona McGain, Rajab Kondo, Linda Scholl—also provided assistance with data analysis of test results. This report was written by Suleman Sumra and Linda Scholl. Editing, feedback, and advice on the report was provided by Elizabeth Missokia, Rakesh Rajani, Rajab Kondo, Ruth Carlitz, and Gervas Zombwe. The Ministry of Education and Vocational Training reviewed the research proposal and approved the study on 6 August 2007. This report would not have been possible without the cooperation of the pupils, students, parents, school committee members, teachers, and district officials we interviewed in the course of this research. We are extremely grateful for their contribution and willingness to work with us. © HakiElimu, 9987-423-65-5 HakiElimu, PO Box 79401, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: (255 22) 2151852/3, Fax:: (255 22) 2152449 Any part of this document may be reproduced for education or non-commercial purposes, provided attribution is made to source and two copies are provided to HakiElimu.

iii

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Research Methodology ................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 Quality Education: Concepts and Perspectives ........................................................................ 6

4.1 Findings: Interview and Focus Group Discussions ................................................... 6

4.1.1 Quality as Inputs ................................................................................................ 6

4.1.2 Quality as Passing Exams ................................................................................. 7

4.1.3 Quality as Teachers ............................................................................................ 8

4.1.4 Quality as Preparation for the Future ............................................................. 8

4.2 Discussion: Interview and Focus Group Discussions ............................................. 10

4.3 Findings: Survey of Learner Capabilities .................................................................... 11

4.4 Discussion: Survey of Learner Capabilities ................................................................ 13

5.0 Children‘s Competencies in Basic Skills .................................................................................. 13

5.1 Mathematics.................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Languages........................................................................................................................ 16

5.2.1 Reading Skills .................................................................................................... 16

5.2.2 Translation Skills .............................................................................................. 17

5.2.3 Dictation Skills ................................................................................................. 24

5.3 Discussion: Language Skills.......................................................................................... 29

5.4 Case Study of a Ward School ....................................................................................... 30

6.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 30

7.0 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 33

8.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 35

9.0 Appendices

9.1 Appendix A: Ethical Guidelines for Researchers ..................................................... 36

9.2 Appendix B: Individual Interview Protocol for Participants ................................. 37

9.3 Appendix C: Focus Group Discussion Protocol ...................................................... 38

9.4 Appendix D: Criteria for Rating Dictations .............................................................. 39

9.5 Appendix E: Primary School Pupils‘ Performance on Maths Test by District .... 40

9.6 Appendix F: Secondary School Students‘ Performance

on Maths Test by District .................................................................... 41

iv

Acronyms

DAO District Academic Officer

DED District Executive Director

DEO District Education Officer

FGD Focus Group Discussion

IEG Independent Evaluation Group

MDG Millennium Development Goals

PEDP Primary Education Development Plan

PSLE Primary School Leaving Examinations

SEDP Secondary Education Development Plan

UNESCO United Nation‘s Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

URT United Republic of Tanzania

1

1.0 Executive Summary Tanzania has made major efforts to improve the education system through the Primary Education Development Plan (PEDP) and Secondary Education Development Plan (SEDP). However, even though more classrooms have been built and enrolment numbers have increased significantly, many citizens assert that the quality of education children are receiving is poor and that children are not learning essential skills they will need to find work, thrive in their communities and contribute to national development. While PEDP and SEDP include a commitment to improving educational quality, efforts thus far have largely been directed at increasing quantitative inputs. The question of educational QUALITY now needs to come front and centre. What does ―quality education‖ mean? How do we recognize that a child has received a high-quality education? To what extent are children actually developing essential skills in schools? HakiElimu commissioned this research study to explore the above questions on quality education at the local level. Six districts were chosen for study. In each district, two elementary schools and two secondary schools were visited. Research staff collected data from pupils and students, parents, school committee members, teachers, head teachers, and district education representatives. This report presents and discusses two sets of findings from the study:

Concepts of quality education. We document the understandings and concepts of quality education at school and community levels through interviews and focus group discussions with local citizens. We also present study participants‘ ratings on the extent to which they believe their children are receiving a quality education using a broadly-recognized list of capabilities children should develop in schools. Tests to assess children’s basic skills. We provide a snapshot of the quality of education actually provided in schools by presenting the results of short tests administered to children in primary and secondary schools. These tests assessed the level of children‘s basic skills in Mathematics and Languages.

1.1 Findings: Concepts of Quality Education

Study participants expressed four distinct concepts of quality education: Quality = inputs. Many respondents equated quality education with material and human resource inputs such as numbers of classrooms, libraries, laboratories, numbers of teachers, teachers‘ houses, and textbooks.

Quality = passing exams. Other study participants indicated that the quality of education could be judged by the numbers of students passing tests such as the PSLE or the Form 4 and Form 6 exams.

Quality = teachers. Still other respondents discussed quality education in terms of issues related to teacher quality: their motivation and working conditions; their level of knowledge, skills, and training; and their teaching practices in the classroom.

Quality = preparation for the future. Many respondents, particularly students and parents, stated that the main indicator of ―quality‖ is the extent to which school graduates are able to find jobs and succeed in their work and community lives.

When asked to rate the extent to which they believe that children in their areas are developing a variety of learner capabilities, study participants gave schools below average marks in general. Parents and school committee members were particularly critical of the quality of education provided. All respondents agreed that schools were far better at developing capabilities such as reading, speaking and writing in Kiswahili than in English.

2

Ratings for Kiswahili skills were generally high, while ratings for the English skills were generally quite low.

1.2 Findings: Tests of Children’s Basic Skills We asked Standard 6 pupils and Form 2 students to complete the same tests (based on the Standard 5 curriculum) in order to assess the level of their skills in two key areas: Languages and Mathematics. The Mathematics test contained a total of seven items arranged in order of difficulty and requiring simple calculations, as well as some application. In the Languages test, Kiswahili and English skills were assessed in three areas: reading, dictation, and translation. Despite the simplicity of the test items, competency levels in Mathematics were very low – both for primary school pupils and secondary school students. Even on the simplest questions, a significant proportion of children was unable to answer correctly. On questions that demanded higher levels of analytical skills, a majority of children was unable to answer the questions correctly. For example, on the last item (asking children to calculate the distance between two cars after journeying specified times), only 11 percent of primary pupils and 10 percent of secondary students were able to calculate the correct answer. Analysis of performance on the Languages tests showed that while many children were comfortable and competent reading and doing dictation in Kiswahili, their performance reading and doing dictation in English was generally low. For example, among primary school pupils, 75 percent of Kiswahili dictations were scored ―good‖ or ―average‖ while just under 25 percent of English dictations were scored similarly. Among secondary school students, 90 percent of Kiswahili dictations were scored ―good‖ or ―average,‖ while just over 60 percent of English dictations were scored ―good‖ or ―average.‖ Children’s’ performance translating between Kiswahili and English was particularly disappointing. Among primary school pupils, 66 percent of the translations from English to Kiswahili and 92 percent of the translations from Kiswahili to English were marked ―poor.‖ Among secondary students, 34 percent of the translations from English to Kiswahili and 59 percent of the translations from Kiswahili to English were marked ―poor.‖

1.3 Conclusions/Recommendations The national discussion on improving education has been dominated by a strong focus on quantitative inputs. While this emphasis is clearly reflected in this study‘s findings, there is also increasing awareness among local citizens that while inputs are necessary, they are insufficient for ensuring that children receive an education that improves their lives. In order to shift our focus from quantity to quality, a national discussion is needed to develop a common, more clearly-defined and outcomes-based vision of the key elements of quality education. The central goal of quality basic education should be to develop among children a wide range of capabilities that will be of value to them regardless of the particular work and life paths they follow: literacy and numeracy skills, cognitive, personal, and ethical skills are all critical. In order to re-focus the educational system on these learner outcomes, an ongoing investment in pre- and in-service professional development for teachers is needed. Teachers need training and support to deepen their knowledge of the subjects they teach and to use participatory teaching methods that can engage children actively in learning. In addition, an assessment system will need to be developed that is aligned to the learner capabilities. As a first step in that process, an independent and national measure of children‘s basic skills in literacy and numeracy should be conducted annually.

3

2.0 Introduction ―The quality of education in most schools today is poor!‖ Talk to parents about their children‘s education. Listen to children about what takes place in their school. Read media investigations on primary and secondary education. While occasional bright spots are clearly evident, many Tanzanians tell stories of overcrowded classrooms, absent teachers, lack of access to books, corporal punishment or intimidation, unqualified teachers, rote and passive learning, high drop-out rates. What‘s more, children who do complete years of schooling often have not learned the essential skills they will need to find or create work, thrive in their communities, and contribute to national development. Concerns about quality are rising. But how could this be possible? Everyone acknowledges that Tanzania has made major efforts to improve the education system. The Government‘s Primary Education Development Plan (PEDP) and Secondary Education Development Plan (SEDP) have resulted in greatly expanded access to education. More schools and classrooms have been built and enrolment numbers are significantly up. Unfortunately, while PEDP and SEDP assert a commitment to improving educational quality, the Government‘s efforts have largely been directed at issues of quantity: enroling more children, finding more teachers, and creating more space for them. Specific and sustained attention to issues of quality have been sidelined. The situation in schools reflects this imbalance: more funds are available for building schools and more children are entering classrooms, but the teaching and learning that actually takes place inside those rooms is suffering. As a result, many years after initiation of PEDP and SEDP, an awareness is growing among concerned citizens of the critical importance of quality. It is no longer enough for children to go to school; they must receive an education that will change their lives for the better. Mere access to education, while necessary, is not sufficient for ensuring improvement in individuals‘ personal lives or in the prospects of the country as a whole. It is now time for QUALITY—not quantity—to come front and centre. However, we need to think long and hard about what quality education means. What knowledge and skills constitute the core of a quality education? What does quality teaching and learning look like in the classroom? To what extent are children actually developing essential skills in schools? How do we recognize that a child has received a high-quality education? What educational systems need to be in place to support quality? How do schools and communities ensure that their children receive a quality education? A national discussion is needed that involves a wide range of concerned citizens: parents, students, teachers, school committee members, local communities, academic experts, regional and national education leadership, the Government, and civil society. HakiElimu commissioned this research study as a first step in this national discussion. Because much of the educational debate thus far has been dominated by Government policy makers, we were interested in exploring the issue of quality from the perspective of local communities. We had two major goals with this study. First, we wanted to better understand how citizens conceive of quality education, including whether or not they believe that children in their areas are receiving a high-quality education. Second, we wanted to get a snapshot of the quality of education that children in local schools are actually receiving. In other words, to what extent are primary and secondary school students developing some of the foundational skills they will need in life? Because the research study was complex and the findings provocative, we have divided this report into distinct sections. First, we describe how and with whom this research study was

4

conducted. We discuss the research process and explain the tools used to collect data. Next, we document and discuss local citizens‘ concepts of quality education using findings from interviews and focus group discussions with students, parents, teachers, and district education officials. In this section, we also present findings participants‘ ratings of the extent to which local schools are developing certain key capabilities among students. Following that, we present and discuss findings on the quality of education actually provided in schools. These findings are based on short tests in Mathematics and Languages which were administered to pupils and students in the districts studied. Next, we reflect on the overall findings of the study and discuss our vision of quality education, one that is related to the development of learners‘ knowledge and capabilities. In the final section, we make some key recommendations to stimulate further discussion and action related to this focus on quality education.

3.0 Research Methodology This research study was designed jointly by HakiElimu staff and by an independent and experienced research consultant who in the past has served as a senior advisor to the Government and to the Prime Minister‘s Office. Under the consultant‘s direction, HakiElimu staff were trained on all the data collection instruments and then travelled to six districts across the country to collect school data over the course of one week. Each district was assigned a team of four researchers. Data collection processes were discussed by the staff during the training and a set of guidelines was developed which every staff member was required to follow in the field. Because HakiElimu is a rights-based organization, training of the staff emphasized the importance of ensuring that data collection was carried out in an ethical manner. Ethical guidelines were drawn up and followed by all researchers (See Appendix A). All local citizens who were interviewed and assessed were fully informed about the study and gave their consent to participate.

3.1 Sampling The study was carried out in six districts of mainland Tanzania. These districts were selected on the basis of their performance ranking on the Primary School Leavers Exam (PSLE) in 2005. Although PSLE performance is not satisfactory as an indicator of quality, it was used in the absence of other suitable indicators. The aim was to develop a representative sample of schools and study participants. Although data on school and district performance on the PSLE are publicly available, we have chosen to maintain confidentiality by keeping the names of the participating districts and schools anonymous. As a result, for the purposes of this report, each district is referred to simply by letter. The following is a description of the districts selected in each of the categories: Well-performing districts

District A (rural): District A recorded an overall pass rate of over 90% for both boys and girls and an average score of over 140 (out of 200) for both boys and girls. Children in this district have consistently performed well in the PSLE in the last few years. District B (urban): The overall pass rate in District B was 92%, with 96% of the boys and 88% of the girls passing. The average score was 141 for boys and 129 for girls.

Average performing districts

District C (urban): The overall pass rate in District C was 58%, with 66% of the boys and 50% of the girls passing the exam. The average score for boys was 124 and for girls was 108.

5

District D (rural): The overall pass rate in District D was 41% with 65% of the boys and 26% of the girls passing the PSLE in 2005. The average score was 114 for boys and 85 for girls.

Poorly performing districts

District E (rural): In District E, the overall pass rate was 29% with 34% of the boys and 24% of the girls passing the examination. The average score for boys was 87 and 77 for girls. Children in this district have consistently been performing poorly. District F (rural): In this district, the percentage of pass declined from 61% in 2004 to 45% in 2005, despite the fact that there was a slight increase in boys‘ performance. The sharp decline in the performance occurred because girls pass rate dropped from 67% in 2004 to 36% in 2005.

As can be noted, of the six selected districts, two were urban districts and the remaining four were rural. In each district, two primary and two secondary schools were selected for data collection from a list of all schools obtained from the District Education Officer (DEO). To get information that reflected views of both urban and rural areas, researchers selected one primary school in an urban area and another in a rural area. For secondary schools, one ward school and one older, established school was selected for study in each district.

3.2 Data Collection Because this study was complex and attempted to explore several different aspects of quality education, a number of data sources were utilized:

1. Individual Interviews: Interviews were used to collect the views and opinions of study participants. Wherever possible, district education leaders - District Executive Directors (DED); District Education Officers (DEO); and District Academic Officers (DAO) - were interviewed as they are responsible for monitoring and guiding the development of education in their districts. In addition and where possible, in each school 4 teachers (2 male and 2 female), the head teacher, and the chairperson of the school committee were interviewed. Interviews were semi-structured and focused on participants‘ conceptions of quality education, the extent to which their schools were or were not providing a quality education, and the reasons for that. A total of 134 interviews were held. (See Appendix B for a copy of the interview protocol.)

2. Focus Group Discussions (FGD): FGDs (semi-structured interviews with small

groups of participants) were conducted at each site studied. Separate FGDs were held with different groups of individuals: students, parents, school board members, and teachers. Similar to the interviews, the FGDs focused on participants‘ views of quality education and the extent to which their schools were providing it. A total of 30 FGD were conducted among the six districts studied. (See Appendix C for a copy of the FGD protocol.)

3. Survey of Learner Capabilities: Individuals were asked to rate the extent to which their

school was promoting the development of a variety of learner capabilities. The set of capabilities used in this instrument was drawn from common nationally- and internationally-recognized abilities that children should master as part of basic education. The list includes such abilities as reading, writing, and speaking both Kiswahili and English, understanding of national and international events and issues, critical thinking, problem-solving, collaborating with others, and ethics.

6

4. Tests: In order to get an independent assessment of children‘s‘ capabilities in the sites studied, researchers administered short tests in Languages and Mathematics to primary pupils and secondary students. In the Languages test, both Kiswahili and English were assessed. The Mathematics test assessed children‘s abilities to make simple calculations and to solve problems.

4.0 Quality Education: Concepts and Perspectives 4.1 Findings: Interviews and Focus Group Discussions In this section, we examine how quality is perceived by citizens at the school and district levels. In order to draw out individuals‘ ideas on this topic, several questions were posed in interviews and focus group discussion with study participants: What is ―quality education?‖ What kind of education should children have? Is their school providing quality education? Who is responsible for ensuring that schools provide quality education? What difference does a quality education make? Collectively, respondents‘ responses can be categorized into four main themes. Quality education was defined as: 1) inputs (e.g., number of schools/classrooms, teaching and learning materials); 2) passing exams; 3) quality of teachers; and 4) preparation for the future. Below, we discuss each of these themes. 4.1.1 Quality Education as Inputs Many respondents equated quality education with educational inputs such as numbers of classrooms, libraries, laboratories, teachers‘ houses, teaching and learning materials, and toilet facilities. This was, in fact, the prevailing view. According to most respondents, schools were providing quality education if the school environment was good with respect to the tangible facilities necessary to operate. For example, a District Executive Director indicated that the quality of education could be improved by building more schools, ensuring that there are adequate numbers of teachers, and providing students with more books and sports facilities. Most respondents placed particular emphasis on the importance of classroom space, availability of textbooks, and number of teachers in providing quality education. When asked about whether their schools were providing quality education and the reasons for that, many respondents attributed success or failure of their schools to the availability of resources. For example, many teachers and district education officials argued that in recent years, schools have been providing better quality education because more classrooms have been constructed, schools have been provided with an adequate number of textbooks and teachers, libraries have been stocked with books, and laboratories have purchased equipment and chemicals. One DEO stated that:

“Children in my district are getting quality education because the number of children entering secondary education has increased in recent years. The Government is responsible for this situation as it has provided more money to schools which has enabled them to purchase more books, science kits, and maths kits. [One of the reasons for the success is that] there are more books in school now than before and therefore children can study on their own. Although our district was last in the region in terms of numbers, more pupils have passed from this district than any other district in the region.”

Conversely, other respondents argued that quality was deteriorating in schools because the number of students was increasing while the level of resources was decreasing. Many students,

7

especially those in newly established ―ward‖ secondary schools complained of lack of laboratories and libraries. A teacher at one secondary school stated:

“Our school has not reached the stage where it can provide quality education for various reasons. We do not have adequate numbers of textbooks. In English, for example, there is one textbook for 15 students. As textbooks are not enough, we resort to writing notes on the blackboard for students to copy.”

Such comments linking the physical resources and facilities available to schools with the increased or decreased level of educational quality were heard from students, parents, teachers, and district education officials alike. During data collection, researchers‘ observations showed that most schools had newly constructed classrooms. However these classrooms, even the new ones, were colourless and bare. While there were many benches, nothing was displayed on the walls, and in some cases there was no concrete floor. Teachers seemed unwilling or unable to enhance the classrooms to make them into attractive places to attract children‘s attention. Researchers also noted the lack of other resources and facilities in the sites studies. Access to classrooms and to toilets was not friendly to children with physical disabilities. Many schools visited had no water facilities. Although in most secondary schools, laboratory buildings were observed, these buildings lacked equipment and chemicals and were often not being used. In one secondary school, for example, the laboratory room was used as storage space. 4.1.2 Quality Education as Passing Exams For many respondents, particularly for district education officials, teachers, and school committee members, the quality of education in schools could be judged by the numbers of students passing tests such as the PSLE or the Form 4 and Form 6 exams. If many students were passing exams, the quality of education in that school was said to be high, while if many students were failing, then the quality was low. For example, one school committee member stated that:

“Quality has improved as the chart is on the upward trend. The number of children passing the PSLE has increased year after year.”

Many teachers said that that their school was providing quality education as indicated by the large number of Standard Seven pupils being selected for secondary schools. For example, one teacher said that educational quality is improving because children were passing with higher grades. Another teacher stated:

“My school is providing quality education to our children. The number of children who pass the PSLE has increased constantly in the last five years. Teachers in this school go out of their way to ensure that our children pass the exam. They work during school vacations by giving extra classes to our pupils.”

Indeed, many respondents indicated that ensuring that students pass either PSLE or National Form Four exam had become a passion for most teachers and head teachers. One head master said:

“My school is providing quality education because I have initiated extra classes for our students. These classes run up to night. I have given one classroom to female students where they stay before the hostel is completed. It is important for girls to live in school to protect them from various temptations they face. These girls have extra classes from 7 to 10 in the evening.”

8

The extra classes focused on working through past exam papers, and training students on how to answer the exam questions. Teachers and head teachers indicated they took pride in their efforts to assist students in passing examinations. 4.1.3 Quality Education as Teachers Many respondents saw the teacher shortage as a serious problem in efforts to provide children with a quality education. However, just as concerning were other issues related to teachers: motivation and working conditions; their level of knowledge, skills, and training; and their teaching practices in the classroom. The role of teachers was clearly valued by all respondents. However, many respondents argued that teachers are underpaid and under-motivated. Given poor salaries, many teachers then engage in other income generating activities such as farming, fishing, and petty business. Teachers expressed many concerns about their working conditions, arguing that the poor conditions were affecting their performance. They stated frequently that conditions for teachers were very difficult and that they were burdened with large classes. There were also many complaints about salaries. Commenting on teachers‘ working conditions, one teacher admitted: “Some of us think it is just as well to stay in bed as come to work.” While some teachers were undoubtedly unmotivated, there seemed to be a significant sense of voluntarism among many, as well. Many respondents argued that quality could be improved by having teachers who are better qualified in schools. Parents, in particular, emphasized the role of teachers, arguing that for quality education, it was important that “teachers were well prepared for the task of teaching.” Some government officials were also concerned about the quality of teachers. They argued that most teachers did not have good knowledge of teaching approaches, and expressed particular concern about the competencies of English teachers. One DED argued:

“Language teachers are not using good approaches in teaching English because they have not been trained to teach English. Many teach English using Swahili.”

The main concern of students was on the classroom behaviour of teachers. Students were of the opinion that what a teacher does and how he does it in classroom is important in terms of quality education. Students stated that apart from having adequate teaching and learning materials:

“Teachers have to ensure that children understand what is being taught. It is important that teachers are friendly towards students and not terrorise them. A friendly teacher will make students feel “free.” Students cannot learn in an environment of fear. They have to feel “free” to learn.” (Secondary school student)

4.1.4 Quality Education as Preparation for the Future Many respondents, especially students and parents, expressed the view that one of the main indicators of ―quality‖ in education is the level of students‘ employability when they complete school. For example, one school committee member stated that students in his area were receiving a quality education because they were finding good jobs after graduation:

“Our school is providing quality education as evident from the fact that many people who graduated from this school have gone to work in government and organisations. This shows that our school is providing quality education.”

The issue of employability was a major concern of both parents and students. Many parents and students expressed bitterness about the current employment situation in which job prospects are becoming scarce even for university graduates. Given that, parents argued that schools,

9

especially primary schools, are not providing quality education. Some even indicated that they thought students were ―wasting their time‖ by going to school. For example, a number of individuals agreed with one respondent who stated that “if on finishing school a person does not get employment, then his/her years in schools were a waste of time.” A number of respondents expressed the view that education in primary schools is ―too academic‖ and that schools were not teaching children the life skills that they would need when they graduate. Often, employability skills were equated with training in particular vocational areas. Many respondents said that primary schools should provide vocational skills such as agricultural skills, animal husbandry, carpentry, or tailoring skills. For example, one school committee member stated:

“Children in our primary schools are not getting quality education. They spend lot of time learning things that are not relevant to their lives. Children who finish primary schools should have skills such as masonry, plumbing, painting, business education or even agriculture skills.”

Another school committee member stated:

“Children should be taught how to read, write and be taught life skills. It is important that girls be taught home science. These days the subject is forgotten. Teachers should be trained in domestic science so that they can teach this subject. Girls who finish school do not know even to sew clothes, or even to put on a new button. These skills should be taught from Standard 1.”

Others thought that writing and accounting skills should be among the key skills that students develop in primary school. As one parent reflected:

“During colonial times anyone finishing primary education found employment. I do not think that was because there were few primary school graduates at the time. I believe that was because they had skills that were needed. If they were employed as a clerk in an office, they were able to write letters in both English and Kiswahili. They could keep account books. Can our primary school graduates now do this? Let alone primary schools, can a person who has finished Form 4 write a letter in English?”

Interestingly, many respondents agreed that one of the main skills that differentiates an educated person from a non-educated one is his/her competency in English. For example, one secondary school teacher stated:

“There are many differences that one can note between a person who has been to school and one who has not. The main difference is that an educated person can speak English fluently.”

This sentiment was echoed by many respondents across the spectrum. English language skills were seen as a key indicator of quality education. Overall, many respondents‘ comments regarding the lack of employability skills were focused on primary school education; however, many also had a low opinion of the quality of secondary education due to its lack of focus on practical life skills. One student said that the only things students were being prepared for in secondary school were to continue with their education or to work in the office, both of which are unlikely outcomes in the local area. He said that there were few practical skills that were passed on to students, and that if [students] do not continue with further education, they are, again, just “wasting their time.” A number of students at the secondary level expressed similar dissatisfaction that schools were not adequately preparing them for careers. One student‘s comment reflects the feeling of others:

10

“My family and I were very happy when I was selected to join secondary school. We believed that once I finish my education I will be a scientist. I was very interested in science subject. When I started Form 1, there was only one teacher at the school, the Head Mistress. She came for one day and then disappeared. During the first year, there were no science teachers. We are almost finishing the second year at the school and still we have not had any practicals in science. The Government has built a laboratory, but it does not have equipment and chemicals. My dreams were shattered. I have no hope now of doing well in school. How can I pass the exam if I have not been taught? I have wasted my two years here.”

Most respondents placed greater emphasis on the importance of particular vocational skills that students should develop in schools than on broader life skills such as confidence, creativity, problem-solving, or thinking critically about issues affecting the nation. However, a number of respondents mentioned the importance of schools developing among students the personal skills needed to find employment and succeed in their work. One parent said:

“Standard 7 education is not adequate for [my son] to get employed or do work on his own. He does not have confidence and therefore he is no different from somebody who has not gone to school.”

One headmaster said that a high quality education should instil in students the “ability to think and take part in national development.” Echoing this sentiment, one District Executive Director argued that an educated person has increased awareness of national and international issues. Yet another respondent, a District Education Officer, stated that:

“[an educated person] will not be dependent as he will apply knowledge and skills that he has acquired at the school. When he gets a health problem, he will not suspect a person with “red eyes” (a witch). He will find ways of solving his problems, will participate in the community affairs, and help reduce illiteracy among people around him.”

Comments such as the above reflected among these respondents a vision of the critical role education plays in preparing children for participation in a broad range of work and community activities that affect the quality of their lives and of those around them.

4.2 Discussion: Interview and Focus Group Discussions Clearly many local study participants associated quality education with indicators such as enrolment rates; the numbers of schools, classrooms, and textbooks. Many at the district, school and the community level, expressed the belief that if schools had enough classrooms, adequate numbers of teachers, and enough textbooks, then quality education would be provided and children‘s lives would automatically improve. This focus on educational inputs at the local level is not surprising. Until recently, the national conversation on educational quality has largely equated inputs with quality, the assumption being that ‗more‘ equals ‗better‘. The Government‘s Primary Education Develop Plan and Secondary Education Development Plan (SEDP) both state a commitment to quality, but focus most implementation efforts on expanding access to education and improving quantitative inputs to education. The bulk of PEDP and SEDP funds have been spent constructing schools and teachers‘ housing, purchasing textbooks, and recruiting more teachers. The prevalence of this national focus on inputs has strongly shaped the discussion on educational quality at the local level. While we agree that such inputs are critically necessary for building a vibrant and sustainable educational system, we believe that inputs are insufficient in and of themselves to ensure that children receive an education that improves their lives. Indeed, many experts contend that a singular focus on inputs without concomitant strong leadership and investment in quality can lead to a serious decline in the value of education. We believe that supporting quality means attending to more than just inputs; it involves attention to outcomes.

11

As our findings show, many respondents linked improved educational quality with higher exam scores and transition rates to further schooling. Interestingly, this perspective implies, in essence, a recognition of the importance of outcomes. In this study, the outcome most frequently mentioned by respondents was continuation of schooling. Ideally, however, exam scores should also reflect and provide a valid assessment of students‘ knowledge and skills. Recent research on the PSLE, though, mirrors what many other studies on standardized terminal examinations have shown: that such exams, especially those with heavy emphasis on multiple-choice questions, largely measure students‘ abilities to memorize and recall simple facts (Kitta, et al., 2008). Higher-order thinking skills—such as generating ideas, analyzing and solving problems, evaluating results, and applying knowledge to new contexts—are generally not tested on exams like the PSLE. Thus, while higher exam scores may lead to further schooling (and that is rightly valued by students, parents, and teachers), exam scores alone are a poor indicator of children‘s knowledge and skills. A more valid assessment system would involve evaluating the full range of students‘ skills continually and in a variety ways as they progress through the curriculum. Our findings show that, when asked about ―quality‖ education, many respondents went beyond inputs or standardized exam scores, suggesting that attention needs to be paid to the instruction that actually happens in the classroom. For example, teacher quality was often mentioned as being important to improving the quality of education. According to many teachers, the quality of their performance would be enhanced by improved working conditions and pay schedules. Parents advocated improving teachers‘ skills. Students spoke to the need for teachers to develop better relations with students. These perspectives reflect an underlying recognition that quality education is closely related to the nature of the teaching and learning process. How this process unfolds in schools and classrooms can determine whether or not students are motivated and actively engaged in learning and developing their skills. Many study participants recognized that the level of teachers‘ motivation to put effort into their teaching, the extent of teachers‘ knowledge and training, as well as their pedagogical skills, are all key factors in this teaching and learning process. This study‘s findings also show that many respondents discussed quality education as employability and preparation for the future. In particular, many parents, students, and school committee members felt that children were not getting a quality education because they were not developing skills that would improve their lives after completion of their educational cycle. Vocational skills and English language skills, in particular, were associated with quality education. Several individuals also associated quality education with the development of such skills as confidence, problem-solving, independent thinking, and participation in community and national affairs. These respondents were focussing on a concept of educational quality based on learner outcomes, specifically on the abilities students develop through their years of schooling. As discussed further below, we believe this emphasis on learner outcomes needs to move front and center in the national discussion on quality education. While inputs are necessary, they are insufficient for ensuring that quality education is provided. In order for children to grow and thrive as adults, they must develop a wide range of skills and capabilities that will be valuable to them in many different contexts. The effort to provide quality education must be focused much more intently on developing such skills and capabilities.

4.3 Findings: Learner Capabilities Survey In the following section we turn our attention to our findings on the development of learner capabilities. Specifically, with this study, we wanted to assess the extent to which participants believe schools are currently developing students‘ skills and capabilities in particular areas. In order to do this, participants—including students, parents, school committee members, and

12

government officials—across all six districts studied were given a list of 19 learner capabilities. The list was developed by consulting national and international educational standards. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they think schools in their area were developing these capabilities among students. Respondents used the following scale to make their ratings: 1=not all, 2=a little, 3=average and 4=to a large extent Table 1 presents the average rating score for responses from the various respondent groups.

Table 1: Respondents’ Views on the Extent to Which Schools are Developing Various Capabilities Among Their Students

1=not all 2=a little 3=average 4=to a large extent

CAPABILITIES AVERAGE SCORE Primary school

children

Secondry school

children

Teachers Parents/ School

Committee

Govern. Officials

1. Read Kiswahili fluently 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.2 3.0

2. Read English fluently 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.4

3. Speak English well 2.1 2.4 2.3 1.8 2.3

4. Speak Kiswahili well 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.0

5. Write English well 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.1 1.9

6. Write Kiswahili well 3.3 3.3 3.6 2.8 3.1

7. Use numbers in day to day life 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.1 3.1

8. Read maps; use them to find ways around. 3.2 2.8 3.0 2.4 2.9

9. Think critically 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.4 3.0

10. Identify problems that exist in community 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.4 3.1

11. Solve problems that arise in the community 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.9

12. Wide knowledge of national issues 2.5 2.4 3.1 2.3 2.3

13. Knowledge about other countries and people 2.2 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

14. Pride in the country 2.3 2.4 3.6 2.1 3.1

15. Respect views of other people. 3.0 3.3 3.4 2.8 3.0

16. Take care of people less fortunate than one. 3.3 3.0 3.5 2.4 2.9

17. Values (truthfulness, honesty) 3.4 2.7 3.3 2.4 2.9

18. Ability to work with others to achieve goals 2.9 3.0 3.6 3.1 3.1

19. Participate in national issues. 3.2 2.0 3.5 2.5 2.6

Total Averages 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.5 2.8

The above findings are notable in several respects. First, respondents of all groups gave their schools generally low ratings. Looking at the total averages for each respondent group, one notes that primary and secondary school children as well as government officials rated the overall quality of education in their schools to be somewhat below average. Parents and school committee members were particularly critical of the quality of education provided. On average, they rated their schools‘ performance on developing these capabilities only halfway between ―a little‖ and ―average.‖ Teachers, on the other hand, rated their schools higher than average. Notably, the differences between primary and secondary school students ratings on each particular item were relatively small with the exception of the ability to participate in national issues which primary school students rated above average, while secondary school students rated only ―a little.‖ Conversely, as implied above, the difference between the teachers‘ ratings on individual items and those of the parents‘ and school committee‘ ratings were often quite high, especially for ―pride in the country‖ and ―using numbers in day-to-day life‖ (both of which teachers rated relatively high while parents and school committees rated only just above ―a

13

little‖). On most other items as well, teachers gave schools relatively high ratings, while parents and school committee members gave relatively low ratings. Second, all respondents agreed that schools were far better at developing capabilities such as reading, speaking and writing in Kiswahili than in English. Ratings for the Kiswahili skills were generally high (between 3.0 and 3.9) while ratings for the English skills were generally low (between 1.8 and 2.9). Overall, beyond reading, writing, and speaking skills in Kiswahili, respondents gave schools relatively higher marks for ―respect views of other people,‖ ―ability to work with others to achieve goals,‖ and ―take care of people less fortunate than one.‖ Similarly, beyond reading, writing and speaking skills in English, respondents gave schools relatively lower marks for ―solve problems that arise in the community,‖ ―wide knowledge of national issues,‖ and ―knowledge about other countries and people.‖

4.4 Discussion: Survey of Learner Capabilities The above results certainly do not represent a strong endorsement of the quality of education students are actually receiving. Respondents generally agreed that schools seem to be doing a good job teaching children to read, write, and speak in Kiswahili, and to cooperate and care for those in their communities. However, the low ratings that respondents gave schools for developing most other skills reflect a general acknowledgement that the overall quality of education is weak. It is particularly significant that these results are apparent despite the fact that so much funding allocated to improving education through PEDP and SEDP has been devoted to increasing educational inputs. Clearly, increasing inputs does not mean de facto that students will develop skills and capacities they need for the future.

5.0 Children’s Competencies in Basic Skills While the above report sections examine the concepts that local citizens have regarding quality education, we were also interested in getting a snapshot of the actual skills that children could demonstrate in the schools studied. The pioneering work of Pratham, a non-governmental organisation based in India, served as a model for this part of the research study. Pratham was established in the mid 1990s in Mumbai, India with the goal of ensuring that economically disadvantaged children gain access to primary education. The organization‘s work has influenced educational initiatives both within and beyond India. A key activity of the organization has been to conduct an annual assessment of children‘s reading and mathematics skills in local communities. The assessment raises community awareness about children‘s basic skills and about the educational quality in their area. Each year‘s report serves as an independent evaluation of the level of children‘s basic abilities in the country (Pratham Organisation, 2008). While a comprehensive evaluation of the learner capabilities listed in the survey above was beyond the scope of this research study, we were interested in gaining an independent evaluation of educational quality by assessing children‘s basic skills. Using the Pratham model, we asked students to complete a short series of tasks assessing the level of their skills in two key areas: Languages and Mathematics. All tests were developed based on Standard 5 textbooks and curriculum. The Mathematics test contained a total of seven items requiring simple calculations, as well as some application. In the Languages test, Kiswahili and English skills were assessed in three areas: reading, dictation, and translation. The same tests were given to one class of Standard 6 pupils and one class of Form 2 students. This was done in order to find out what value three additional years of education add to the abilities of students. In the following sections, the results of these tests will be presented and analysed.

14

5.1 Mathematics A solid grounding in mathematics belongs at the very core of the educational curriculum. Analytical skills, logic skills and reasoning are all enhanced through the study of mathematics. All countries seem to share this view and place basic learning in mathematics at the heart of early learning. Compulsory training of children in mathematics is therefore an important requirement for participation in society, ultimately making an indispensable contribution to national competitiveness and the knowledge society. A total of 549 primary school pupils took the Mathematics test, as did a total of 491 secondary school students. The test had a total of seven fairly simple questions that did not require advanced Mathematics knowledge. The items required basic mathematical skills and the ability to apply these skills to a set of questions. Because the language of instruction in secondary schools is English and students do their exams in English, the test paper was administered in English to secondary school students. However, it was translated into Kiswahili for primary school pupils.

Mathematics Test

1. What is the next number:

A. 2 4 8 16 B. 2 4 16 256 C. ¼ ½ ¾

2. If I have 30 oranges and want to give these oranges equally to 7 children, how many

additional oranges do I need so all children get equal number of oranges? 3. Your mother gave you a 10,000 shilling note to buy the following:

1 kilogram of sugar which is sold for 1,300 shillings 2 packets of tea leaves which are sold at 500 shillings each

How much change would you get from the shop-keeper after getting these items?

4. A car starts its journey from Segera travelling towards Moshi at a speed of 60 km per hour. Another can starts the journey towards Dar es Salaam at the same time with a speed of 80 km per hour. How far will these cars be from each other after 2 hours?

5. A car starts its journey from Dar es Salaam at 8.00 travelling to Morogoro at a speed of

80 km per hour. Another car starts the same journey at 8.30 with a speed of 100 km per hour. What would be the distance between these two cars at 9.00 am?

Despite the relative simplicity of the math test items, students‘ overall performance was quite poor. Chart 1 shows the percent of students answering the various items correctly. There was only one test item (1a) that more than 50 percent of primary school pupils answered correctly.

15

Secondary school students generally performed better than primary school pupils; however, notably, 45 percent of primary school pupils answered item 2 correctly while just 33 percent of secondary school students did. In addition, primary school pupils performed slightly better than did secondary school students on item 5. It should be noted that item 1a is particular basic. A simpler Mathematics question could not have been set. Even on this item, however, 18 percent of secondary students were unable to answer correctly. On the final two items, performance was particularly poor. On item 4, only 23 percent of secondary school students and only one percent of primary school pupils answered correctly. On item 5, results were 11 percent and 10 percent respectively.

The above percentages represent the collective Mathematics scores of students in the study. When these data are disaggregated by district and by school, one sees wide variation in the scores of students. For example, in one primary school in District C, 100 percent of the pupils calculated the correct answer for item 1a, while in another primary school in District E, just 28 percent calculated that item correctly. In the other primary school visited in District C, 62 percent of pupils gave the correct answer for item 5, while in primary schools in other districts less than 8 percent of pupils gave the correct answer. Variation was also evident in the performance of secondary school students from different districts, although the variation was not as substantial as in primary schools. For example, in one secondary school in District C, 61 percent of students calculated the correct answer for item 2, while just 8 percent of students in the other secondary school in District C did so. Appendices E and F show the Mathematics performance of children by district from all primary and secondary schools (respectively) studied. These results present stark evidence of the significant disparities in the quality of education children are receiving in different schools and districts across the country. Interestingly, among secondary school students, those who attended older, more established secondary schools performed substantially better than did those who attended the more newly established ―ward‖ schools. Chart 2 compares the performance of students from these two different types of schools.

Chart 1: Percent of Students Who Calculated Correct Answers on Items on Mathematics Test

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Primary (N=549) 66% 38% 41% 45% 49% 1% 11% Secondary (N=491) 82% 55% 73% 33% 70% 23% 10%

1a 1b 1c 2 3 4 5

16

With the early test items, the difference in performance between students from older secondary schools and students from ward schools was relatively small. However, as the difficulty of the items generally increased, the differences in the performance did so, as well. For example, while there was a 4 percentage point difference in the performance of students from established secondary schools and those from ward schools on item 1, there was a 17 percentage point difference on item 4. As our data show, then, overall competency levels in mathematics are very low – both for primary and secondary school students. Even for simplest questions, there were a significant proportion of students who were unable to answer these questions. On questions that demanded higher levels of analytical skills, the majority of students were unable to answer the questions correctly.

5.2 Languages The research also looked at the abilities of students in the two languages, Kiswahili and English. It should be remembered that both these languages are important. Kiswahili is the national language, language of instruction at the primary school level, and language of communication for the vast majority of people in the country. English also plays a major role in the lives of some sections of the Tanzanian society. It is a language of instruction in secondary education and the language of communication with the outside world. It is therefore important for the schools to teach these languages well and develop the abilities of the students in these languages. This is particularly important for secondary education where the language of instruction is English. 5.2.1 Reading Skills Reading skills play a central role in an individual‘s learning at school. The ability to read and understand instructions and text is a basic requirement of success in all other school subjects. The importance of literacy skills does not, however, come to an end when children leave school.

Chart 2: Percent of Secondary Students Who Calculated Correct Answer on Items on Mathematics Test, by Type of School

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

"Old" Secondary (N=242) 84% 57% 78% 39% 77% 31% 16% "Ward" Secondary (N=249) 80% 53% 72% 28% 59% 14% 4%

1a 1b 1c 2 3 4 5

17

Such skills are key to all areas of education and beyond, facilitating participation in the wider context of lifelong learning and contributing to individuals‘ social integration and personal development. Two paragraphs, one in English and one in Kiswahili, were selected from Standard 5 textbooks, as it was expected that students would already be familiar with the material. Ten pupils from a Standard 6 class and ten from a Form 2 class were selected randomly for the reading test. The selected pupils were given five minutes to read the paragraphs silently, after which they were asked to read the paragraphs aloud. Researchers noted how the paragraphs were read and what errors were made during reading.

Reading Test Kiswahili Paragraph

Jangwa ni sehemu ya ardhi yenye mchanga mwingi sana. katika sehemu hiyo kuna mchanga mwingi sana ambao ni kikwazo kikubwa kwa maisha ya viumbe hai. Watu wanaoishi jangwani ni wahamaji. Wanalazimika kuhama kutoka sehemu moja hadi nyingine kutafuta maji kwa ajili yao wenyewe na kwa ajili ya mifugo yao. Kuna sehemu chache zenye vichaka na miti michache tu. Kadhalika, mifugo ni michache sana jangwani kutokana na uhaba wa maji na malisho. Hali ya usafiri ni ngumu kwa sababu sio rahisi kujenga barabara juu ya mchanga. Watu wa jangawani hutegemea sana ngamia kwa usafiri na uchukuzi wa mizigo yao. Hii ndio sababu ngamia akaitwa Meli ya Jangwani.

English Paragraph

Mohamed is a young and active boy. He is in class five at Mnazini Primary School. He is the school‘s football captain. Next week will be a busy week for his team. They will play with Bondeni team on Monday. The game will start at 8:30 p.m. Mohamed‘s team is known as Shining Star. On Tuesday they will play with the Lions at noon. On Thursday, they‘ ll face the Bulls. The Thursday match will kick off at 3:30 p.m. On Friday, the shining Star will fight it out with the Matata Group at 11:00 a.m. and lastly, they‘ll face the Winning Star from Bidii Primary school on Saturday at 10:00 a.m.

Overall, the majority of students, both in primary and secondary schools, had little problem reading the Kiswahili paragraph. Most students were fluent, and whatever mistakes were made, were a result of pupils‘ haste in reading. However, children‘s reading skills in English were poorly developed, especially in primary schools. Students who were comfortable reading aloud in Kiswahili were clearly uncomfortable reading in English. In fact, hardly any of the 120 children tested was able to read the English paragraph with a high degree of fluency. Pronunciation errors were very common, as were errors in reading time (e.g., 3:30 was often read as ―3 past half p.m.‖ or ―3 o‘clock and half.‖). 5.2.2 Translation Skills The ability to translate paragraphs from Kiswahili to English and from English to Kiswahili indicates how well students understand these two languages. Two paragraphs, one in English and another one in Kiswahili, were selected from Standard 5 English and Kiswahili textbooks. Again, these paragraphs were chosen by researchers as it was expected that students would already be familiar with the material.

18

Translation Test

English Paragraph: Once in a small village in Mwanza region, there lived an old man with his wife, two sons and three daughters. He was a poor man but an honest one. He had a small piece of land and was maintaining his family by growing vegetables. His eldest son Marando wanted to go for higher education but due to poverty he could not go on. He decided to look for a job in Mwanza town in order to help his father educate his brothers and sisters. Kiswahili Paragraph: Tarehe 14 Desemba mwaka jana, shule zote za msingi mkoani kwetu zilifungwa. Wanafunzi walipewa likizo ya majuma sita. Majuma mawili kabla ya kuanza likizo shule yetu ikafanya sikukuu ya wazazi. Siku hiyo wazazi wote walialikwa shuleni. Siku ya sikukuu ya wazazi kila darasa lilipangiwa shughuli ya kufanya. Sisi, wanafunzi wa darasa la tano, tulipewa kazi ya kuwatembeza wageni na wazazi kwenye miradi ya shule. Badhi ya wanafunzi wa darasa letu walichaguliwa kueleza juu ya kila mradi. Shule ilikuwa na miradi mine, ukiwemo ule wa n‘gombe, kuku, samaki na nyuki. A total of 476 primary school pupils and 465 secondary school students took the translations tests. When they had completed the tests, researchers scored the translations on five criteria: meaning, spelling, tense, punctuation, and neatness. A total score for each translation was then calculated. The maximum possible score was 50. Translations were then grouped into three more general categories: poor (score of 0-20, or 1%-40%), average (score of 21-35, 41%-70%), and good (score of 36-50, or 71%-100%). Chart 3 presents the scores of primary school pupils‘ translations. The vast majority of primary school pupils performed poorly. Sixty-six percent of pupils performed poorly translating the English paragraph to Kiswahili, and fully 92 percent performed poorly translating the Kiswahili paragraph to English. In fact, with this latter task, most were unable to translate the paragraph at all.

19

Chart 3: Quality of Translations by Primary School Pupils

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Good

Avg

Poor

Good 13% 4%

Avg 21% 4%

Poor 66% 92%

English to Kiswahili Kiswahili to English

The following are some samples of Standard 6 school pupils‘ translations from English to Kiswahili:

Primary School Pupil’s Translation to Kiswahili - rated “poor”

Primary School Pupil’s Translation to Kiswahili - rated “average”

20

Primary School Pupil’s Translation to Kiswahili – rated “good”

The following are some samples of Standard 6 school pupils‘ translations from Kiswahili to English:

Primary School Pupil’s Translation to English – rated “poor”

Primary School Pupil’s Translation to English – rated “average”

21

Primary School Pupil’s Translation to English – rated “good”

On the whole, secondary school students performed somewhat better on the translations than the primary school pupils; however, performance was still far below expected. (See Chart 4 below.) Three out of ten performed poorly translating English to Kiswahili and nearly six out of ten performed poorly translating Kiswahili to English. Just 22 percent and 10 percent of the students translations, respectively, were rated good.

Chart 4: Quality of Translations by Secondary School Students

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Good

Avg

Poor

Good 22% 10%

Avg 44% 31%

Poor 34% 59%

English to Kiswahili Kiswahili to English

The most common errors were: vocabulary mistakes, improper use of upper and lower case letters, punctuation mistakes, and confusion in the use of the first and third person.

22

The following are samples of Form 2 students‘ translations from English to Kiswahili:

Secondary School Student’s Translation to Kiswahili – rated “poor”

Secondary School Student’s Translation to Kiswahili – rated “average”

Secondary School Student’s Translation to Kiswahili – rated “good”

The following are samples of Form 2 students‘ translations from Kiswahili to English:

23

Secondary School Student’s Translation to English – rated “poor”

Secondary School Student’s Translation to English – rated “average”

Secondary School Student’s Translation to English– rated “good”

Again, a significant difference was seen comparing students‘ performance based on the type of secondary school. Students from more established secondary schools performed better than those from more newly established ward schools. (See Charts 5 and 6 below.)

24

Chart 5: Quality of Secondary

Students' Translations from English to

Kiswahili by Type of School

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good

Avg

Poor

Good 34% 20%

Avg 40% 48%

Poor 26% 32%

Old

Secondary

Ward

Secondary

Chart 6: Quality of Secondary

Students' Translations from Kiswahili

to English by Type of School

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good

Avg

Poor

Good 4% 2%

Avg 32% 27%

Poor 63% 71%

Old

Secondary

Ward

Secondary

In general, then, the translating abilities of students in both primary and secondary schools were poor. This is because these competencies have not been well developed among students in schools. Of particular concern is the fact that most children in secondary schools, where English is a language of instruction, have very poor knowledge of English. Overall, children found it easier to translate the English paragraph into Kiswahili than to translate the Kiswahili paragraph into English, as this latter task requires greater competency with the English language. 5.2.3 Dictation Skills In order to assess students‘ abilities in listening and writing English and Kiswahili, students were asked to write a short paragraph in English and Kiswahili that was dictated to them. The dictation was given to a Standard 6 class in the primary schools visited and to students in Form 2 classes in each of the secondary schools visited. A total of 483 primary school pupils and 559 secondary school students took the dictations tests. To ensure that children were familiar with the pronunciations of the words dictated, teachers from the visited schools were selected to read the paragraphs. In primary schools, an English teacher was selected to dictate both the English and the Kiswahili paragraphs. In secondary schools, a teacher was randomly selected among the teachers to dictate both the English and Kiswahili paragraphs. Teachers at both levels were given time to read the paragraph and to prepare themselves to read it to the class. These teachers first read the paragraph slowly while students listened quietly without writing. Teachers then read the paragraph again slowly, and students wrote the paragraph. Finally, teachers read the paragraph a third time, again at a slow pace, and students corrected any errors they found in the paragraph they had written. This procedure was used in order to ensure that extraneous factors, such as unfamiliar pronunciations or the speed of the reading, did not affect what students wrote. Following the dictation, researchers scored all dictations either ―good,‖ ―average,‖ or ―poor‖ according to specified criteria (see Appendix D).

25

Dictation Test English Paragraph

When I arrived at school that morning, I met my friend Christina. ―Good morning Theresa‘‘ She said. ―Are you prepared for the English test?‘‘ ‗‘I can hardly remember anything‘‘ I said. I have revised a lot of work, but a fear of the test is making it difficult for me to remember anything‘‘ that is how I feel too,‘‘ agreed Christina. I hope the test will be easy.

Kiswahili Paragraph

Siku moja, wakati jua na upepo wakiendelea kubishana, mara akatokea Binadamu. Jua akasema, ―Mabishano yetu yataisha leo.‘‘ Upepo ulipogeuka na kumwona binadamu akasema, ―Afadhali. Tusiandikie mate na wino ungalipo.‘‘ Jua akauliza, ― Sasa tufanyaje? Upepo ukajibu, ―Yeyote kati yetu atakayeweza kumfanya Binadamu avue koti lake alilovaa atakuwa ndiye mwenye nguvu zaidi.‘‘ Jua akakubali. Akaondoka taratibu kujificha nyuma ya mawingu.

Overall, students in both primary and secondary schools did much better writing the Kiswahili paragraph than they did writing the English paragraph. (See Charts 7 and 8 below.) Among primary school pupils, three out of four Kiswahili dictations were scored ―good‖ or ―average‖ while fewer than one in four English dictations were scored similarly. Only five percent of primary school pupils‘ English dictations were scored ―good.‖ Among secondary school students, nine out of ten Kiswahili dictations were scored ―good‖ or ―average,‖ while just over six in ten English translations were scored ―good‖ or ―average.‖ Notably, however, only one quarter of the English dictations were scored ―good.‖

Chart 7: Quality of Primary School

Pupils' Dictation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good

Average

Poor

Good 38% 5%

Average 37% 19%

Poor 25% 76%

Kisw ahili English

Chart 8: Quality of Secondary

School Students' Dictation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good

Average

Poor

Good 58% 25%

Average 32% 44%

Poor 10% 31%

Kisw ahili English

Looking just at the Kiswahili dictations, though, it is concerning that 25% of primary pupils‘ Kiswahili dictations were rated ―poor.‖ Pupils who took this test had completed six years‘ of schooling in Kiswahili and yet one in four were unable to write a coherent paragraph as dictated in the national language.

26

The following are some examples of primary school pupils‘ dictations:

Primary School Pupil’s Kiswahili Dictation – rated “poor”

Primary School Pupil’s Kiswahili Dictation – rated “average”

Primary School Pupil’s Kiswahili Dictation – rated “good”

Primary School Pupil’s English Dictation – rated “poor”

27

Primary School Pupil’s English Dictation – rated “average”

Primary School Pupil’s English Dictation – rated “good”

The following are some examples of secondary school students‘ dictations:

Secondary School Student’s Kiswahili Dictation – rated “poor”

Secondary School Student’s Kiswahili Dictation – rated “average”

28

Secondary School Student’s Kiswahili Dictation – rated “good”

Secondary School Student’s English Dictation – rated “poor”

Secondary School Student’s English Dictation – rated “average”

Secondary School Student’s English Dictation – rated “good”

In the dictations, students in both primary and secondary schools made some very fundamental errors in punctuation, giving researchers the impression that these things are not taught in schools. Children were often using the improper case for letters. Similarly, many did not appear

29

to have a sense of spacing between words, or between letters in the word and between sentences. Knowledge of punctuation was also limited. Comparing the performance of students from older established secondary schools with that of students from ward schools, the picture was somewhat more complicated. (See Charts 9 and 10 below.) Students from older, more established secondary schools had more dictations scored ―good‖ than those from ward schools; however, they also had slightly more dictations scored ―poor.‖

Chart 9: Quality of Secondary

School Students' Kiswahili

Dictation by Type of School

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good

Average

Poor

Good 56% 50%

Average 30% 41%

Poor 14% 9%

"Old"

Secondary

"Ward

Secondary

Chart 10: Quality of Secondary

School Students' English Dictation

by Type of School

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Good

Average

Poor

Good 33% 22%

Average 36% 49%

Poor 31% 29%

"Old"

Secondary

"Ward

Secondary

5.3 Discussion: Language Skills Overall, data show that while children‘s Kiswahili language competencies are generally well developed, their English language competencies are poorly developed in both primary and secondary school students. Students had difficulty in reading, writing and translating the language. This is particularly troublesome in case of secondary school students. In Tanzania we have an educational system in which the medium of instruction in primary schools is Kiswahili while secondary education and advanced courses are conducted in English. This situation gives rise to educational and social problems. On entering secondary schools, children not only have to relearn all the terms and concepts in a new language but also to take on a more difficult set of subjects. If the majority of the students in secondary schools are unable to read and understand the language in which they are taught, as our data show, it is difficult to see how their learning can be enhanced. It is of note that one of the primary schools in District F had particularly poor performance across all tests. In that school, children seemed to have learned almost nothing after attending school for six years. None of the children at this primary school were able to answer any question in the three tests given. These children could not read, do dictation or translate. Many children even failed to write their names and the name of their school on the test paper. This school which caters for the children of Maasai and other nomadic communities is under-

30

resourced. It had only two teachers for seven classes. Although this appears to be an unusual case, it is worrying that after six years in school, children appear to have learned nothing at all.

5.4 Case Study of a Ward School School W is a recently established ward secondary school located near an urban area. It reflects the success and shortcoming of rapid expansion in building secondary schools that is taking place in the country. School W is located in a picturesque area surrounded by coconut palms. The first block of classrooms was built by cooperation between the Government and the community. The community assisted in bringing sand and stones, and the Government hired a contractor to do the construction work. In the first year, a block of four classrooms was built. As the classrooms and the office block were not completed in time there was a delay of couple of months in starting the school. The block is well built and well roofed. One problem that has emerged is that the cement floor has worn off after only one year. Towards the end of 2006, another block of four classrooms was constructed for Form 2 students. This block was also constructed by Government-appointed contractors. Community members were of the view that the second block was much sturdier than the first one. The community was also certain that the third block would be constructed on time for Form 3 to begin their studies. Community and Government cooperation has worked well to ensure that there are adequate number of classrooms in the school. A laboratory building has been constructed, but has not been supplied with required equipment and chemicals. There is no library at the school. There is a teacher‘s house constructed in the school compound which was meant for the head mistress. As she was reluctant to stay in the house, the place is currently occupied by newly recruited teachers. Students were selected for admission in 2006 but when they reported to the school, there were no teachers assigned to the school. A head mistress was posted to the school. She came to the school for a couple of days and never showed up again. The deputy head teacher manages the school. In the first year of its operation the school had no Mathematics or Science teachers and so children were not taught these subjects. Slowly the number of teachers increased. Currently there are 16 teachers in the school. During researchers‘ two-day visit, no more than five teachers were seen at the school. More than 80% of the students are from outside the ward, and they commute from surrounding areas. They spend more than half an hour on the bus. Many of the teachers also stay in the surrounding areas and they, too, commute by ―dala dala‖ every day. Attendance of the teachers, in the absence of the Head Mistress was problematic. During FGD, parents said, ―We saw children come to school only to be told by the watchman that there were no teachers on that day.‖ Students would hang around for some time and then leave. The situation at this ward school is not unique. Many if not most ward secondary schools face similar problems. It is hoped that the situation at ward schools is temporary and will be solved after few years. However, it is also important to plan the development of ward schools to ensure that when these schools start they have the required number of teachers and required facilities.

6.0 Conclusions Tanzania is part of a world that is undergoing substantial and rapid changes, changes that demand a fundamental rethinking of the central goals of our educational system. For a long time, the national discussion on improving education has been overwhelmed with an almost singular focus on the quantitative measures of the resources and facilities schools have. The success or failure of education has been largely documented on the basis of enrolment numbers,

31

test scores, and transition rates. This emphasis on quantitative inputs and measures is clearly reflected in this study‘s findings. Many study participants equated increased inputs and PSLE pass rates with improved educational quality. At the same time, however, when asked about the extent to which students in their schools are developing specific key capabilities, participants rated the actual quality of education relatively low with the exception of Kiswahili language skills. Thus, this study suggests that even though more schools have been built, more teachers hired, more students enrolled, and more exams passed, the quality of education has not substantially improved. Indeed, many suggest that the quality of education has declined in recent years. Fortunately, there is increasing awareness that an outcomes-based perspective is more appropriate when assessing the quality of education than inputs. This perspective is gaining merit locally, nationally, and internationally. Many participants in this research study talked about quality education as ―preparation for the future.‖ Some participants talked about the importance of such skills as independent thinking, confidence, problem-solving, and participation in community and national affairs. Nationally, too, many acknowledge that quality education must prepare both primary and secondary education graduates to deal well with the actual challenges of life and work they will face as adults. Internationally, education policy experts have shifted their emphasis from enrolment rates to tracking the level of students‘ skills and capabilities gained through schooling. With this shift comes recognition that educational inputs are not sufficient to ensure that students develop these capabilities. For example, the World Bank‘s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) which has a long history assessing educational initiatives in developing countries notes:

Basic knowledge and skills—not educational attainment—are key to reducing poverty. Raising enrollments and completing primary schooling are necessary—but not sufficient—to ensure basic literacy and numeracy. (IEG, xiii)

In fact, the IEG, while still acknowledging the importance of universal primary education, has shifted its emphasis toward improving quality through the development of learner capabilities.

“Primary education efforts need to focus on improving learning outcomes, particularly among the poor and other disadvantaged children. The MDG push for universal primary enrollment and completion, although a valuable intermediate goal, will not suffice to ensure that children achieve the basic literacy and numeracy that are essential to poverty reduction. To reduce poverty, countries…need to make improved learning outcomes a core objective in their primary education plans and focus on the factors—shown by country-level analysis—most likely to influence such outcomes in the local context, recognizing that improving learning outcomes for all will require higher unit costs than universal completion.” (IEG, page x)

We need to grow beyond a narrow conception of quality education as inputs to a more complex conceptualization that incorporates the kinds of learner outcomes and capabilities that children will need in the future. This does not mean ignoring the importance of improving the facilities and resources available to schools. The capacity of the system to make space for all students needs to continue to grow. Teachers‘ working and living conditions need to improve. Teaching and learning materials need to be provided. All these resources, however, are not goals in and of themselves. They are merely the means to a much more important goal: young people need to develop a wide range of knowledge and skills that will prepare them for the world of work, for social and community life, and for lifelong learning. Ensuring that all students receive a quality education must become the central focus of our educational system. Amartya Sen, a Nobel-prize winning economist and leading intellectual of development, advocates for an outcomes-based approach to education. He argues that there is a need to evaluate education in terms of the ―actual living that people manage to achieve‖ (Sen, 1992, 52). This concept reflects the entire range of things a person may value doing, from the most basic

32

(e.g., getting food) to the very complex (e.g., being able to take part in the life of the community). Sen argues that this concept includes both the achievements and ‗substantive freedoms‘ or ‗capabilities‘ to choose a life one has reason to value. Education plays an important role in developing these capabilities. As mentioned, many participants in this study recognized the importance of students‘ developing skills in primary and secondary education that will have a very tangible and positive impact on their lives. However, while some participants were able to cite a few specific learner outcomes, many found it difficult to articulate precisely what knowledge and skills students should develop through the schooling process. This is not surprising. Currently, there is no national consensus or clear vision of what specific outcomes schools should develop among children. Citizens at each level in the educational system need greater clarity and consensus on what ―quality education‖ means. We need to think openly and explicitly about the kinds of skills children should develop in schools and ensure that the curriculum supports those goals. Quality education needs to be redefined in terms of learner capabilities that will allow children to grow up and pursue the lives and work paths they value. Drawing on a growing body of educational expertise and programming (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2006; Calgary Board of Education, 1998), HakiElimu proposes a vision of quality education for Tanzania based on the development of the following set of learner capabilities.

LEARNER CAPABILITIES

Literacy/Numeracy Cognitive Skills

Able to read, comprehend, write, and articulate

Able to solve quantitative problems

Curious and Inquiring

Creative and Imaginative

Problem-Solver

Communicator

Personal Development Ethics

Self-Confident

Risk-Taker

Persistent

Caring and Supportive

Open-Minded

Collaborative

Students need a solid skill base in Language and Mathematics in order to understand the world around them. Competency in literacy and numeracy represents the foundation for developing knowledge across many different subject areas such as literature, geography, history, national and international affairs, and the sciences. In addition to these skills, however, there are other capabilities that are valuable not only across many different subject areas, but also across a wide range of work and career paths that students may choose after schooling. The development of children‘s cognitive skills such as inquiry, creativity, problem-solving and communication is critical to their ability to operate successfully in a variety of contexts. Personal skills, too, such as self-confidence, initiative, and persistence are qualities that build children‘s ability to think and

33

act effectively. Ethical skills such as open-mindedness and collaboration foster individuals‘ productive engagement with others in their communities. All these skills can be developed progressively throughout primary and secondary schooling. Quality education, in our view then, is an education system that has at its core the development of these key outcomes. Currently, these capabilities are not being systematically developed in schools. As seen from the test results in this study, students‘ literacy and numeracy skills need to be strengthened. In addition, the development of students‘ cognitive, personal, and ethical skills needs to become an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Without these critical capabilities, students may find it difficult to lead productive lives after graduation. This was recognized by many of the participants we talked with during this study. A concentrated and thoughtful effort is needed to systematically re-align the education system so that all children complete schooling with these skills. We must grapple with difficult questions on the nature of the teaching and learning process. What kinds of pedagogical approaches will be needed to support the development of children‘s capabilities? How can teacher pre- and in-service training be designed to support the development of learner capabilities? What kinds of assessment practices can be developed that allow us to reliably and validly assess the extent to which students are developing these capabilities? In our view, teachers will need to develop more active and interactive instructional approaches that engage children in the learning process. The assessment system will have to be redesigned so that children have the opportunity to demonstrate in multiple and varied ways their capabilities in these areas. Human and material resources will need to be deployed to support this endeavour.

7.0 Recommendations Considering the results of this study and the above discussion, we recommend the following:

1. A national discussion on quality education is needed in order to develop a

common and more clearly-defined vision of quality. The lack of such a vision continues to hinder our ability to equip children fully for the sweeping social and economic changes that Tanzania is undergoing. As UNESCO‘s Ministerial Round Table on Quality Education wrote in 2003:

“Quality has become a dynamic concept that has constantly to adapt to a world whose societies are undergoing profound social and economic transformation. Encouragement for future-oriented thinking and anticipation is gaining importance. Old notions of quality are no longer enough … despite the different contexts there are many common elements in the pursuit of a quality education, which should equip all people, women and men, to be fully participating members of their own communities and also citizens of the world.”

The development of a focused and shared vision of quality education among citizens is critical in allowing us to improve and shape the future of our educational system.

2. Quality education needs to be redefined in terms of the outcomes and capabilities we aim to develop in children. While the development of educational infrastructure continues to be necessary, inputs alone will not ensure that children gain the knowledge and skills they will need for the future. The central goal of basic education should be to develop among children a wide range of capabilities that will be of value to them regardless of the particular work and life paths they follow. Literacy and numeracy skills are key to this goal as they are the foundation for learning across all subject areas.

34

Cognitive, personal, and ethical capabilities are critical, as well, as they support the development of one‘s full human potential and the potential of the community and nation as a whole.

3. Broad and sustained investment in both pre- and in-service professional

development for teachers is needed. Teachers need training to deepen their knowledge of the subjects they teach. They also need training and ongoing support at the school level to shift away from ―chalk and talk‖ teaching. Participatory teaching methods should be strongly promoted so that children are actively engaged in learning and have multiple opportunities to develop essential skills.

4. In order to re-focus the educational system on learner outcomes, it will be

necessary to develop a valid assessment system aligned to those capabilities. As a first step in that process, an independent survey assessing children’s basic skills in literacy and numeracy should be conducted annually. The type of tests used in this research study and the Pratham initiative mentioned earlier offer useful models for the design and implementation of such a measure. Conducted regularly, these tests allow for independent verification of children‘s actual competencies. Results on these tests will raise community awareness and provide valuable and ongoing information to local citizens, educators, and policy makers alike on the quality of the education children are receiving in schools.

Quality education is not easily achieved. It will require the efforts and contributions of everyone—students, parents, school committee members, teachers, the community, academic experts, regional and national education leadership, the Government, and civil society. All are responsible and all must be held accountable for creating and supporting quality. The time is ripe for a comprehensive national discussion.

35

8.0 References Calgary Board of Education. (1998). Quality learning: Work in progress. Calgary, Canada. Commonwealth Secretariate (2003) Improving quality in education: Report of a workshop. League for

the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers London: Commonwealth Secretariate European Commission (2000) European report on the quality of school education: Sixteen quality indicators.

Brussels: Director-General for Education and Culture

Independent Evaluation Group. (2006a). From schooling access to learning outcomes: An unfinished agenda. An evaluation of World Bank support to primary education. Washington DC: World Bank Group.

International Baccalaureate Organization. (March 2006). The IB learner profile. United Kingdom.

Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.ibo.org/programmes/documents/learner_profile_en.pdf.

Kitta, S., Sima, R., & Sumra, S. (2008) Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE): What do the

examinations measure? Dar es Salaam: HakiElimu and TEN/MET. Pratham Organization. (2008). Pratham: About Us. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from

http://www.pratham.org/aboutus/aboutus.php. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. UNESCO (2004) EFA Global Monitoring Report: Is the World on Track? Paris: UNESCO. Unterhalter, E. (2004). Education, Capabilities, and Social Justice. Background paper prepared for the

Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2003/2004: Gender and Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.

36

Appendix A: Ethical Guidelines for Researchers Quality of Education Study

Ethical Issues 1. Children and adults should be informed about the purpose of the research, data to be

collected and how data will be used. Give them address of HakiElimu if they need further information on the research.

2. Always obtain an informed consent for respondents to participate in the research. It is

not enough to get the consent of the head teacher or head master as proxy for pupils consent.

3. If you are going to use tape recorder during the interview, inform the respondent reasons

for using it. Get respondents consent. 4. If you are going to take photographs, get permission from the school authorities. If you

going to take photographs of individuals, get their consent even if the head teacher has given you permission to take photographs on the school premises.

5. Confidentiality: Ensure that no child or adult suffers as a result of your research. Do not

inform what individual children have said to the head teacher or other authorities. Similarly no information about a teacher (however displeasing it may have been) should be passed on to the head teacher or the DEO.

6. Ensure no distress is caused by our questioning.

7. Do not encroach on the privacy of respondents. Do not push if respondents appear to

be unwilling to answer a particular problem.

8. All promises made to respondents have to be met. Do not promise anything that you cannot keep.

9. Do not point out mistakes to children or adults. Especially do not judge any opinion

provided. Do not act as a teacher.

10. Ensure that your dressing and behaviour are culturally appropriate.

11. Politely refuse offers of gifts.

12. Thank all after the data collection is over.

37

Appendix B: Individual Interview Protocol for Participants

Quality of Education Study

Quality:

1. How would you define quality of education?

2. Are schools in your district providing quality education to children? Explain. (DEO)

3. Is your school providing quality education? Explain. (Head teachers)

4. Who is responsible for this situation? Please explain.

5. Has quality of education provided in your school (in your district) changed in recent years? Why do you think the change has happened?

6. Who is/was responsible for the changed situation?

Capabilities:

1. What are the three most important skills that school leavers should have?

2. How can we know that pupils have gained these skills?

3. If schools are providing quality education, what kind of capabilities, skills should children have when they graduate from schools?

4. How does seven years of primary education (four years of secondary education) change the pupils who go through this education? What can they do which other children who have not gone through primary (secondary) schools cannot do?

5. What role the following have in creating schools where children learn skills and develop capabilities: Government, school committee, head teachers, teachers, parents, the community, pupils/students? How?

6. Should government first build classrooms and then concentrate on quality or can these go hand in hand? Or should the government ensure a minimum level of quality while increases in enrolment are taking place? Is this possible? Please explain.

38

Appendix C: Focus Group Discussion Protocol Quality of Education Study

1. Focus discussion around the following themes:

2. What is quality education? Is it what children learn in school or what children can do once they finish schooling?

3. How much of what children learn at school useful in life after schooling? What are the

things that are useful?

4. What useful skills children learn in school that are useful after finishing schooling? What skills do graduates of primary schools have that children who do not go to school do not have? Can school graduates solve problems that arise in the community? Give examples?

5. Are graduates of the school able to work in the community after they finish schooling? If

not, why not? Are graduates of primary school better able to integrate in the local economy than those who have not been to school?

6. Are graduates from the school able to find employment? Why? If they find employment,

what kind of jobs do they do? Are there graduates from the schools who have found employment in the last three years? What jobs are they doing?

7. What kind of education need to be provided to children to ensure they become

employable? To become productive members of community?

39

Appendix D: Criteria for Rating Dictations Quality of Education Study

Good Overall, the dictation reads well. The student captures most words and spells most words correctly (the presence of occasional mistakes in spelling is ok). He/she largely includes appropriate punctuation and makes relatively few errors in case. Average Overall, the dictation is readable, but with a fair number of errors. The student captures many words, but many words are also missing, He/she spells some words correctly, but some words are misspelled. He/she includes some punctuation and may make some errors in case. Poor Overall, the dictation is difficult to read and interpret. Many words are missing and words are often misspelled. Little punctuation is evident; and there may be many errors in case. These labels are GENERAL categories. In each category, there will be a range of quality.

40

Appendix E: Primary School Pupils’ Performance on Maths Test by District Quality of Education Study

Primary Schools

DISTRICT

PRIMARY SCHOOL

N/ %

QUESTION TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5

a b c

A 1 N 20 1 5 3 3 0 1 35

% 58% 3% 14% 9% 9% 0% 3% 2 N 17 13 9 8 2 0 0 27

% 63% 48% 33% 30% 7% 0% 0% B 1 N 62 36 26 15 27 1 1 71

% 87% 51% 37% 21% 38% 1% 1% 2 N 42 31 23 8 37 0 1 45

% 93% 69% 51% 18% 82% 0% 2% C 1 N 21 0 2 3 10 0 7 21

% 100% 0% 10% 14% 48% 0% 33% 2 N 71 62 69 68 66 0 45 73

% 97% 85% 95% 93% 90% 0% 62% D 1 N 19 0 4 4 6 0 1 42

% 45% 0% 10% 10% 14% 0% 2% 2 N 35 11 30 91 76 0 0 104

% 34% 11% 29% 88% 73% 0% 0% E 1 N 35 20 13 8 18 0 0 51

% 69% 39% 25% 16% 35% 0% 0% 2 N 12 19 36 28 18 0 0 43

% 28% 44% 84% 65% 42% 0% 0% F 1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 N 26 17 9 12 13 2 2 28

% 93% 61% 32% 43% 46% 7% 7% Total N 360 210 226 248 266 3 58 549

% 66% 38% 41% 45% 49% 1% 11%

41

Appendix F: Secondary School Students’ Performance on Maths Test by District

Quality of Education Study

Secondary Schools

DISTRICT

SECONDARY

SCHOOL

N/ %

QUESTION TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5

a b c

A 1 N 36 23 26 14 16 5 2 44

% 82% 52% 60% 32% 36% 11% 5% 2 N 38 17 30 19 23 5 3 42

% 91% 41% 71% 45% 55% 12% 7% B 1 N 25 20 24 8 24 10 7 28

% 89% 71% 86% 29% 86% 36% 25% 2 N - - - - - - - -

% - - - - - - - C 1 N 47 34 43 31 41 16 10 51

% 92% 67% 84% 61% 80% 31% 20% 2 N 36 23 39 4 23 4 1 51

% 71% 45% 77% 8% 45% 8% 2% D 1 N 27 18 24 12 29 8 1 45

% 60% 40% 53% 27% 64% 18% 2% 2 N 47 31 53 26 47 5 4 67

% 70% 46% 79% 39% 70% 8% 6% E 1 N 63 44 48 19 44 12 0 67

% 94% 66% 72% 28% 66% 18% 0% 2 N 36 28 37 8 33 13 1 39

% 92% 72% 95% 21% 85% 33% 3% F 1 N 17 12 5 7 11 5 2 20

% 65% 60% 25% 35% 55% 25% 10% 2 N 31 21 31 16 26 14 16 37

% 84% 57% 84% 43% 70% 38% 70% Total N 403 271 360 164 343 111 47 491

% 82% 55% 73% 33% 70% 23% 10%

For example, in one secondary school in District F, 70 percent of students calculated the correct answer for item 5, while no student in another secondary school in District E did so.