Upload
others
View
13
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NOVEMBER 2017
Evaluation Report of the UNICEF Ghana Education Programme (2012–2017): A Capacity Building Perspective
Clement Adamba, Claire Nowlin, and Hannah Ring
American Institutes for Research
University of Ghana School of Education Leadership
Evaluation Report of the UNICEF Ghana Education Programme (2012–2017): A Capacity Building Perspective
November 2017
Clement Adamba,* Claire Nowlin,** and Hannah Ring**
**American Institutes for Research
*University of Ghana School of Education Leadership
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 202.403.5000
www.air.org
Copyright © 2017 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved.
Contents Page
Acronym List ................................................................................................................................ iii
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Evaluation Purpose, Objectives, and Scope......................................................................... 6
1.2. Evaluation Conceptual Framework...................................................................................... 6
1.3. Selection of CD Interventions and Thematic Areas ............................................................ 8
1.3.1. Teaching and Learning.............................................................................................. 9
1.3.2. Systems and Planning ............................................................................................... 9
1.3.3. Girls’ Education ........................................................................................................ 9
II. Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Data Collection Approaches .............................................................................................. 12
2.3.1. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) ............................................................................ 12
2.3.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ........................................................................... 12
2.3.3 School Observations ................................................................................................ 13
2.3.4. District Survey ........................................................................................................ 13
2.3.5. Teachers’ Survey..................................................................................................... 13
2.4. Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 14
2.5. Data Handling .................................................................................................................... 15
2.5.1. Qualitative Data Collection..................................................................................... 15
2.5.2 Quantitative Data Collection.................................................................................... 15
2.6. Coding and Analysis .......................................................................................................... 15
2.6.1. Qualitative Data ...................................................................................................... 15
III. Results.................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Capacity Development for System Strengthening and Planning at the District Level ....... 16
3.1.1 Relevance ................................................................................................................. 17
3.1.2 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability ................................................. 19
3.2 Capacity Development for Teaching and Learning ............................................................ 24
3.2.1 CD Support Provided ............................................................................................... 24
3.2.2 Organisation and Implementation of CD Activities ................................................ 25
3.2.3 Relevance ................................................................................................................. 26
3.2.4 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts, and Sustainability .............................................. 29
3.3 Capacity Development for Girls’ Education....................................................................... 34
3.3.1 CD Support Provided ............................................................................................... 35
3.3.2 Relevance ................................................................................................................. 36
3.3.3 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability ................................................. 38
3.4 Cross-Cutting Findings ....................................................................................................... 41
3.4.1 While Trainings Resonated with Participants, They Lacked Immediate Relevance for Application and Use .................................................................................. 41
3.4.2 Trainings Focus on Capacity Development at the Individual level ......................... 42
3.4.3 Further Coordination is Needed, Particularly at the District Level ......................... 42
3.4.4 Concerns Expressed Regarding the Cascade Model of Training Delivery.............. 42
3.4.5 Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 43
3.4.6 Accountability and Ownership ................................................................................ 45
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 46
4.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 46
4.2 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................... 47
4.3 Impact/Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 48
4.4 Systems and Planning ......................................................................................................... 49
References .................................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A. Resource Needs .....................................................................................................A1
Physical Resources.............................................................................................................. 1
Appendix B. Instruments ...........................................................................................................B1
Appendix C. Additional Tables from Quantitative Surveys ...................................................C1
Appendix D. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme 2012-2017: Output Mapping
Document .................................................................................................................................... D1
Appendix E. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme Evaluation: Terms of
Reference & Evaluation Criteria.................................................. .............................................E1
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—iii
Acronym List
ADEOP Annual District Education Office Plan
AIR American Institutes for Research
CD Capacity Development
CFS Child-Friendly Schools
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DEOC District Education Oversight Committee
DTST District Training Support Team
EMIS Education Management Information System
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GEO Girls’ Education Officers
GES Ghana Education Service
GPEG Global Partnership for Education Grant
INSET In-Service Education and Training
KII Key Informant Interview
LfC Leadership for Change
LfL Leadership for Learning
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
SMC School Management Committee
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—1
Executive Summary United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Ghana contracted American Institutes for Research® (AIR®)1 to conduct an evaluation of capacity development (CD) interventions implemented
under UNICEF’s 2012–2017 Education Programme. The evaluation2 examined the effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of UNICEF-supported CD interventions during 2012-2016 in three thematic areas: teaching and learning, systems/planning, and girls’ education.
These interventions vary, ranging from: those oriented towards strengthening individual education functionaries/community members to be aware and perform specified activities (for
example teachers on child-friendly teaching and classroom management) to those which support a process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the different implementation units (for example Leadership for Learning and Leadership
for Change). This report presents the evaluation findings for Objective 1. In addition, the findings of the evaluation has also informed a standalone guidance note on monitoring and
evaluation systems and practices for CD interventions.
Inadequate capacity within the education sector in Ghana is often identified as a critical constraint in limiting improvements in student learning outcomes. Therefore, CD and related
interventions received considerable funding and attention from UNICEF in its current Education Programme (2012-17). UNICEF commissioned this evaluation to learn about the strengths and challenges of its previous CD activities and to inform future CD interventions in the education
sector. In addition, this evaluation is also intended to inform UNICEF’s future efforts to effectively evaluate CD interventions.
For this evaluation, AIR employed complementary qualitative and quantitative methods to answer key research questions about the relevance, effectiveness, perceived impacts, and sustainability of UNICEF supported CD interventions in the education sector. Given the
retrospective nature of the evaluation and relatively limited documentation available and the absence of a rigorous monitoring framework, the evaluation relied on triangulation of
information from a variety of sources, using a variety of methods including interviews, focus group discussions, survey, and school observations. However, the main limitation of the evaluation remained its retrospective nature, as the CD interventions of interest took place
between 2012 and 2016.
The evaluation findings indicate that respondents found the teaching and learning-focused trainings were well organised and implemented, and teachers consistently referenced applying the concepts learned from various trainings, in particular, the child-friendly schools (CFS)
training. While respondents described the application of these concepts more than those of other trainings inquired about by the evaluation team, they also acknowledged the constraints they
1 AIR worked with a subcontractor team from the School of Education Leadership at the University of Ghana to
design the research as well as collect and analyse data. 2 Along with the CD evaluation under discussion, additional work under the contract included development of three
strategy notes on the UNICEF Education Programme’s interest areas - public expenditures in education, barriers to
and bottlenecks in girls’ education, and efforts to strengthen district-level systems; and a review note on CD
interventions in available assessments and evaluations of different UNICEF supported activities during the
implementation of the current programme of support (2012-17).
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—2
faced in practice due to limited availability of child-friendly teaching and learning materials. In addition, findings also suggest that teachers (not only head teachers) need refresher trainings on
the proper use of the CFS checklist, hinting at the limitations of a one-off training model. However, district officers and teachers also emphasised that, while the teaching and learning
support received thus far has been valuable, teachers are also in need of CD support related to core subjects such as reading and math3, highlighting the need for trainings to keep pace with changing needs. Respondents also highlighted several challenges related to the timing,
organisation, and perceived sustainability of teaching and learning trainings, as some stated that teachers were not given enough time to apply one set of concepts in the classroom before being
trained on another. District- level respondents in particular highlighted the effectiveness and relevance of systems
strengthening and district planning-related trainings, especially describing numerous concepts from the Leadership for Change and Leadership for Learning modules and supportive
supervision trainings. Respondents described the methods used in these trainings as highly participatory, and they appreciated the materials they received to apply the concepts learned. However, they noted difficulty using the annual district education office plan (ADEOP) (which
they were trained on) as a realistic planning tool for CD activities. In addition, while efforts at coordination appear to be occurring at the national level amongst different partners, coordination
is not yet visible or flowing down particularly at the district level within the education system, posing challenges to ensuring that CD support is effective and evenly distributed to schools across Ghana.
Our evaluation found that CD interventions supporting girls’ education (most notably the
Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training) were perceived as highly relevant, and key concepts from this training are being applied in classrooms. However, similar and some additional factors inhibit the potential for long-term impacts and sustainability of CD interventions in the field of
girls’ education: the need for additional follow-up trainings on gender-responsive pedagogy, the lack of monitoring and accountability following CD interventions, the lack of parental and
community engagement in education, and the limited number of female teachers in certain areas. The research also produced several cross-cutting findings that spanned multiple thematic areas;
these included the fact that trainings were supply-driven rather than based off of formalised needs assessments, that trainings largely targeted individual capacity rather than organisational
or institutional levels of capacity within the education sector, and that the regional, district, and school levels lack effective coordination, monitoring, and accountability systems. We found a lack of consistent and rigorous monitoring taking place that specifically examines how the
concepts and tools acquired from each training are being used at schools and in classrooms, as well as whether these changes are having an impact on student learning outcomes. Additionally,
while respondents spoke positively about the trainings, the trainings they received often lacked immediate relevance in terms of how they could be practically applied, whether in district planning processes or in the classroom itself. Findings falling under the thematic areas as well as
those that were cross-cutting inform our recommendations for UNICEF.
3 UNICEF supported trainings with a focus on early grade reading and numeracy were initiated in 2016 and were not
included in the current evaluation as they did not meet the specified criteria.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—3
The table below presents the trainings examined under the evaluation aligned with the capacity development entry points and the AIR team’s rating of how relevant, effective, and sustainable
the trainings were based on the data. It is important to qualify, however, that these ratings are subjective and lean heavily on the qualitative data, due to limitations of the teacher and district
surveys. Table 1. Framing the CD Evaluation Findings
Thematic
Area CD Activities Target Audience
Capacity
Point of Entry Assessment
Ind
ivid
ua
l
Org
an
isa
tio
na
l
Ins
titu
tio
na
l
Re
lev
an
ce
Eff
ec
tiv
en
es
s
Imp
ac
t
Su
sta
ina
bil
ity
Teaching and Learning
Child Friendly Schools
Head teachers, PTA X X X Highly relevant
Highly effective
Somewhat sustainable
Orientation on
Equity Issues in Education
Girls Education
Officers
X X X
Highly relevant
Somewhat effective
Limited or
unclear sustainability
Systems and planning
Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design
Regional Planning and Statistics Officers
X X Somewhat relevant
Limited or unclear effective-
ness
Limited or unclear sustainability
Leadership for Learning/ Leadership for
Change
Head teachers, Circuit Supervisor, District and Regional Directors
X X X Highly relevant
Highly effective
Somewhat sustainable
Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills
Head teachers, Circuit Supervisors
X X X Highly relevant
Highly effective
Somewhat sustainable
Girl’s Education
Child-Centred and Gender-Responsive
Pedagogy
Teachers X X X Highly
relevant
Highly
effective
Somewhat
sustainable
Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities
District Schedule Officers (Training, PRO, Circuit
Supervisors, Heads)
X X Highly relevant
Highly effective
Limited or unclear sustainability
The evaluation report concludes with several key recommendations.
UNICEF should support an education-focused needs assessment at the district level to identify current capacity levels and gaps as well as the local resources available to
support future CD processes at schools and district offices.
Trainings should be designed that balance teachers’ needs in both cross-cutting teaching methodologies and concepts within core subjects such as Maths and English.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—4
UNICEF should support and facilitate a formalised education coordination system
involving active stakeholders not only at the national level, but also at the regional and district levels, in order to ensure that CD support is evenly spaced and delivered across and within districts by education actors.
Weaknesses of the cascade model should be taken into consideration, and in order to mitigate them CD efforts should incorporate more cluster-based trainings that connect
teachers with training facilitators directly and also allow for frequent face to face interactions.
Educators should be connected with one another to promote peer learning: sharing best practices and troubleshooting issues as they apply new teaching techniques in the
classroom. Given resource constraints creating a platform on a tool already used regularly by educators (such as Whatsapp) could facilitate this connection and would only require UNICEF to support district officers in moderating discussions and providing advice to
particularly challenging topics.
UNICEF should strengthen structures such as the SMC and PTA so they become
functional bodies that can play a role in monitoring and strengthening accountability systems.
UNICEF should design future support that directly targets CD within the education sector
at the organisational and institutional environment levels
Develop a comprehensive M&E framework to ensure that the uptake and application of future CD efforts are monitored regularly at the regional, district and school levels.
Monitoring data should inform a feedback loop and contribute to the learning process around how CD is occurring amongst education stakeholders. It should also contribute to holding individuals accountable to their performance. Creating an accountability system
that is fully owned by stakeholders at all levels of the education system is key to ensuring long term capacity building and ultimately improving student learning outcomes.
Strengthening the use of monitoring and accountability mechanisms to inform the learning process also ensures that future trainings are iteratively developed and demand-driven.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—5
I. Introduction United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Ghana contracted American Institutes for Research® (AIR®)4 to conduct an evaluation of capacity development (CD) interventions implemented under UNICEF’s 2012–2017 Education Programme. The evaluation5 examined the effectiveness,
relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of UNICEF-supported CD interventions during 2012-2016 in three thematic areas: teaching and learning, systems/planning, and girls’ education.
These interventions vary, ranging from: those oriented towards strengthening individual education functionaries/community members to be aware and perform specified activities (for example teachers on child-friendly teaching and classroom management) to those which support
a process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the different implementation units (for example Leadership for Learning and Leadership
for Change). This report presents the evaluation findings for Objective 1. In addition, the findings of the evaluation has also informed a standalone guidance note on monitoring and evaluation systems and practices for CD interventions.
As indicated in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for this evaluation (see Appendix E), the lack of
capacity within the education sector in Ghana is a critical constraint and is evident in weak service delivery; insufficient infrastructure and teacher skills; and poor management, accountability, and coordination structures. Despite not having an explicitly articulated strategy
for capacity-building, a review of expenditures between 2012-2016 also indicated that a large amount of UNICEF Ghana’s expenditures in the education sector during the current Country
Programme fell under the category of capacity building. Findings from a 2010 desk review of UNICEF-supported CD interventions globally also suggested the need for UNICEF to shift from an ad hoc response to capacity needs to a more systematic, holistic, and longer term approach to
CD. The critical capacity gaps in Ghana’s education sector coupled with UNICEF’s considerable investments in CD interventions and the need for a more systematic approach to CD were the
primary impetus for this evaluation.
4 AIR worked with a subcontractor team from the School of Education Leadership at the University of Ghana to
design the research as well as collect and analyse data. 5 Along with the CD evaluation under discussion, additional work under the contract included development of three
strategy notes on the UNICEF Education Programme’s interest areas - public expenditures in education, barriers to
and bottlenecks in girls’ education, and efforts to strengthen district-level systems; and a review note on CD
interventions in available assessments and evaluations of different UNICEF supported activities during the
implementation of the current programme of support (2012-17).
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—6
1.1. Evaluation Purpose, Objectives, and Scope The purpose of this report is to present the findings from AIR’s retrospective evaluation and
begins with examining the nature and relevance of UNICEF-supported CD interventions in the education sector. We
also present our findings on the effectiveness of such interventions from the
perspectives of CD-training participants and trainers and explored the perceived impacts and sustainability of these
interventions, with the goal of identifying factors that enabled or constrained the
ultimate impact of these interventions on teaching and learning outcomes. Box 1 highlight the questions which have guided
the evaluation. The findings from this evaluation will highlight lessons learned
from the CD interventions conducted under the 2012–2017 Education Programme and to refine future CD
activities implemented under UNICEF Ghana’s 2018–2022 Education Programme. This report identifies successes and areas for improvement, as well as the challenges stakeholders face in
both the delivery of trainings and their application in the classroom or regional or district offices. Findings were shared and recommendations were validated with Ghana Education Service (GES) and the Ministry of Education, as well as other relevant education stakeholders in Ghana during a
validation workshop held in October 2017 in Accra.
The report begins by discussing the evaluation framework and the methods used to conduct the
qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. We then present the evaluation results, which are organised by the three thematic areas of focus —teaching and learning, systems and planning, and girls’ education—and the evaluation criteria, which are explored in detail in the
following section. Finally, we provide recommendations for future CD interventions within the education sector in Ghana.
1.2. Evaluation Conceptual Framework The starting point of the evaluation is that it attempts to evaluate UNICEF supported programmatic interventions through a CD lens; and not an implementation evaluation of a CD strategy for the education sector. UNICEF supported CD interventions vary, ranging from: those
oriented towards strengthening individual education functionaries/community members to be aware and perform specified activities (for example teachers on child-friendly teaching and
classroom management) to those which support a process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the different implementation units (for example Leadership for Learning and Leadership for Change). Capacity development as a
strategy and an end in itself was not prioritized by the education programme.
In the absence of an overarching CD approach and strategy, the evaluation utilises the UNDP capacity development framework (UNDP Capacity Assessment Points of Entry; see Figure 1
Box 1: Guiding evaluation questions
Relevance
To what extent are the CD-related interventions relevant
to and appropriate for achieving the desired results?
Are the choices of interventions and methods
appropriate and responsive to the needs of the sector?
Do CD interventions target the appropriate individuals,
organizations, and/or policies? Effectiveness
What changed as a result of the CD interventions?
What has been learnt along the way that might be of use
when carrying out future capacity building work? Perceived Impacts & Sustainability
Did CD activities have an impact on the performance of
the participating individuals, organizations, and
institutions?
Did CD interventions result in sustainable change in
individual behaviour or practice?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—7
[UNDP 2008]) and the evaluation criteria from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the underpinning
conceptual framework.
Figure 1: UNDP Capacity Assessment Points of Entry
Figure 2 shows the full conceptual framework for the evaluation: the three DAC criteria framing the research (effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability); the UNDP’s three
points of entry for capacity assessment (individual capacity, organisational capacity, and institutional environment); and the three thematic areas we selected for investigation (teaching and learning, systems and planning, and girls’ education). While most of the UNICEF-supported
CD interventions target individuals and organisations and, therefore, our findings focus on these levels, we also discuss the broader institutional environment, particularly in the context of girls’
education, for which societal and cultural norms are especially relevant.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—8
Figure 2: Full Conceptual Framework for Evaluation of CD Interventions
1.3. Selection of CD Interventions and Thematic Areas The evaluation team reviewed a mapping document that identified the UNICEF-supported CD interventions that were implemented across 20 districts in Ghana from 2012 to 2016 (see
Appendix D), and followed a set of criteria for selecting clusters of interventions for the evaluation. The criteria for selecting the thematic clusters of CD interventions are listed below:
Interventions are not currently covered by existing reviews and assessments. Interventions have activities targeting at least two levels (enabling environment,
institutional/community, and individual). Interventions involve training and other CD dimensions. Maturity of interventions.
Interventions cover a diversity of stakeholders at the national and subnational levels. Interventions include activities implemented at national and subnational level.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—9
Using the aforementioned criteria and mapping document, we identified three thematic areas in which to investigate CD interventions for this evaluation: teaching and learning,
systems/planning, and girls’ education. We summarise these thematic areas below.
1.3.1. Teaching and Learning
First, we examined CD activities related to teaching and learning, recognizing their importance
to ultimately improving student learning outcomes. We explored the cascade model of training delivery from the perspectives of national- and district-level training facilitators and teachers, in addition to specific trainings related to child-friendly schools (CFS), child-friendly and gender-
responsive pedagogy, supervision, and leadership. We spoke to teachers and head teachers to understand the learning outputs from the trainings, the perceived influence of the trainings on classroom instruction, and whether teachers believed specific trainings on child-centred practices
and gender-responsive pedagogy had changed teacher behaviours in the classroom and school environment.
1.3.2. Systems and Planning
Second, we explored UNICEF-supported systems strengthening and planning through trainings
such as “Leadership for Change,” the bottleneck analysis, and reviewing roles and responsibilities. We spoke to individuals at the national, regional, district, and school levels about their roles and responsibilities, lines of communication, resource allocation, and
coordination with various education stakeholders. We placed particular emphasis on understanding districts’ capacity to develop Annual District Education Office Plans (ADEOPs),
which emerged as a key area of interest during inception meetings and was also supported by the bottleneck analysis training. We also explored issues of accountability in implementing the practices learned in trainings, as well as perceptions regarding the sustainability of CD
interventions at the district level.
1.3.3. Girls’ Education
Third, because girls’ education is a key area of focus in UNICEF’s education programming, we investigated how teachers are being trained in gender-sensitive pedagogy and how they are applying these lessons in the classroom. In addition, we explored the ways in which regional and
district girls’ education officers (GEOs) are applying the principles from targeted trainings on equity issues in education and transferring knowledge to others in their offices. The interviews
we conducted for this thematic area provided important insights into the barriers girls continue to face in accessing education, as well as recommendations for how these barriers can be addressed in future CD programming.
Given that the district is the locus of most training interventions, we also believe it is helpful to
present a diagram of the actors operating from the district to the school level who were covered through the different training interventions. While regional officers benefited from select CD interventions covered in this evaluation, the majority of recipients of CD support within the three
thematic areas discussed were district officers and individuals at the school levels. Figure 3 presents these actors.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—10
Figure 3: District Education Office Structure
II. Evaluation Methodology For this evaluation, we employed complementary qualitative and quantitative methods to answer
key research questions about the effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of CD interventions in the education sector. Data were collected between January and March, 2017. The evaluation is necessarily retrospective, as the interventions of interest took place
during UNICEF’s 2012–2017 Education Programme. Given the relatively limited documentation available and the absence of a rigorous monitoring framework for UNICEF-supported CD
activities, the evaluation required triangulation of information from a variety of sources, using a variety of methods, which are explained in detail in the “Methods” section that follows. The limitations of our approach are further explored in the “Limitations” section.
2.1. Methods
We employed four methods to collect data:
1. Focus group discussions (FGDs): Ten FGDs were carried out with school management
committees (SMCs), teachers, and students at both case study schools, as well as with District Training Support Team (DTST) members in the two evaluation districts.
2. Key informant interviews (KIIs): Twenty-five KIIs were conducted with key informants at the school, district, regional, and national levels. The national level refers to respondents from GES in Accra and UNICEF, as well as individuals with expert
knowledge of issues surrounding girls’ education in Ghana.
3. School observations: Six observations were completed in three randomly selected
academic classes at each of the two case study schools.
4. Surveys: Two surveys were administered: a district- level survey with 40 schedule officers across 8 UNICEF-supported districts and a teacher survey with 100 teachers
across 10 UNICEF-supported districts.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—11
Table 1 presents the location, method, and respondent type for the field-based data collection.
Table 1: Location, Method, and Respondent Type for Data Collection
2.2 Limitations The greatest limitation of this evaluation is its retrospective nature. While retrospective studies (or post-implementation studies) are valuable for identifying potential reasons for past programme successes and challenges and the lessons learned from programme implementation
(USAID, 2014), they do have some limitations that are important to acknowledge. Namely, retrospective studies conducted without prospective studies of programme processes are limited
in their ability to determine programme impacts because of limited baseline (and/or counterfactual) data (Gertler, Martinez, Premand, Rawlings, & Vermeersch, 2011). While retrospective evaluations can be very useful for learning (as is the intended purpose of this
evaluation), they are not necessarily well suited for monitoring or accountability purposes.
The evaluation was also further hindered by lack of available monitoring and programme documentation on the trainings and implementation process during the 2012-16 timeframe and as such needed to heavily rely on respondent’s ability to recall. Depending on the length of time
between when programme implementation occurred and when the evaluation is conducted, retrospective studies can suffer from recall bias, as respondents are unable to remember critical
events or factors that shaped implementation processes (Bamberger, Rugh, Church, & Fort,
Location Method Respondents
Districts Survey Planning, budget, and statistics officers, circuit supervisors, other schedule officers, and DTST members
Schools Survey Teachers
District Office,
Savelugu- Nanton
KII Inclusive education coordinator (pilot), training officer, girls’
education coordinator, ECD coordinator, statistics officer, and circuit supervisor
FGD DTST
Case Studies:
School 1 and School 2
FGD SMCs, teachers, students (one per school + two pilots)
KII Head teachers, curriculum leaders (two per school)
School observations
Classrooms (three per school)
Northern Regional Office
KII Planning officer and girls’ education coordinator
Builsa North District Office
KII District director, girls’ education coordinator, circuit supervisor, and planning officer
FGD DTST
Upper East Regional Office
KII Girls’ education coordinator, planning officer, and statistics officer
Accra KII Right to Play, independent gender practitioner, girls’ education unit director and programme officer, TED director
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—12
2004). Indeed, because of the rather lengthy recall period during which numerous UNICEF-supported CD trainings were provided, the evaluation team observed that teachers and education
officials could not always recall the specific details of the training(s) they had participated in.
Despite these limitations, retrospective studies are strengthened by triangulating individual accounts with those of other respondents; by collecting data from several different respondent types, using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, we have done our best to
counteract this challenge. On the quantitative side, while we were able to reach 10 districts (and 10 schools per district) to achieve decent variation in our survey sample, the sample size is still
very small, and this approach yielded only descriptive statistics. Because a proper impact evaluation using experimental or quasi-experimental methods was not possible, we are not able to make any statements about the impacts of CD interventions. Further, the relatively small
sample of schools made it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons across districts. Finally, because both quantitative and qualitative instruments covered a range of CD activities, we made
some sacrifices in terms of the depth of information we were able to collect. Related to this point, we were able to achieve greater depth through the qualitative methods which resulted in an inevitable imbalance of qualitative and quantitative findings on certain topics.
2.3. Data Collection Approaches
2.3.1. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
We interviewed key informants who had expert knowledge about the UNICEF Ghana Education
Programme or a topic related to the programme—selected on the basis of their involvement in UNICEF-supported trainings—at the school, district, regional, and national level about perceived gaps and strengths in CD interventions. KIIs also provided insights into leadership, management,
and accountability realities in their day-to-day responsibilities in order to inform UNICEF Ghana’s new education programme strategy.
2.3.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
FGDs are guided discussions with a group of purposively selected individuals. FGDs provide a
context in which participants feel comfortable and empowered to discuss the research topics with peers and carefully trained facilitators. We conducted FGDs with DTST members in both Savelugu-Nanton and Builsa North to learn specifically about the training-of-trainer model that
is used to deliver CD practices to head teachers and teachers. We also conducted FGDs with the SMC, a group of teachers, and a group of students at each case study school in Savelugu-Nanton.
This gave us another perspective on the experiences of teachers at the school level when participating in the training and helped in determining whether students and SMCs were aware of subsequent new practices being implemented in the classroom or school setting.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—13
2.3.3 School Observations
School observations allowed us to examine the child-friendliness of schools and the extent to which teachers were implementing the practices learned in the CD trainings, specifically in the areas of child-centred and gender-responsive pedagogy. We conducted six observations in
randomly selected academic classes at two case study schools to explore how the school environment facilitates teaching and learning, using a previously piloted and validated
instrument that measures child-friendly and gender-equitable teaching practices. The observation instrument was designed to assess the child-friendliness and gender equity of the classrooms, and is included in Appendix B.
2.3.4. District Survey
The district survey was administered to the members of the DTST, as well as planning, schedule,
budget, and statistics officers in eight UNICEF-supported districts. The topics covered in this survey included the following:
District office management structure
District office staffing and resources
ADEOPs (planning procedures, timing, staff involved, and consultations with circuits/clusters)
CD training design and delivery (focused on teaching and learning)
CD trainings received (focused on systems/planning and girls’ education)
Post-training monitoring
2.3.5. Teachers’ Survey
The school-level survey was administered to the head of the school or a designated teacher. The questions covered aspects of the following:
School management
School staffing and pupils (e.g., role of teachers and students, teachers’ qualifications,
capacity building activities, enrolment, attendance, and progression)
School facilities/resources (e.g., school characteristics including boards, toilets,
furniture, and books)
Teacher aspirations and participation in self-capacity-building efforts
Impressions of trainings (e.g., content, structure, delivery mechanism, timing)
Challenges in implementing training practices
Table 2 identifies the UNICEF programme (see Appendix E for an overview) outputs that correspond to the three thematic areas identified for the evaluation—teaching and learning,
systems and planning, and girls’ education—as well as illustrative UNICEF-supported CD activities that support these thematic areas and outputs. Note that most of the illustrative
trainings included below support more than one output and thematic area.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—14
Table 2: UNICEF Outputs and Trainings per Thematic Area
Thematic Area UNICEF Output Illustrative Trainings
Teaching and Learning Output 22 Child-Friendly Schools
Output 20 Orientation on Equity Issues in Education
Output 22 Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities
Systems and Planning Output 22 Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills
Output 22 Leadership for Learning
Output 21, Output 22 Leadership for Change
Output 21 Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design
Output 20 Roles and Responsibilities
Girls’ Education Output 22 Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities
Output 22 Child-Centred and Gender-Responsive Pedagogy
2.4. Sampling The AIR team used a combination of consultative meetings, guiding thematic areas of interest for the evaluation, and Education Management Information System (EMIS) data to select
districts for the qualitative research. After consultation meetings with UNICEF and key stakeholders from the Ministry of Education and GES, the evaluation team identified the districts
that would fall under the evaluation on the basis of the presence or absence of CD interventions and the length of time the district had received support from UNICEF. The team also wanted to ensure that the districts received funding for activities that fell under the three identified thematic
areas (teaching and learning, systems/planning, and girl’s education). The excel mapping document (see Appendix D) informed this process. After narrowing the options through the
mapping document we then selected a high- and a low-performing district (based on key EMIS data) from two separate regions to maximise the diversity of our qualitative sample and enable us to collect in-depth information in each district. The districts subsequently chosen for the
qualitative component of the evaluation included Savelugu-Nanton in the Northern Region, and Builsa North in the Upper East Region:
Savelugu-Nanton in the Northern Region was selected because of its long history of UNICEF support (dating back to 2006) and because it received the full package of UNICEF-supported CD interventions in education,6 starting in 2014. Within the Northern
Region, Savelugu-Nanton is the highest performing of the UNICEF-supported districts in terms of primary completion rate and performance in the English language, according to
EMIS data.
Builsa North in the Upper East Region also received the full package of UNICEF-supported CD interventions in education, starting in 2014. However, unlike Savelugu-
Nanton, Builsa North is the lowest performing of the UNICEF-supported districts in terms of primary completion rate and performance in the English language in the Upper
East Region, according to EMIS data.
6 The full package refers to the interventions included under Output 17–Output 23 of UNICEF’s 2012–2017
Education Programme, identified in the mapping document provided by UNICEF Ghana , which is annexed.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—15
For the quantitative component of the evaluation, the survey targeted 10 purposively selected UNICEF districts7 to explore variations in experiences and impressions of UNICEF-supported
interventions across a range of geographic locations. After selecting the districts the team then randomly selected schools in each district. This approach ensured the widest coverage possible,
given the budget and time constraints of the evaluation. After careful consideration of options and on the basis of the University of Ghana’s experience conducting similar studies, a sample size of 100 schools based on equal sample allocation to 10 of the UNICEF districts (10 schools
per district) and 100 teacher interviews (one per school) was deemed sufficient.
In addition to the 100 teacher surveys across 10 UNICEF-supported districts, we developed a
district-level questionnaire (with similar content to that of the qualitative KII protocol) that we administered in 8 UNICEF-supported districts (the 10 districts selected for the teacher survey minus Savelugu-Nanton and Builsa North). We administered this questionnaire (which had a
combination of closed- and open-ended questions) to a total of five district officials in each of the 8 district offices, for a total of 40 district-level surveys. The teacher and district surveys can
be found in Appendix B.
2.5. Data Handling
2.5.1. Qualitative Data Collection
The evaluation team collected qualitative data in the Northern Region and Upper East Region.
Wherever possible, one field researcher was responsible for interviewing or facilitating, while the second researcher had primary responsibility for recording responses. Researchers took detailed notes and also recorded all interviews and FGDs on portable digital recorders. At the
end of each day, the field researchers transcribed the handwritten field notes into Microsoft Word documents, translating the material where necessary. Researchers used audio recordings to
supplement and validate the written transcriptions and translations.
2.5.2 Quantitative Data Collection
The evaluation team administered both the teacher and district surveys between February and
March of 2017. As is the case with most surveys, the evaluation team encountered a few minor challenges during data collection. In particular, some districts in Upper Denkyira West and
Afram Plains North were not notified by the GES in advance that our teams were coming, which made it slightly more difficult to make arrangements to administer the surveys in these areas. In the Upper Denkyira West district, a number of the head teachers and DTST members were
participating in district- and circuit- level sporting activities and were not available initially to be interviewed. This briefly delayed the data collection process.
2.6. Coding and Analysis
2.6.1. Qualitative Data
Lead researchers developed a descriptive coding scheme linked to the above evaluation framework, with specific reference to themes of interest and research questions. The first step in
7 The districts covered by the survey include Builsa, Savelugu Nanton, Garu -Tempane, Lambussie Karni, Wa East,
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo, Upper Denkyira West, Kwahu North (Afram Plains), Upper Manya Krobo, and Karaga
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—16
analysing qualitative data is to develop a coding structure that helps to systematically categorise information. The evaluation team began with the analytic framework of the evaluation (teaching
and learning, systems/planning, and girls’ education) to assess the concept of CD. These themes formed the coding structure that we used to categorise the raw data from interviews and focus
groups into sub-themes, to inform the primary findings. The evaluation team defined each theme and sub-theme to ensure consistency across coders and over time, and coded the data as presented. The researchers then loaded the coding scheme and the transcripts into the qualitative
data analysis software package (NVivo 11). Coding in NVivo is a manual process based on careful reading of each piece of data (in this case, interview responses and other notes) and
subsequent selection of appropriate code(s) to describe these data. Once properly coded, these data can be analysed in different ways prior to producing written outputs.
Quantitative Data
Quantitative data were analysed using Stata and Excel to generate descriptive statistics.
Unfortunately, because of the large number of open-ended questions on both surveys, analysis took longer than anticipated. The tables presented were produced using Stata by doing two-way cross-tabulations with frequencies and row percentages. Please see Appendix B for additional
tables, not included in the body of this report, from the school-level survey.
III. Results Our findings on the effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of CD
interventions are presented below according to the three thematic areas: teaching and learning, systems and planning, and girls’ education. In each of the thematic areas, as well as in our findings that are cross-cutting, we present findings identified through triangulation of survey and
interview data. Where possible, we note areas of convergence or divergence between data sources.
3.1 Capacity Development for System Strengthening and Planning at
the District Level This section highlights evaluation findings on the CD support provided to district officers and head teachers in the area of systems and planning. The trainings that fall under this focus area
and are discussed by respondents include Leadership for Change/Leadership for Learning8; Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills; and Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design This
section also examines respondent perceptions regarding the involvement of school communities in CD efforts, as well as the effectiveness of processes such as communication and coordination, which are key to a strong education system. Respondents discussed the trainings they received to
improve their leadership and organisational performance, providing insights into the effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of this support. In this section, we begin by
presenting findings related to relevance. We then discuss the effectiveness and perceived impact and sustainability of the systems- and planning-related trainings.
8 Leadership for Change was delivered to GES management in order to strengthen management skil ls, while Leadership for Learning was delivered to Circuit Supervisors and Head Teachers in order for them to understand
their roles in promoting learning.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—17
3.1.1 Relevance
The majority of district officers highlighted the relevance of systems-focused trainings to their roles and to the ultimate focus on creating an enabling environment for teaching and learning. Respondents typically highlighted the methods used in trainings as highly participatory, and they
appreciated the materials they received to apply the concepts learned. When asked in the district survey whether they still had the materials received during trainings, 23 of 27 officers stated that
they still had them. Officers also indicated that the trainings were appropriate to available resources. In the district survey, 20 of 28 officers indicated that they required specific materials in order to apply lessons from the trainings; of the 20 officers, 15 stated that they currently had
these required materials. Furthermore, respondents at the school and district level noted that UNICEF or the district office appropriately targeted training participants, either requesting specific individuals or describing the profile of person who should receive the invitation letter.
The following paragraphs present additional findings related to the relevance and overall appropriateness of systems and planning-focused CD trainings at the district level.
3.1.1.1 Bottleneck Analysis to inform ADEOP development and planning processes
While respondents only highlighted strengths regarding the training on Bottleneck Analysis to inform the development of the ADEOPs at district level, they also raised a larger question regarding the relevance and limited use of the district plan development process in identifying
training needs. Respondents at the district offices cited using informal needs assessments and routine monitoring in order to determine the kind of training needs typically included in
ADEOPs. A respondent from UNICEF agreed, describing existing needs assessments as “ad hoc” rather than thorough and formalised. District officers also frequently cited the key role that circuit supervisors played in identifying teacher needs through their routine monitoring visits. A
member of the DTST in Savelugu-Nanton explained: “We normally do monitoring and supervision; as part of that you observe teaching and learning, [and] through that you identify
some shortcoming and some challenges across both.” At the school level, one head teacher mentioned that district officers did not consult with them on the areas in which additional training was needed. Most school-level survey respondents (52.8%) indicated that district
education officers identified the need for training, as did head teachers (17.5%).
One schedule officer in Savelugu-Nanton linked the identification of training needs to the ADEOP design process, explaining that they made an effort to look at the number of in-service education and trainings (INSET) held in a certain area to inform which trainings were placed in
the ADEOP. Despite this, district officers noted challenges in developing realistic ADEOPs based on time and existing resources, which prevented the ADEOPs from being valuable,
practical resources when planning and implementing activities. One officer in Builsa North explained: “We turn to be over-ambitious in our plans . . . most of the activities in the ADEOP, we can’t implement.”
3.1.1.2 Leadership for Learning (LfL) and Leadership for Change (LfC)
Respondents indicated that the LfL/LfC trainings were directly relevant to facilitating effective teaching and learning, and referenced the training methods used as key strengths of the training. Survey respondents consistently referenced the use of handbooks, the practical pedagogy used,
and the authority of the trainer on the issues as positive aspects of the training. Two respondents in interviews also emphasised the activity-based focus of this training and the importance of
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—18
“doing practically” as positive aspects of this LfL training. Table 3 presents district survey responses regarding the methods used by the LfL trainers by percentage of 22 total responses.
Table 3: Methods Used by Leadership for Learning Trainers
Did the training involve this? Yes (%) No (%)
Activities requiring participation. 100 0
Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts. 100 0
Trainer sought feedback. 100 0
Trainer emphasised certain concepts. 100 0
Trainer was engaging. 100 0
n=22
3.1.1.3 Supportive Supervision
District officers explained that the supportive supervision training was very relevant and appropriate to their work. One respondent in Builsa North said: “The concept of supervision, I use it much. It is something that they appreciate much.” Responses to the survey highlighted several
positive aspects of the training, including building a cordial relationship with the school community and the strategies learned to assist them in supporting their teachers “to put their best.”
Again, survey respondents identified the practical pedagogies and learning materials provided to participants as positives. Several respondents also referenced a field observation exercise and the resourcefulness of facilitators as positives. Respondents to the district survey also provided input
on the methods used in the supportive supervision training, presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Methods Used by Supportive Supervision Trainers
Did the training involve this? Yes (%) No (%)
Activities requiring participation. 100 0
Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts. 100 0
Trainer sought feedback. 100 0
Trainer emphasised certain concepts. 100 0
Trainer was engaging. 100 0
n=21
3.1.1.4 Need for More Targeted CD Support to Strengthen School-Community Linkages
Respondents at all levels, including students, described low or inadequate parental involvement in school activities, despite UNICEF-supported trainings that encouraged SMC and Parent-Teacher
Association (PTA) members to play an active role in making their school child-friendly. This suggests that further CD support needs to target school communities to strengthen structures at the
school and community levels. One respondent in the Rashidiya Primary School SMC stated that they had never received a training. Two affirmed that they had received trainings, with one commenting: “There are some few workshops we have attended. At the workshop we were taught
how to identify problems and how to see to it.” Although the SMC members at Pong Tamale Experimental School mentioned sporadic trainings provided by non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), they did not discuss any trainings related to UNICEF-supported areas. Despite this, they were familiar with the concept of CFS—suggesting that teachers at the school or perhaps another
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—19
NGO had reviewed the definition of a child-friendly school with them. One SMC member at Rashidiya Primary School described this:
We were taught how to ensure child friendly to school environment, run home, because their parents don’t give them money to go to school so we were taught how to talk to those parents to stop that behaviour we were also advised to
partner with the school authority to put up play equipment or talking walls so that it can attract the pupils to go to school.
Many respondents expressed the belief that school communities in general, SMCs, and PTAs
needed to play a more active role in supporting their children, as well as holding teachers accountable for their attendance and performance. One officer in Savelugu-Nanton said that communities could fill a critical role in monitoring, especially in the absence of district officers
who lacked fuel to reach schools: “We are telling the community people, the school belongs to you; they should monitor the children.”
3.1.2 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability
Overall, district-level respondents had a difficult time recalling substantive information from
trainings they received on bottleneck analysis in ADEOP design, and also indicated that ADEOPs were perhaps not being used as intended as an integral part of their planning and
monitoring processes. However, officers provided more input on the core concepts they learned in the trainings on leadership for change and supportive supervision, and spoke positively about the impact that trainings had had on both their and head teacher behaviours, indicating that the
immediate relevance of trainings to their work had greater perceived impact. Further, respondents also flagged several challenges in communication and coordination which needed to
be addressed to ensure that CD interventions were effective and sustained.
3.1.2.1 ADEOPs Development and District Functioning
UNICEF—in addition to other funders and NGOs—plays a critical role in encouraging districts to plan annual activities through the ADEOP development process. Officers in Builsa North
explained that the ADEOP process began with individual schedule officers, who planned and then submitted their activities to the planning officer for discussion. One respondent mentioned
that officers are provided with forms on which to describe the specific activities they would like to implement, as well as how much each activity should cost. A district review and planning meeting would then take place to validate the activities identified to achieve ADEOP targets.
This meeting would involve a broader group, among others. District survey respondents largely corroborated this account of the stakeholders involved in the planning process: 22 of 33 district
officers surveyed stated that the ADEOP planning process typically took between 2 weeks and 1 month; six described it as taking 1 to 3 months; and five said the process lasted between 7 months and 1 year. A majority of district survey responses, as well as respondents interviewed in
Savelugu-Nanton, stated that this planning process had not changed over the past 2 years, although the training on bottleneck analysis in ADEOP design took place within this period. One
respondent from the Northern Region said the bottleneck analysis training covered “the planning procedure and how to set targets and activities and things like that.” A respondent from Savelugu-Nanton added that the aim of the training was also to help identify specific activities to
address current problems.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—20
UNICEF also supported a training intended to strengthen processes at regional and district offices that focused on roles and responsibilities. Few respondents, however, recalled details
about the training, indicating that like the ADEOP training, without any follow-up, this one-off training was not immediately relevant and did not result in consistent application of concepts by
participants. Those who had participated in the training indicated that it was delivered centrally (in Kumasi) and then deployed locally to UNICEF focal districts. Although according to the mapping document the training was on girls’ education, according to a key informant from the
Upper East Regional Office, the roles and responsibilities training focused on the District Education Oversight Committee (DEOC) and how it was supposed to function. According to this
same informant, “When you go to meet the DEOC you realise they don’t even know what their role is supposed to be.” Findings highlight the fact that there is a need to clarify roles and responsibilities within the education system, particularly as districts adjust to the decentralisation
process. Doing so will ensure that structures such as the DEOC and the SMC, as well as officers at the regional district levels, are aware of and capable of fulfilling their responsibilities.
ADEOPs Used Primarily To Request External Funding
Respondents did not consistently express confidence in the use of ADEOPs as tools that did
more than present funding needs to the donor community. The reliance on donor funding for educational activities means that the ADEOP functions primarily as a tool for donors and NGOs
operating in the districts, and not as a sustainable internal planning tool that is consulted regularly by districts officers. One respondent in Savelugu-Nanton mentioned that the district office incorporated items specific to relevant NGOs’ yearly areas of focus into the ADEOP when
it was developed,9 and in both districts we heard that these documents were not consulted unless a donor was involved:
Here we don’t generate any income; our funds come from donor partners or government. If we don’t get any funds from people then it means the ADEOP will be there, but we will not be using it. Most of the time donor partners will come
and demand for the ADEOP, then they will look at that and decide on areas they want to support.
—Schedule Officer, Savelugu-Nanton
Officers in each district emphasised that lack of funding was a key constraint in carrying out activities that fall under the ADEOP and their daily responsibilities. One officer in Savelugu-
Nanton commented: “This office hasn’t received government funds since 2011, so they must get funds from development partners/NGOs to implement activities.” Respondents to the district
survey also supported the view that ADEOPs were used to request outside funding. When respondents were asked to list the three primary ways in which ADEOPs were used at the district office, the most common answer was to request or source support from NGOs and other
agencies.
9 Seven respondents to the district survey also noted that NGOs used the ADEOPs.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—21
3.1.2.2 Leadership for Change and Leadership for Learning
Responses to the district survey revealed that 22 of 40 respondents had participated in the LfL training. Frequently mentioned leadership training topics included delegation, recordkeeping,
and always keeping the focus on teaching and learning. One DTST member from Savelugu-Nanton recalled all five principles discussed during the LfL training. Table 5 presents the principles and the number of district survey respondents that identified them specifically among
the “two to three most important concepts you learned” as a part of this training.
Table 5. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned in the Leadership for
Learning Training?
LfL Principle No. Times Referenced
Focus on learners. 5
Establish learning dialogue. 5
Share accountability. 5
Share responsibility. 1
Preserve the learning environment. 6
According to the respondent in Savelugu-Nanton, officials learned that adhering to these five principles would maximise leadership and learning at school. In terms of the effectiveness of the
trainers who delivered LfL/LfC, all 22 respondents to the district survey who had attended the training on leadership for change indicated that the training was delivered by an education
professional who was knowledgeable about the topic. Respondents emphasised that the leadership for learning training had had an impact on how they behaved and interacted with other district officers and teachers. A Builsa North DTST member referred to changes in school
management because of this training:
The LfC training, the heads have now been able to delegate power, give out
detailed information about the school in the office. If you enter the office and the head is not there now you will see whatever information you need pasted in the office. The logbooks, some head teachers used to lock them when they went away
but now they keep them in the office, due to the LfL training.
3.1.2.3 Supportive Supervision
According to respondents from the Builsa North DTST, the supportive supervision training, which was delivered to circuit supervisors and head teachers, focused on supervision,
monitoring, and evaluation. With regard to supervision, the training emphasised being a “critical friend” and incorporated practical demonstrations of “severe” versus “helpful” supervision. A
district official from Savelugu-Nanton reported something similar, noting an emphasis on “how to be a friend to those you supervise,” and commenting that “training emphasised that as a supervisor you are there to collect, to guide, and not to punish people.” The training also covered
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses and needs assessment. Table 6 presents the training concepts that survey respondents recalled most frequently.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—22
Table 6. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned in the Supportive Supervision Training?
Commonly Recalled Supportive Supervision Concept
No. Times Referenced
Clinical supervision 10
Comprehensive supervision/visits 4
School entry model 2
Supportive assessment/monitoring 2
Survey respondents also referenced this training as focused on officers behaving “more of
counsellors than finding faults,” on developing the teacher/supervisor relationship, and the steps involved when conducting monitoring visits with teachers. Responses to the district survey revealed that 21 of 40 respondents had participated in the Supportive Supervision training, and
all stated that this training was delivered by an education professional who was knowledgeable about the topic. Respondents indicated that participants applied the concepts learned during the
supportive supervision training; for example, one DTST member from Builsa North reported that following the training they were vetting all teachers’ lesson notes and taking note of the content, as well as any strengths and weaknesses.
3.1.2.4 Communication and Coordination in Need of Strengthening
Although efforts at coordination appear to be occurring at the national level amongst different partners, coordination is not yet visible or flowing down to other levels of the education system. This poses challenges to ensuring that CD support is effective and evenly distributed to schools
across Ghana. Regional-level respondents, in particular, noted feeling excluded from coordination and planning processes, and did not describe being involved extensively in planning
at either the national or the district levels. District officers and teachers, on the other hand, described an effective and tight-knit communication and coordination structure between the district and school level. In this section, we discuss the communication and coordination
processes that facilitate CD at the national, regional, district, and school levels.
National-Level Communication and Coordination
Respondents at the national offices (as well as regional offices) described the nationwide
education mapping exercise that was currently underway to try to address duplication in the system. The mapping aimed to identify which NGOs were conducting education interventions, as well as where they were working in Ghana. National-level respondents described the intention of
this exercise as not only reducing duplication of efforts but creating “sanity in the system.” One respondent at the national level described the need to spread out interventions so that they were
not concentrated in just one area. This respondent was hopeful that the mapping would be shared. Respondents at the national level, as well as UNICEF, discussed one notable example that highlighted successful coordination efforts around the development of an early childhood
education framework for in-service teacher training10. One stakeholder in Accra explained that this framework was created following collaboration amongst implementers and donors who had
10 The CD interventions related to KG were not included in the focus of this evaluation; however, this example was
provided by multiple national level respondents in key informant interviews as an example of education sector
coordination.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—23
supported the harmonisation effort. This group included the FHI 360, Right to Play, UNICEF, MASHAV, SABER Trust, and World Vision. The stake holder concluded that when considering
CD needs in the education sector, balancing the Government of Ghana’s need to “capitalise and leverage” funding with ensuring that activities do not become siloed is an ongoing coordination
challenge.
Regional-Level Communication and Coordination
Respondents at the regional level stated that, although communication was supposed to flow from the national level through them to the districts, the system did “not always work”—a
sentiment echoed by individuals we spoke to at the district level, as well. One respondent in the Upper East Region commented: “This decentralization thing has come to destroy all that. Right
now, the district reports straight to Accra; they don’t give us copies, so we [are] almost in the dark.” Multiple respondents at the regional level stated that they were left out of planning and implementation of CD interventions. One respondent believed that, in general, the regional level
had been bypassed because of a lack of funding, while another respondent believed it was because districts had obtained computers and phones in the past few years, allowing them to communicate directly with officers at the national level.
Despite this, it appeared that the planning and statistics officers at the regional and district levels
were in close communication with one another. One respondent said: “We have the regional statistical officers’ platform on WhatsApp that we always share information all the time.” We also heard that district reports reached the regional office. However, the fact that the regional
offices were unable to conduct monitoring visits to the districts because of funding constraints reduced their involvement in supporting the education sector at the district and school levels.
District-Level Communication and Coordination
District officers described collaborative relationships amongst themselves. Respondents in both districts described weekly meetings, during which officers discussed common issues at schools and how to address them. Despite describing strong relationships at this level, one respondent
reported that there was room for improvement in terms of ensuring that district education officers were in tune with activities taking place in the district:
We shouldn’t work as an individual but should work as a team. If I have a programme to run and know my sister can help, I rope her in and work as a team. We work [now] but not always; not everybody is involved. At times you see you
have a programme you are working with some people and others are left out. But even if they are not part of the programme, you should inform them so at least
they will be aware of what is happening.
The communication channels were described as particularly strong between district officers and circuit supervisors, who were the main point of contact for communicating with schools. One
officer in Savelugu-Nanton expressed a sentiment that was shared by multiple individuals at the district level: “If there is a challenging issue, before you move into the circuit you have to fall on
the circuit supervisor. We turn [to] them as landlords, you can’t go to somebody’s house without informing him.”
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—24
School-Level Communication and Coordination
Teachers and head teachers at both case study schools reported clear communication processes amongst teachers, between teachers and their head teacher, and between teachers and their circuit
supervisor, who played a critical role for both teachers and head teachers. One head teacher described their circuit supervisor as the “link” with the district office, while another emphasised the important role the circuit supervisor plays in monitoring: “In a term we can see him here
more than five times. . . . He comes to check our lesson notebooks, teachers’ attendance, and sometimes observes how lessons are delivered.” Responses from the district survey corroborated
this comment, with one third of respondents noting that circuit supervisors conducted monitoring visits to schools. However, the remaining two thirds identified other district office staff as responsible for monitoring visits. Most respondents (27 of 33) stated that the same person is not
responsible for conducting school visits each time. In addition to referencing meetings with teachers, administrators, and students, 20 of 29 district officers said that they also met with
SMCs or PTAs during these visits. The relationship between teachers and their head teacher was also described positively. Primary
school teachers at Pong Tamale Experimental School said: “We usually get informat ion [regarding a training] through the head teacher and then they write it and post it on the
noticeboard. And we had a WhatsApp chat with the teachers in this school so they just share it through that too.” Teachers from Rashidiya Primary School emphasised that their head teacher provided feedback to them and encouraged teachers returning from trainings to share the
knowledge they had acquired with the rest of the teachers.
3.2 Capacity Development for Teaching and Learning In this section, we discuss the relevance, effectiveness, perceived impact, and sustainability of
the UNICEF-supported trainings targeting classroom-level behaviour, with the exception of CD trainings focused on gender, which are presented in the section on girls’ education. The primary
training discussed in this section is the Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) training. However, respondents also provided input on the Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities training and the training on Equity and Inclusion Issues in Schools.
We begin this section by presenting descriptions by teachers, head teachers, and district officers
of the trainings they received that focused on teaching and learning processes, as well as their feedback on the more general support, resources or otherwise, provided by UNICEF to improve teaching and learning. We then discuss the perceived relevance, followed by perceived
sustainability, of these trainings. At the end of this section, we present findings from the school observations conducted at each of the case study schools.
3.2.1 CD Support Provided
The majority of teachers, head teachers, and district officers who received the CFS training described it
positively and could provide examples of child-friendly practices. Many respondents at the regional and district level had participated in the CFS training supported by UNICEF and recalled key concepts from the training, including the incorporation of play, the importance of safety (including the
prohibition of corporal punishment in schools), the need to create a child-friendly school environment, and the importance of involving families and communities in children’s education. In describing the
CFS training, a number of respondents also referenced the importance of being gender-sensitive
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—25
(including having separate toilets for girls and boys) and inclusive of students with physical and mental disabilities. One DTST member from Builsa North recalled that the CFS training encouraged
teachers to have their students establish their own code of conduct: “The aspect that was very interesting to me was allowing when you enter into a class the children are meant to make their own
bylaws, rules, and regulations in a class which will govern them and they comply with them.” A planning and statistics officer from Builsa North referred to the CFS training as “very informative” and maintained that “lesser-known child friendly issues . . . were all brought to the core.” Table 7 presents
the most frequent concepts recalled about this training by the 17 respondents to the district survey who participated in the CFS training.
Table 7: Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned in the CFS training.
CFS Concepts No. Times Referenced
School should be healthy (availability of toilet facilities) and/or safe for
pupils
9
“Inclusive school”/no discrimination/disability friendly 6
Friendly school environment/“play” referenced for pupils 5
No corporal punishment/promoting use of positive discipline 4
References to classrooms, facilities, and school environment as
gender sensitive
4
3.2.2 Organisation and Implementation of CD Activities
A majority of teachers and district officers indicated that the CFS training was organised and implemented in an appropriate manner, and that teaching and learning trainings were delivered
by skilled trainers. Of all the trainings listed in the teacher survey, responses suggested the child-friendly schools-focused trainings were the most widespread, as 64% of teachers reported having participated in the CFS training. Respondents largely agreed that the CFS training had clear
objectives and was highly relevant to their work (see Table 8).
Table 8: Teacher Feedback on CFS Training
Yes (%) Yes (N) No (%) No (N)
Objectives clearly stated? 100.0 64 0.0 0
Objectives achieved? 98.4 63 1.6 1
Any post-training follow-up? 70.3 45 29.7 19
Able to apply this training in your work? 98.4 63 1.6 1
Training contents appropriate? 96.9 62 3.1 2
Require further training? 59.4 38 40.6 26
N=64
In addition, all 17 respondents to the district officer survey indicated that the CFS training was delivered by an education professional who was knowledgeable about the topic. A majority of
teachers responding to the survey also stated that district trainers were qualified in general to deliver trainings focused on teaching and learning practices. Table 9 presents teacher feedback on whether district trainers are skilled to deliver trainings.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—26
Table 9: Do you think District trainers are skilled to handle training sessions?
District Yes (%) No (%)
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo 100.0 0.0
Upper Denkyira West 90.0 10.0
Kwahu North (Afram Plains) 70.0 30.0
Upper Manya Krobo 90.0 10.0
Karaga 100.0 0.0
Savelugu-Nanton 100.0 0.0
Builsa 80.0 20.0
Garu-Tempane 90.0 10.0
Lambussie Karni 100.0 0.0
Wa East 100.0 0.0
Total (N=100) 92 8
3.2.3 Relevance
Teachers, head teachers, and district officers consistently agreed that the CFS training, in addition to other trainings focused on teaching and learning, were relevant to their work. Despite
this, respondents highlighted several challenges related to their overall relevance, including the lack of sufficient or appropriate materials to deliver the step-down trainings and the need for additional trainings on core subjects such as reading and math. In this section, we present
findings from interviews, and district and teacher surveys, on the perceived relevance of teaching and learning-focused trainings, the methods and resources they involved, ongoing challenges in
delivering trainings to the school level, and the need to boost CD support to SMCs and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) to facilitate effective teaching and learning in schools.
3.2.3.1 Teaching and Learning Trainings Are Relevant and Participatory
Respondents agreed that UNICEF-supported trainings on child-friendly schools, child-centred
gender-based activities, and equity and fairness issues in schools were relevant, practical, and activity-based. A DTST member from Builsa North commented:
We even had some role plays on them, which was very helpful to us. When we started with role plays, we saw we can do them. We were given a comfortable
place to sit down and learn at our own pace; there wasn’t much pressure on us.
A respondent from the Northern Regional Office reported something similar: “I remember it was
very interactive and everyone was allowed to talk. We were put in groups, with lectures, practical assignments, and presentations from the trainees.” Respondents to the district survey also unanimously indicated that the CFS training, in particular, was interactive (see Table 10).
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—27
Table 10. Elements Involved in the Child-Friendly Schools Training
Did the training involve this? Yes (%) No (%)
Activities requiring participation. 100 0
Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts. 100 0
Trainer sought feedback. 100 0
Trainer emphasised certain concepts. 100 0
Trainer was engaging. 100 0
n=17
A majority of teachers also rated several teaching and learning- focused trainings as “very relevant” in the teacher survey. Table 11 presents these findings on the extent to which teachers
found UNICEF-supported trainings relevant.
Table 11: How relevant is this training?
Training n Very relevant (%)
Relevant (%)
Neutral (%)
Not relevant (%)
Child-Friendly Schools 64 64.1 31.3 3.1 1.6
Child-centred gender-based activities 60 61.7 35.0 3.3 0.0
Equity and fairness issues in schools 18 72.2 22.2 5.6 0.0
3.2.3.2 Need for Further Training on Core Subjects
While district and school-level respondents appreciated the UNICEF-supported trainings they
had received, they also indicated that perhaps more pressing was a need for training in core subjects, as teachers continued to encounter challenges in teaching information and
communications technology (ICT), reading, and math.11 Numerous teachers and education officials cited a need for additional ICT training, as well as training on how to teach reading. Many respondents commented that reading was a critical foundation skill that many Ghanaian
students lacked, and their inability to read (or read well) prevented them from succeeding in other subjects. On the importance of reading, one DTST member from Savelugu-Nanton
commented: “We need more training especially on language and literacy; everything the child does is about this.” Other frequently mentioned topics included natural science (and specifically a topic within science called electronics), English language, creative arts, and fractions, as well
as more general classroom management. Teachers also expressed a desire for additional training in pedagogical techniques. A teacher at Pong Tamale Experimental School commented: “They
should put up more training sessions to train us as teachers so that we can be abreast with the modern styles of teaching.”
11 UNICEF supported trainings with a focus on early grade reading and numeracy were initiated in 2016 and were
not included in the current evaluation as they did not meet the specified criteria.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—28
3.2.3.3 Reference Materials Critical for Step-Down Trainings and Application of Concepts
in the Classroom
A lack of reference and resource materials12 was frequently cited by district officials as significant obstacles to delivering trainings focused on teaching and learning, as well as by
teachers as preventing effective teaching in the classroom. Respondents indicated that they did not always receive materials during or after UNICEF-supported trainings, but that they very much appreciated receiving materials (both hard and soft copies) so they could consult them
afterwards. When asked in the district survey whether they still had the materials distributed during trainings, 23 of 27 respondents stated that they did still have them. According to respondents, materials were particularly helpful if participants were expected to deliver the
trainings to others in a step-down format. Of the 28 district responses to the district-level survey, 20 officers stated that they required specific materials in order to apply lessons from the
trainings. Of these 20 respondents, 15 stated that they currently had the required materials, suggesting that trainings were appropriately designed with resources in mind.
Despite responses to the survey, one Builsa North DTST member added that it was difficult to
secure materials to use during the step-down trainings: “A challenge is getting the materials here. We might need some materials that we want to use to run the workshops. We will get as far as to
Bolgatanga, but can’t get them.”
At the school level, a majority of teachers stated that, although several teacher and learning- focused trainings required specific materials in order to apply the training content, they had these
materials. Tables 12 and 13 present the results of these questions.
Table 12: Are there specific materials you require to be able to apply the lessons learnt?
Training n Yes (%) No (%)
Child-Friendly Schools 64 63.9 36.1
Child-centred gender-based activities 60 68.8 31.2
Equity and fairness issues in schools 18 42.8 57.3
Table 13: Do you have the material?
Training Total N Yes (%) No (%)
Child-Friendly Schools 42 57.3 42.7
Child-centred gender-based activities 42 63.7 36.3
Equity and fairness issues in schools 9 73.1 26.9
Although a majority of teachers indicated that they had materials to implement training content, this percentage was slightly lower for teachers responding about materials needed to create child-friendly schools. In interviews, some teachers also cited materials as a challenge in training
application. According to one teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School: “Some of the workshops, you go there but at the end of the day you don’t have any material to refer [to] in
case you forgot. You don’t have any manual that you can quickly refer to.” A district official
12 Due to the fact that the survey consisted of close-ended questions (primarily multiple choice), respondents were
unable to specify the types of materials they needed to deliver trainings and apply training content.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—29
from Savelugu-Nanton also corroborated this view, stating that teachers were trying to incorporate play but lacked learning materials for students: “[They] say we should integrate play
in whatever we are teaching, [children] are playful in nature, so when they get these recreational materials for them to play with, [but] most of the schools are not having them.” It was unclear
from respondents which materials participants had received that they could consult following the training – for example, manuals with key concepts and practical ways in which to apply new pedagogy in the classroom setting. In order to ensure that trainings are delivered in a
standardized, consistent manner, it may be valuable to encourage trainers to adhere to a set of training delivery standards. One such standard could include developing and sharing soft or hard
copies of practical guides focused on the training content for participants to reference when implementing new practices.
3.2.3.4 Need for Fewer Training Participants and Timing Appropriate to School Calendar
Most teachers explained that, the while the content of the UNICEF-supported trainings was
valuable, the trainings included too many participants, which negatively impacted the effectiveness of the training, and the trainings themselves were timed without taking into consideration important times of year based on the school calendar. Teachers from Pong Tamale
Experimental School expressed a clear preference for smaller trainings:
I have one issue with the delivery, large numbers of teachers going for a
workshop you will not have a seat . . . you will just be standing. And when the numbers are large there is no way that you can take part. So we teachers have to believe that the INSET we are organizing in schools is better than the workshops
we attend. Because the numbers are small, you can interact freely with those that attend.
Teachers also expressed concerns about the fact that some trainings were scheduled around vacation times, on weekends, or on holidays. One teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School reported that trainings scheduled late in the school year were also a challenge:
They may decide to do the workshop just at the later part of the academic year. By then the teachers are busy organizing the end-of-term exams for their pupils.
So sometimes we find it very difficult moving to leave your pupils only to go for such workshops. If they can do it at an appropriate time, it would help a lot.
Another teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School explained that trainings organised on or
around vacation times caused problems because teachers then forgot the content of the trainings and did not have the opportunity to immediately apply the concepts in the classroom.
3.2.4 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts, and Sustainability
Respondents in both district offices and schools provided input on the teaching and learning-
focused trainings through interviews, focus groups, and surveys, indicating that the CFS training in particular was well organised and implemented. Respondents at multiple levels (including students at both case study schools) described behaviour change resulting from might not have
informed the design of this training, this topic nevertheless resonated with teachers. Additionally, qualitative findings indicate that circuit supervisors play a role in facilitat ing behavior change
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—30
and the CD process. One head teacher described their circuit supervisor in Savelugu-Nanton as a mentor who helps discuss solutions to challenges, provides guidance on lesson plans, and
counsels on management of teachers and the school community. Despite the positive changes, respondents suggested that further refresher trainings be provided specifically on the use of the
CFS checklist, so that all teachers would know what was included on the tool and head teachers would understand how to properly complete it. In addition, respondents indicated that the number of training opportunities provided to teachers at some schools might prevent them from
having the time to implement new practices in the classroom.
3.2.4.1 Behaviour Change
Respondents consistently referenced applying what they had learned from the CFS training,
notably more so than other trainings inquired about by the evaluation team. The CFS checklist was mentioned quite frequently, with many respondents indicating that head teachers completed the checklist twice per year. The evaluation team was told a number of success stories related to
the CFS checklist, including by a member of the DTST in Savelugu-Nanton, who said:
There is a checklist about facilities being gender-sensitive, urinals and toilets and
what have you, and actually before the concept there was just one pit somewhere that the girls and boys would have to go to. After receiving this information, the
head teacher created separate latrines13 and, in fact, it brought some life into the school—the children who used to have to go all the way to the house because they couldn’t imagine themselves without privacy and would say, “No, I’m not coming
back again.” Now this is better.
At Rashidiya Primary School, one teacher reported that teachers had ceased using corporal punishment since receiving the CFS training. In addition, a DTST member from Builsa North said: “When you get to the KG you will really see the walls are talking.” This is a concept
covered in CFS training. Findings from the school-level survey corroborate our qualitative finding that CFS concepts (and, in particular, the CFS checklist) are being applied in classrooms.
Survey responses related to checklist utilization are presented in Table 14.
13 This may be an unusual case, as teachers and head teachers typically have limited authority over school
infrastructure.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—31
Table 14: Use of CFS Checklist
District
Aware of
Checklist (%)
Use
Checklist in
Class (%)
Use
Checklist in
School (%)
Seen
Changes as a Result of
Checklist (%)
School
Office Uses
Checklist (%)
Builsa North 50.0 70.0 50.0 70.0 60.0
Garu-Tempane 40.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 10.0
Karaga 10.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 60.0
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem 80.0 90.0 60.0 70.0 40.0
Kwahu Afram Plains North 100.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 40.0
Lambussie Karni 76.9 92.3 69.2 69.2 38.5
Savelugu-Nanton 60.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0
Upper Denkyira West 60.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
Upper Manya Krobo 80.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 0.0
Wa East 85.7 100.0 85.7 85.7 57.1
TOTAL 69.8 77.2 74.6 77.5 42.4
Total (N) 92 92 71 71 92
3.2.4.2 Need for Additional Training on the CFS Checklist
Respondents highlighted a challenge teachers had in scoring the CFS checklist. Several respondents reported that some head teachers have difficulty completing the checklist:
I turn to find out the scoring confuses most of the teachers, and so if they were given a retraining—the last time we came around with results they looked
suspicious and there you can tell that sometimes the heads they don’t fill the instrument, it’s all the understanding they are supposed to especially when it
comes to issues that look like exposes they themselves. So if we get the training better or intensify it or repeat it, it will help them better understand the instruments and they will do it as expected of them.
Although the response to the CFS training was overwhelmingly positive, most respondents to the teacher survey (59.4%) indicated that further training was needed in CFS. Officials from
Savelugu-Nanton echoed this sentiment, with one respondent indicating that turnover of head teachers was the primary reason additional training was needed on how to use the CFS checklist. In addition, the use of the CFS checklist, in terms of how it informs changes at schools is
unclear. One district officer in Savelugu-Nanton explained, “we are concentrating much on the quality of data gathering on the platform for now,” and noted that a formal, consistent feedback
mechanism was not yet in place, stating that while “we are not analysing and giving them report . . . directly you can communicate with the school on anything you have seen.”
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—32
Student Perceptions of Child Friendliness
Pong Tamale Experimental School Rashidiya Primary School
Students at Pong Tamale Experimental School
acknowledged the lack of resources in the
classroom, in particular noting that there were not
enough books: “Two or three children to a book.
The books are kept in the head teacher’s office.”
Students also mentioned that they had separate
toilets for boys and girls, although one student
reported that only the girls were chosen to clean it.
Despite this, student responses indicated that
concepts related to CFS and gender-sensitive
pedagogy had reached the student level. Multiple
students mentioned the opportunities to play
games in class, and one student described the
teachers in the following way: “At first they used
to beat us. But now they tell us that we are all the
same and then try to help us learn.” Several
students said that the head teacher was their friend
and a person they could reach out to if there were
problems.
Students reported that certain aspects of Rashidiya
Primary School were child-friendly, such as access to
drinking water and the availability of soap. However,
the school appears to have lacked learning materials and
clean toilets. About half of the focus group students
reported that they had textbooks for each of their
subjects, but the other half said that they did not. Some
students shared textbooks, while others had their own.
Students disagreed over whether the school was clean,
but most maintained that it was not. Students reported
that there were separate toilets for girls and boys, that
they had access to soap to wash their hands, and that
there was pipe water available for drinking at school.
All students agreed that there were no pictures or posters
on the walls of their classrooms. Students said they had
room to write, although this contradicted what our
evaluation team saw during the classroom observations
at this school. Students in the focus group reported
several games they played at school, including football,
Scrabble, and “ludu.” All students said that they felt safe
at school, as well as commuting to and from school.
3.2.4.3 Sustainability
Training saturation, as well as the overlap in training opportunities on the same topics, raised questions regarding whether CD activities supporting teaching and learning were occurring in a
manner that would result in sustained behaviour changes, particularly for teachers who indicated that the frequency of training opportunities prevented them from dedicating time to applying
practices in the classroom. At both case study schools, it was clear that teachers were very familiar with several concepts highlighted in UNICEF-supported trainings. However, respondents were quick to highlight other NGOs working in their community that had conducted
similar trainings for them. Some respondents (such as this teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School) said that trainings were sometimes offered to teachers in such quick
succession that participants did not have time to apply what they had learned before being called to another training:
I think most of the times there will be a particular period every day that teachers
are going to a workshop . . . they don’t have enough time to put whatever they have learned [into practice]. For example, today we are going to a Right to Play
workshop. Tomorrow we have not gotten the time to put whatever that they taught us into practice. The next day we are going to another workshop from another organization. So sometimes we feel like, no, we are just going to learn we are not
putting it into practice.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—33
However, it is possible that schools located in more central and accessible areas of districts (such as Pong Tamale Experimental School) receive more training opportunities than schools located in
rural and remote locations of the country. In the teacher survey, we asked whether head teachers felt there were too many teacher trainings, and most respondents said No (see Table 15).
Consequently, it may be worthwhile to ensure that teachers from rural and remote schools are adequately represented at trainings so that schools receive an even distribution of support from UNICEF.
Table 15: Too Many Teacher Training Programmes?
District Yes No
Builsa North 0.0 100.0
Garu-Tempane 10.0 90.0
Karaga 25.0 75.0
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem 40.0 60.0
Kwahu Afram Plains North 20.0 80.0
Lambussie Karni 0.0 100.0
Savelugu-Nanton 11.1 88.9
Upper Denkyira West 22.2 77.8
Upper Manya Krobo 37.5 62.5
Wa East 0.0 100.0
Total (N=92)
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—34
Case Study School Observations
We conducted three classroom observations at Pong Tamale
Experimental School and three at Rashidiya Primary School in Grades 4, 5, and 6 in both mathematics and literacy and language arts classes. This section specifically presents the
observations related to child-friendliness.
Although we did not visit a large enough number of schools and classrooms to have generalizable results, we found that
workspace and materials were generally deemed to be insufficient for effective learning to take place. Indeed, there was a general lack of adequate student workspace (desks and
chairs) across all classes observed. Three classes reported that no boys or girls had adequate workspace, and in one class many more boys than girls had adequate workspace. In one
classroom at Pong Tamale Experimental School, the evaluation team noted that the classroom did not have enough chairs for all students. Some girls were sitting on the floor or on wooden
planks, and other students were using broken desks. In Rashidiya Primary School’s Grade 4 mathematics period, all boys but only one third of girls had adequate workspace. The
other classes were proportional between genders, or no children had adequate workspace. In one class at Pong Tamale Experimental School, less than half of the girls used appropriately sized furniture, compared with most boys. The reverse was true
in another classroom at this school.
Of the six classrooms observed, only two had visible teaching materials. Teaching materials included posters, a rabbit skeleton, and alphabet letters above the blackboard. The only teaching
materials the evaluation team observed the teachers using during the observation period were textbooks and a white board. Students in five of the six classes were observed using materials, including textbooks, pens and pencils, and exercise books.
3.3 Capacity Development for Girls’ Education This section explores the relevance, effectiveness, perceived impacts, and sustainability of CD interventions supporting girls’ education. Considerable emphasis is placed on one training in particular—Gender-Responsive Pedagogy—for two reasons: (1) this activity was highlighted in
detail by many respondents during interviews and focus groups (for many it was the only CD activity they could recall related to girls’ education), and (2) the quantitative survey included
targeted questions about the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training and its implementation, relevance, and application in the classroom.
Student FGD in a classroom at Pong
Tamale Experimental School. Photo by Hannah Ring, 2017.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—35
3.3.1 CD Support Provided
Many education officials at both the regional and district levels reported participating in UNICEF’s training on gender-responsive
pedagogy, as did teachers from the two schools we visited for case studies and the majority
(60%) of teachers from the 10 districts we visited for the quantitative research. Respondents recalled key concepts from the
Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training, such as gender-equitable classroom management, gender-sensitive textbooks and lesson content,
and offering additional encouragement to female students. Respondents offered practical
examples from the training, such as calling on male and female students equally, mixing genders during group work, and ensuring
appropriate seating arrangements. Regarding seating arrangements, a DTST member from
Builsa North said: “You don’t push the females to one side and males to another, you mix up so the learning is more effective and interactive.” A
DTST member from Savelugu-Nanton commented that, during the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training, participants learned to pay
special attention to female students: “The emphasis is on the girl-child, the male are always coming, it is just that you are introducing a certain positive discrimination to at least help the female child to come to parity, which is why we are concentrating on the girls.” Several GEOs
also reported receiving the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training. In Savelugu-Nanton, the GEO recalled:
When I started, I had no training on girl-child issues; my first training was in Kumasi. UNICEF organised training on girl-child officers who were new, we had training on that. How we should go about our work on gender issues, what gender issues are and how to
deal with them. We also had trainings on counselling. How to counsel the girl child, formation of clubs, and others.
In addition, respondents indicated that GEOs were active at the national, regional, and district levels. In addition, school-based facilitators worked with GEOs on sensitization efforts related to
girls’ education. Respondents expressed that girls’ education issues were primarily addressed through sensitization of girls and their parents on the importance of education, and sensitization
of teachers on issues pertaining to girls. In Builsa North, a circuit supervisor mentioned a recent UNICEF-supported sensitization effort: “UNICEF recently funded a program where we went and met parents, market women, chiefs, religious leaders, assemblymen, key stakeholders, very
recent during the holiday time. And we had the opportunity of talking to them about the importance of education.” In addition, a DTST member from Builsa North said that sometimes
the DTST sent accomplished female role models to schools to speak to girls, and teachers from Pong Tamale Experimental School said they created girls’ clubs.
At Pong Tamale Experimental School. Photo by Hannah Ring, 2017.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—36
3.3.1.1 Organisation and Implementation of CD Activities
The majority of teachers (see Table 16) reported that either a DEO or DTST member facilitated the gender-based activities training, gender-responsive pedagogy training, and any other
trainings they received related to girls’ education.
Table 16: Who conducted the training?
Training n Teachers / Head Teachers (%)
DTST (%)
DEO (%)
Other (%)
Gender-based activities training 58 3.4 11.4 67.2 18.0
Gender-responsive pedagogy 60 4.3 17.4 61.8 16.5
Other related trainings related to girls’ education
35 10.5 12.1 53.7 23.8
Qualitatively, teachers’ and district officials’ responses were mixed as to who delivered the gender-responsive pedagogy training—some said head teachers, some said DEOs in partnership
with NGOs, and others simply indicated that the training was delivered by experts at the circuit level. In terms of coverage, a district trainer from Savelugu-Nanton reported that all teachers who had been in the district for at least 2 years had received the gender-responsive pedagogy
training. Results from the quantitative survey revealed 60% of teachers reported participating in the gender-responsive pedagogy training.
3.3.2 Relevance
This section explores whether the CD interventions delivered in the field of girls’ education were
appropriate to achieve the desired results; whether the methods were appropriate given the sector needs and available resources, and whether the interventions targeted the appropriate individuals, organisations, or policies.
Teachers surveyed confirmed the relevance of trainings related to girls’ education, with the vast
majority indicating that overall the trainings were either “very relevant” or “relevant” (see Table 17). Impressively, not a single teacher reported that the training content for gender-based activities, gender-responsive pedagogy, or other girls’ education-related trainings was “not
relevant.”
Table 17: Training Content Relevance (Gender & Girls’ Education)
Training n Very relevant (%)
Relevant (%)
Neutral (%)
Not relevant (%)
Gender-based activities training 58 58.6 37.9 3.5 0.0
Gender-responsive pedagogy 60 55.0 41.7 3.3 0.0
Other related trainings related to girls’ education
35 65.7 28.6 5.7 0.0
The survey also included specific questions about the relevance of the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training (see Table 18). Responses were overwhelmingly positive about the relevance
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—37
of the training—97% of teachers said they would be able to apply the training to their work, and 98% said the training content was appropriate.
Table 18: Teacher Feedback on Gender-Responsive Pedagogy Training
Yes (%) Yes (N) No (%) No (N)
Objectives clearly stated? 98.3 59 1.7 1
Objectives achieved? 98.3 59 1.7 1
Any post-training follow-up? 50.0 30 50.0 30
Able to apply this training in your work? 96.7 58 3.3 1
Training contents appropriate? 98.3 59 1.7 1
Require further training? 65.0 39 35.0 21
n=60
It certainly appears that girls’ education-related trainings (such as gender-responsive pedagogy)
were targeting the appropriate individuals: teachers and district officials. That said, existing literature highlights the importance of involving parents and community members in girls’ education-related efforts (Sperling & Winthrop, 2016), which we found as an area of weakness
across the three thematic areas; lack of parental and community engagement in education was reported by many respondents in interviews and focus groups.
One constraint that emerged related to applying lessons learnt concerned gender-sensitive textbooks and the availability of resources. While the concept of gender-sensitive textbooks
appears to have come through saliently during the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training (many respondents remarked on this concept specifically), teachers indicated that there were not always
resources available to replace the textbooks found to be gender-insensitive. To this end, a teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School commented, “For the negatives we have realised that the textbooks are not girl-friendly and they should balance the gendered roles so that the girl
child will not be left out.” However, despite the encouraging finding that teachers were able to recognise that textbooks were not gender sensitive (which indicates comprehension of key
concepts from the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training), the challenge of replacing these textbooks remained. This particular teacher indicated that Pong Tamale presently lacked resources to replace the books.
As part of the quantitative survey, teachers were asked whether specific materials were required
to apply the lessons they learned in training and, if they were, whether teachers had those materials. Table 19 shows somewhat mixed results as to whether specific materials are needed; between one half and two thirds of teachers reported that yes, specific materials are required.
Table 19: Are there specific materials you require to be able to apply the lessons learnt?
Training n Yes (%) No (%)
Gender-based activities training 58 66.5 33.5
Gender-responsive pedagogy 60 54.7 45.3
Other trainings related to girls’ education 35 53.7 46.3
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—38
As to whether the teachers had those materials necessary to implement the gender-based activities training, gender-responsive pedagogy training, and other trainings related to girls’
education, Table 20 shows that most teachers (71.3% to 90.8%) reported having these materials on hand—a finding that somewhat contradicts what we heard during interviews and focus
groups.
Table 20: Do you have the material?
Training n Yes (%) No (%)
Gender-based activities training 38 71.3 28.8
Gender-responsive pedagogy 30 85.6 14.4
Other related trainings related to girls’ education 19 90.8 9.2
3.3.3 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability
In this section, we discuss the practical application of training content, focusing on school-level
behaviour change but triangulating teachers’ self-reporting with the perspective of district and regional education officers. Next, we explore the sustainability of CD interventions in the girls’ education sector, exploring key issues that risk compromising these interventions’ long-term
impact.
3.3.3.1 Application of Training Content and Behaviour Changes
Respondents also reported several practical ways in which gender-responsive pedagogy was being implemented in the classroom,14 such as using he and she equally when giving examples.
A DTST member from Builsa North commented:
Always maybe [as] you are forming a sentence, you say “he is” but try to use “she is” too. Asking questions should be gender friendly—maybe you always say “Kufi is playing ball” and “Ama is sweeping” but you can also say [the reverse].
A teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School offered a similar example, saying teachers
there tried to use girls’ names more frequently than boys’ names when giving examples. Other examples mentioned by teachers from Rashidiya Primary School included asking both girls and boys to sweep and clean the toilets and mixing genders in seating arrangements. A DTST
member from Builsa North reported that, following the gender-responsive pedagogy training, teachers were more careful in selecting textbooks that were gender-sensitive:
Opening textbooks to check whether they were gender-sensitive or not was a challenge; when they brought and we went through we really saw that most of them are not gender-
sensitive. So now teachers, when they are picking a book, they will look before they buy it.
At Case Experimental School, one teacher reported calling on girls more frequently following the gender-responsive pedagogy training: “We went to a workshop and were told to desist from that [calling on more boys than girls]. If you call one if a boy, the next should be a girl. I try so
14 Some of these reported behaviour changes may have resulted from or been reinforced by other gender- or girls’-
education-related trainings, but by far the most frequently mentioned was the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—39
much, but since the girls are more in my class so if I have five questions more girls will answer: three girls, two boys.”
School observations yielded mixed results as to the adoption of gender-sensitive and child-friendly
pedagogical techniques in the classroom (see Table 21), with very few differences observed in the treatment of girls and boys by their teachers. Observers noticed only three differences, all in classrooms at the higher-performing Pong Tamale Experimental School: the teacher in the Pong
Tamale Grade 6 classroom appeared slightly more likely to give positive feedback to girls; the teacher in the Pong Tamale Grade 4 classroom redirected girls who were not paying attention more
than boys not paying attention; and the teacher in the Pong Tamale Grade 4 classroom appeared more likely to give girls adequate time to answer questions as compared with boys.
Table 21. Classroom Observation of Gender-Sensitive and Child-Friendly Teaching Practices
Sc
ho
ol
an
d g
rad
e
Gir
ls a
re a
sk
ed
qu
es
tio
ns
req
uir
ing
hig
he
r le
ve
l th
ink
ing
.
Bo
ys
are
as
ke
d q
ue
sti
on
s
req
uir
ing
hig
he
r le
ve
l th
ink
ing
.
Te
ac
he
r p
rov
ide
s p
os
itiv
e
fee
db
ac
k to
gir
ls.
Te
ac
he
r p
rov
ide
s p
os
itiv
e
fee
db
ac
k to
bo
ys
.
Te
ac
he
r re
dir
ec
ts g
irls
n
ot
pa
yin
g a
tte
nti
on
.
Te
ac
he
r re
dir
ec
ts b
oy
s
no
t p
ay
ing
att
en
tio
n.
Te
ac
he
r u
se
s p
os
itiv
e
me
tho
ds
fo
r m
an
ag
ing
g
irls
' b
eh
av
iou
r.
Te
ac
he
r u
se
s p
os
itiv
e
me
tho
ds
fo
r m
an
ag
ing
b
oy
s' b
eh
av
iou
r.
Te
ac
he
r g
ive
s g
irls
ad
eq
ua
te t
ime
to
an
sw
er
qu
es
tio
ns
.
Te
ac
he
r g
ive
s b
oy
s
ad
eq
ua
te t
ime
to
an
sw
er
qu
es
tio
ns
.
Pong
Tamale Grade 5
A little
bit true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Pong
Tamale Grade 6
Not at all true
Not at all true
A little bit true
Not at all true
A little bit true
A little bit true
A little bit true
Not at all true
Mostly true
Mostly true
Rashidiya
Grade 5
Not at
all true
Not at
all true
A little
bit true
A little
bit true
Not at
all true
Not at
all true
Not at all
true
Not at all
true
Not at all
true
Not at
all true
Rashidiya Grade 4
Not at all true
Not at all true
Mostly true
Mostly true
A little bit true
A little bit true
Mostly true
Mostly true
Mostly true
Mostly true
Pong
Tamale Grade 6
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
A little
bit true
A little
bit true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Pong
Tamale Grade 4
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
A little
bit true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
Mostly
true
A little
bit true
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—40
Student Perceptions of Gender Sensitivity
Pong Tamale Experimental School Rashidiya Primary School
Students told the evaluation team that teachers
called on girls the same amount as boys during
class, with one emphasizing: “He normally
chooses the one who raise the hands. If he points
[to] the boy and the boy answers the question, the
next question he will choose a girl to answer it.”
Although a few students mentioned that girls sat
on the floor in their class, this appeared to be
because of a lack of desks and chairs, rather than a
gender-specific practice, as another student
explained: “The boys sit in the front but if you
come early you can sit in the front.” In both FGDs
with students, the majority of students stated that
their class had more girls than boys. Students in
one focus group indicated that the seven female
teachers at their school were insufficient for the number of students at the school.
Rashidiya students reported that their teachers
treated them equally (“The teacher likes all of us”)
and called on whoever raised their hand, regardless
of gender. In terms of seating, most students
agreed that the girls sit on one side of the
classroom and the boys sit on the other (this may
have something to do with the fact that this is an
Islamic school) but that neither gender was
consistently seated closer to the blackboard than
the other. Although the numbers of boys and girls
in each class were not equal, about half of the
focus group participant students said that there
were more boys in the class and half said that there
were more girls. Students largely agreed that their
school did not have enough female teachers.
3.3.3.2 Sustainability
Our evaluation identified four key factors that could potentially compromise the sustainability of CD interventions in the girls’ education sector: the need for additional follow-up trainings on
gender-responsive pedagogy, the lack of monitoring and accountability following CD interventions, the lack of parental and community engagement in education, and the limited
number of female teachers in certain areas. While respondents referenced a number of examples of behaviour change resulting from the gender-sensitive pedagogy training, nearly two thirds of respondents (65%) indicated that additional training on gender-responsive pedagogy concepts
was needed. Only half (50%) of teachers who participated in the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training reported that there was any post-training follow-up, and generally speaking, respondents
at all levels (from the national to the school level) cited the lack of monitoring and accountability following trainings.
While there is clear evidence that parental and community support are critical to the success of interventions supporting girls’ education (Sperling & Winthrop, 2016), respondents complained
widely about the lack of parental and community engagement in girls’ education efforts. One
DTST member in Builsa North attributed the lack of engagement to illiteracy: “[The] problem has to do with the majority of SMC and PTA members being illiterate. It makes their work difficult.” Other respondents referenced the pervasive lack of prioritization for girls’ education as
a key factor inhibiting parental and community engagement.
Another issue related to the potential success and sustainability of CD interventions in the field of girls’ education is the number of female teachers. There is clear evidence that the presence of female teachers positively impacts female student retention and performance (Herz & Sperling,
2004; Khandker, 1996; Lloyd, Mete, & Grant, 2007; Rihani, 2006; Rugh, 2000; Warwick & Jatoi, 1994). Therefore, since the goal of CD interventions in the girls’ education sector is to
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—41
improve girls’ learning outcomes, a shortage of female teachers can be viewed as a critical threat to the success and sustainability of CD interventions. Responses during interviews and focus
groups were mixed as to whether there were enough female teachers in the schools and districts we visited. However, most district survey respondents (29 of 35) maintained that there were not
enough female teachers in their district. District officials in Savelugu-Nanton expressed particular concern that there were not enough female teachers in rural areas of Savelugu-Nanton, a sentiment that was less pronounced in Builsa North. According to one Savelugu-Nanton circuit
supervisor: “Most of the female teachers are around Savelugu, Pong Tamale, especially Pong Tamale town. But the villages, you will find that female teachers don’t even want to go those
villages. . . . You can count so many schools in the villages without a single female teacher.” Lastly, and perhaps quite obviously, the potential
success and sustainability of CD efforts within the girls’ education sector is inherently related to the
environmental challenges currently compromising girls’ access to and enrolment in school. Table 23 presents results from the district-level survey
regarding key challenges affecting girls’ access to and enrolment in school. The three most frequently
cited challenges are “pregnancy,” “community doesn’t value importance of girls’ education,” and “illiteracy,” followed closely by “distance to
school” and “seasonal farm work.” Interview and focus group participants largely cited the same
challenges, although perhaps with slightly less emphasis on pregnancy.
3.4 Cross-Cutting Findings Findings at all levels suggest several challenges to effective CD cut across the categories of relevance, effectiveness, and impact and sustainability. The
findings below are challenges that flow through each and are critical challenges in need of
addressing in order to improve CD processes. These include the limitations highlighted of the cascade model to CD delivery, insufficient monitoring and feedback processes and an overall lack of an M&E framework to examine how capacity is being changed over time, and limited
ownership and accountability within the education system.
3.4.1 While Trainings Resonated with Participants, They Lacked Immediate
Relevance for Application and Use
The trainings explored in this evaluation were supply-driven, rather than demand-driven and
originating as a result of a formal needs assessment. Despite this, respondents to both the surveys described them as highly relevant, and based on the qualitative data the training content seemed to resonate with those who participated in the CD trainings examined. For multiple reasons (most
often tied to resource constraints in general or a lack of teaching and learning materials), however, several trainings lacked the pathway through which participants could apply what they
Table 23: Challenges Affecting Girls’ Access to and Enrolment in School: District Survey Responses
Challenges
Number of Responses
Pregnancy 24
Community doesn’t value importance of girls’ education
12
Illiteracy 11
Distance to school 9
Seasonal farm work 9
Learning difficulties 7
Girls needed by families for market days
4
Household chores 4
Forced marriage 4
Lack of separate/acceptable bathroom facilities
3
Lack of uniforms 1
n=40
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—42
learned. One notable example of this is the ADEOP training and planning process, which was a largely theoretical exercise for district officers who do not make use of the document in the way
it was envisioned to be used because the overarching lack of resources made it difficult to effectively develop and stick to a set plan.
3.4.2 Trainings Focus on Capacity Development at the Individual level
The trainings examined in this evaluation for the most part focused on developing individual
capacity that training participants could then share with other district officers or teachers. In terms of the capacity assessment “points of entry”, it is clear that CD support targeted the individual level, but less visible if or how any efforts targeted the organisational or institutional
levels. In order for capacity to be developed and maintained over time across the education system, strengthening capacity at the organisational and institutional levels need to be prioritised
so turnover rates of schedule officers, for example, do not impact the performance of any one district office. Additionally, when asked during interviews or focus group discussions to define what “capacity development” meant, many respondents described it as attending training
sessions, courses, or workshops. Shifting the understanding of what the process of capacity development entails and should look like from that of attending trainings to that of a long-term
process of change is also needed.
3.4.3 Further Coordination is Needed, Particularly at the District Level
While communication among district officers and between the district and school level appears strong, gaps exist in terms of how CD support is coordinated at the school level. In order to address this, coordination of training or other kinds of CD opportunities needs to be strengthened
amongst district officers and between district officers and other NGOs operating in a district as well as district officers and head teachers. Strengthening and standardizing communication and
coordination processes at district offices can address the training fatigue many respondents referenced. Doing so could ensure trainings are evenly spaced and delivered to schools and also build synergies with what other actors in the district are doing, thereby reducing duplication of
efforts.
3.4.4 Concerns Expressed Regarding the Cascade Model of Training
Delivery
While teachers mentioned the advantages of the cascade model in the teacher survey, noting that
these included reduced costs and that a decentralised method was easy to organise, district trainers explained that they encountered several obstacles when delivering trainings to the school level. One challenging area was the lack of an appropriate time to deliver trainings to schools.
One Builsa North DTST member said that teachers did not want to attend trainings on weekends; so trainings were conducted after school or only certain participants were selected to attend full-
day trainings.
If they are using after-school hours, it’s only two hours they can use, and those two hours they can’t get effective impact of the training. So they might use several days, and in doing that it won’t be effective. So we think if head teachers are
given this training, they are only going to support their teachers individually, not bringing them as one.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—43
In addition to the issue of the timing of the training, respondents indicated that they were expected to significantly condense the content of the training they received when delivering the
step-down training. This suggests the need for the training of trainers to take into consideration how much content district trainers can realistically condense and deliver to teachers in order for
the training to be effective and have an impact.
When teachers were asked in the survey which method of training they preferred, 47% of respondents indicated that they preferred the direct approach to training, with 11% indicating that they preferred the cascade approach and 13% indicating that they preferred a combination of
direct and cascade methods of training. It is interesting that, when teachers were asked in the survey about the disadvantages of the cascade method of training, the majority of responses
centred around a lack of capacity of the teacher who went for the training to impart the knowledge to the rest of the teachers, and that “vital information may be lost in the chain or distorted.” In addition a few responses indicated that school-based INSETs were not always
organised at the school when the teacher returned from trainings. Developing standards regarding how trainings should be delivered, or some form of consistent training modules that
could be used by trainers could address this challenge and ensure that the trainer follows and is held accountable to imparting knowledge in a clear and consistent manner.
Finally, a DTST member from Builsa North reported motivational issues related to the cascade
model of training, explaining that he believed that teachers and head teachers were more interested in the allowances associated with the trainings than the training content itself. He gave the following example:
In 2015, they had a workshop on inclusive education. They went to the school and asked the assistant what inclusive education was because the head teacher wasn’t there, and she couldn’t describe what it was. It was a disgrace . . . they are
interested in the money when they go to the trainings, and at the end of the day you ask for a report, you go to the individuals and they will report on the food,
money, but not on the content of what they have learned.
While motivational issues are difficult to address, the concerns about condensing training content and information getting distorted during step-down trainings suggest that
education stakeholders may want to explore alternate approaches to CD. Additionally, as we discuss in the following section, focused monitoring and training follow-up could
hold training participants accountable for sharing and applying training concepts in the classroom.
3.4.5 Monitoring
The follow-up and monitoring support provided to district officers and teachers after they participate in a training is critical to ensuring that training concepts are well understood and
consistently applied. Through training follow-up it is possible to see whether CD trainings are resulting in any change at the individual, school, or district/regional education office levels.
However, with the exception of the CFS checklist, respondents did not reference integrating CD training follow-up into their routine monitoring visits, and the majority of respondents highlighted monitoring as a key area in need of strengthening.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—44
In this subsection, we present findings on the training follow-up provided by UNICEF to education offices, followed by the monitoring (and training follow-up where specifically
described) provided by districts to schools.
3.4.5.1 Post-Training Follow-Up: From the National Level and UNICEF, to Regions and
Districts
Officers at the district and regional levels differed in their feedback on the level of follow-up they receive from the national level after participating in UNICEF-supported trainings.
Respondents at the regional level complained about a lack of follow-up to training activities. One respondent from the Northern Regional Office complained about this, suggesting a difference in
perspective at the district and regional level:
I think the trainings were good but there was no follow-up to see how we have fared after the training. What if we are unable to do the trainings at the district
level; how can we tell? The problem is monitoring and feedback. We do not have a good enough system. We step in to help as and when the need arises.
Conversely, respondents at the district reported regular follow-up after UNICEF-supported trainings.
3.4.5.2 Post-Training Follow-Up: From Districts, to Schools
Teachers and education officers at the regional and district levels recognised the key role that
monitoring played in understanding whether trainings were having an impact on CD, but they also discussed challenges caused by a lack of funding for visits, limited involvement in oversight by parents and community members, and a gap in connecting monitoring to the desired outcomes
in educator performance. Monitoring was the most frequently cited need in terms of improving student, teacher, and education officer performance in Ghana. One national- level respondent said
that a lack of monitoring “is why we are not achieving our goals.” Another indicated that it was problematic that donors assumed current monitoring systems work, when these processes were actually in need of further strengthening.
Although district officers described routine school monitoring, they did not consistently understand or describe how they followed up with teachers, specifically on the application of content from UNICEF-supported trainings. Rather, in interviews and responses to the district
survey, they discussed looking at children’s exercise books, observing whether teachers were in the classroom, looking at lesson notes, and observing the lessons themselves when on these visits
—and teachers corroborated this when describing the type of monitoring that occurred at schools. Responses to the teacher survey also highlighted the gap in ongoing CD efforts between district
officers and circuit supervisors and the school level. Table 24 reveals that, when asked how their capacities were built by district and circuit officers, the majority of teachers stated CD occurred
through trainings and workshops.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—45
Table 24. Teacher Perceptions on CD Support from District Officers
How are the District and Circuit officers building the capacity of
the staff? Freq. Percent
Regular post-training monitoring visits 6 6
Organize regular cluster-based or school-based INSET 5 5
Participatory open-door consultative meetings 6 6
Regular check-ups and orientation for new members 2 2
Regular post-training monitoring visits 6 6
They help us to prepare relevant lesson plans 10 10
Through regular visits, supervision 31 31
Through the trainings/workshops organised for teachers in the
district 34 34
Total 100 100
In interviews, respondents presented the monitoring planning tool that officers used for the
evaluation team. However, with the exception of the CFS checklist, officers did not mention the existence of any tools that examined whether training concepts were being used at schools or in the classrooms. One respondent also questioned whether officers truly understood the theory of
change that should inform how they monitored:
I think the disconnect comes . . . when we find it difficult to distinguish outputs and outcomes . . . let’s have the activities done, and we concentrate little on why
we are even doing the activity and how we even determine whether . . . that reason or objective is being achieved at the end.
Ensuring that regular and frequent monitoring visits take place is a common challenge for district
officers and circuit supervisors. One circuit supervisor in Savelugu-Nanton said: “The minimum you are supposed to visit a school is four times [per term]. We try as much as possible even with
constraints to visit the school often.” Most respondents to the district survey also indicated that they conducted school visits two to five times per term. Although several respondents in district-level interviews explained that they did receive more funding in the past year to conduct
monitoring visits, some still reported that this was insufficient. Numerous individuals mentioned using their own income to pay for fuel to conduct school visits, which is the “core work” of
monitoring teaching and learning.
3.4.6 Accountability and Ownership
Although numerous stakeholders described having an impact at the individual level, UNICEF identified “collective transformation” as the most challenging aspect of CD. The majority of officers at the national, regional, and district offices identified reliance on NGOs for financial
and material resources as a fundamental obstacle to sustainability of change within the education system. Officers said that NGOs “actually help us more than the GoG” and that “our reliance on
donors is another disconnect” that was evident in day-to-day activities at district and regional
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—46
offices. Respondents also referred to a lack of personal ownership and commitment in district offices, schools, and broader communities. One officer in Builsa North outlined the challenge:
Ownership in the sense that the communities do not see the schools as their own; they see it as government, they see the teachers as government teachers, you
understand, so the involvement is low. The teachers themselves don’t see, they don’t take their jobs as though it is an obligation that it is the reason they want to get paid a month. . . . Even officers in the directorate, we have people . . . they
write their names in the morning and that is all.
Multiple people indicated that a major constraint to improvements in the education system was
the lack of a sense of ownership in improving student learning outcomes among district officers, teachers, parents, and community members. To this end respondents noted that parents were not used to volunteering in the school environment, which made the expectation of supporting school
monitoring and management difficult to implement. The SMCs and PTAs were expected to link the community to the school and play an active role in fundraising for schools when necessary.
When asked if parents volunteered willingly for their children’s school, one member of the SMC at Pong Tamale Experimental School said, “They are not used to that” and that the SMC and PTA pitched in for these roles instead. To further involve parents, another member of the SMC at
Pong Tamale Experimental School discussed a possible initiative that involved parents’ monitoring teaching and learning at schools on a rotating basis: “We will see whether we can get a
roster for that, but we have not been able to do it, which has been on our plan for a very long time now.” At the time of data collection, one member of the SMC at Pong Tamale Experimental School mentioned supervision that they conducted at the school but did not say whether this
occurred on a formal and regular basis.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations Our evaluation found an overwhelmingly positive response to UNICEF-supported CD interventions in the education sector from facilitators, participants, and stakeholders. That said, a
number of recommendations emerged during the evaluation and through the process of validating the evaluation findings. These recommendations are presented below according to
relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, and systems and planning.
4.1 Relevance Below we present several recommendations relevant for future CD interventions falling under
the area of relevance. The most critical recommendation in this category involves conducting needs assessments prior to designing CD efforts; additional recommendations include providing CD support to teachers that recognise available resources, ensuring that all teachers are using the
most up to date syllabus and curriculum, and delivering sufficient training for teachers on core subjects such as English, science, and mathematics.
Conduct needs assessments on a regular basis at the school and
district levels
We recommend conducting a formal needs assessment at a set frequency at the district level that consults individuals at all levels of the education sector in order to identify specific capacity gaps at schools, communities, and district offices. A needs assessment
can identify the support needed in classroom instruction, the gaps in teacher and student
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—47
performance, and the limitations in terms of financial and material resources will inform the design of targeted, demand-driven CD interventions.
In low-resource environments, train teachers to use innovative
substitutes for typical teaching and learning materials (TLMs)
The design of teacher trainings focused on teaching methodologies and core subject areas
should factor in the lack of resources in schools and district education offices, identify locally available materials for teachers to use, and train them on the practical use of these in the classroom as TLM substitutes. Using a needs assessment to identify what is
available in school communities and classrooms specifically could support this process.
Strike a balance when designing trainings in order to meet identified
needs in both pedagogy/teaching methodologies and challenging
concepts within core subjects
While respondents regarded the trainings they received on cross-cutting issues such as
gender-sensitive pedagogy as highly relevant, they also reiterated their continued need for support in core subjects at the primary school level (grades 1-6). The Savelugu Nanton
DTST indicated that it had been at least three to four years since its members had attended refresher trainings in English, mathematics, or science, subjects that were frequently identified as the most pressing subjects where additional technical support
from resource persons would be valuable. Ensuring that findings from a needs assessment inform CD training design in both pedagogy and core content areas is therefore key to
meeting teachers’ needs in the classroom.
Help teachers access the soft copies of the syllabus/curriculum
CD support provided to facilitate the teaching and learning process is the most effective
when it is relevant to what teachers are teaching. However, district officers in Builsa North emphasised that the current curriculum had not reached its schools, and that many schools were still using the 2007 syllabus (which has since been updated). This means
that students are unprepared for any national exams because teachers continue to “teach for questions that won’t be seen on the exam.” Working with the GES so that schools
across all districts receive the same core teaching resources (especially national curricula) is essential to ensuring that district offices and schools across the country are on the same page. Circulating soft copies of the syllabus and curriculum at district offices for teachers
to access would accomplish this.
4.2 Effectiveness The recommendations related to effectiveness include creating and formalising coordination
processes at the regional and district levels as well as exploring alternative ways to deliver CD to counter the weaknesses of the cascade model to trainings and spacing workshops or trainings to
ensure that participants have time to implement new training concepts.
Identify and formalize a coordination system at the regional and
district levels to avoid duplication of CD support & training fatigue
The education mapping exercise referenced by respondents at the national level should be shared with district officers in order to facilitate coordination with NGOs and other
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—48
funders working in schools across districts. We recommend that UNICEF support the creation of formalised coordination processes to take place at set frequencies not only at
the national level (where it already plays a critical role), but also for actors at the regional and district levels, so that trainings are evenly delivered and spaced across and within
districts.
Deliver CD Using a Blend of Approaches to Mitigate the Limitations of
the Cascade Model
Providing additional support to DTST members and encouraging them to convene teachers on a more regular basis for cluster-based INSETs on CD topics would also
ensure that teachers receive targeted CD that does not rely so heavily on the cascade model.
Ensure Adequate Spacing of Trainings
Many respondents in interviews and focus groups expressed the view that teachers should
have more time in the classroom to implement new teaching practices before being called to the next workshop. We recommend that future trainings take timing into consideration to ensure that teachers have adequate time to absorb each new concept or pedagogy and
can consequently build their skills in a sustainable, long-term manner that translates to changes in instructional behaviours and subsequent improvements in student learning
outcomes.
4.3 Impact/Sustainability Findings suggest that in order for CD support to have more of an impact and be sustained, participants in the CD process should be encouraged to learn from one another and how they are
applying CD on the ground. Perhaps most integral to the CD process at the school level is increasing buy-in and ownership of school performance by school communities, who should play
a role in encouraging teachers to improve their capacities, holding schools accountable for their children’s learning outcomes, and supporting girls’ education.
Identify opportunities for peer learning using mobile technology to
connect individuals that are moderated by circuit supervisor Both teachers and education officials indicated a desire to learn from what other teachers
and schools are doing in their classrooms in addition to learning in more traditional workshop and training settings. Teachers in particular are interested in learning from their
peers in terms of how they overcome the lack of teaching and learning materials in the classroom. To this end one district official from Builsa North suggested, “…more training can also be given to the teachers then maybe you can also go to other schools and
also learn from the way they are managing their schools and how teaching and learning is going on.” We recommend exploring ways to facilitate peer learning as an approach to
CD amongst district officers and particularly amongst teachers. Convening teachers from a given circuit at a set frequency to discuss solutions to subjects or challenges identified in INSETs would support this. Additionally, we recommend exploring the use of
technology to overcome issues of distance and resources that are required to bring people together. One tool that could support this is in the Ghanaian context is Whatsapp, which
could connect teachers of a given class or subject area. Encouraging a district officer or circuit supervisor to facilitate Whatsapp groups by regularly asking questions to the
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—49
group and spurring conversations to share ideas would also help ensure that this platform is used consistently and regularly by teachers.
Design Support that Directly Targets CD within the Education Sector
at the Organisational and Institutional Environment Levels
The evaluation found that while the organisational and institutional levels were indirectly
included in the CD support provided to district officers and head teachers, the capacity point of entry largely remained at the individual level. UNICEF should explore ways in which organisational and institutional capacity can be more directly targeted in future CD
efforts. Other recommendations listed here explicitly target these levels of capacity in the education sector, such as supporting the development of peer learning systems, greater
engagement with school communities, and strengthening and formalising coordination, monitoring, and accountability systems.
Develop strategies for engaging and building capacity within
communities Respondents at all levels referenced the need for greater community- level engagement to
support school performance broadly as well as girls’ education, which many suggested could be achieved through further sensitization efforts on the importance of educating girls. Numerous others echoed the need to look at the full picture (including families and
communities) when considering how to improve learning outcomes. One district officer in Builsa North stated that improving linkages and creating a sense of teamwork amongst
those working in the education sphere could facilitate greater ownership. School communities’ ownership over schools and student learning can also be addressed through engagement with the media (for example delivering messaging through community radio
stations), and through student clubs such as girls’ groups that engage with parents in their activities.
4.4 Systems and Planning The final three recommendations are truly cross-cutting and apply to the overarching systems and planning thematic area. The first is to strengthen educational structures so that they are
functional and can facilitate CD processes; the second is to develop a comprehensive M&E framework to record not only what CD efforts are delivered but more importantly how the support translates into behaviour change at the district and school levels; the third is to
complement an M&E framework with an accountability system to ensure measures are in place that hold participants in the CD process accountable to improving their performance.
Strengthen existing structures (SMCs, PTAs, DEOCs, Regional
Education Offices)
Findings suggest that SMCs, PTAs, and DEOCs appear not to be functioning as intended in Savelugu Nanton and Builsa North. In order to achieve capacity development not only at the individual level but also at the organisational and later environmental levels, the
structures in place in Ghana’s education system first have to be operational. Conducting a needs assessment should identify what level of capacity these structures currently have,
and also may provide insights into why they are not functioning properly. Stakeholders can then develop targeted CD interventions to bring each body up to par in its ability to
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—50
carry out designated functions – for example, at the school community level, SMCs should be involved in the development of the SPIP. These should be accompanied by
sensitisation on roles and responsibilities that motivate members of the different bodies to facilitate and engage in the process of CD for themselves and for district officers, head
teachers, and teachers. Findings also suggest that regional officers in both qualitative study districts felt excluded following decentralisation processes; we recommend incorporating additional capacity development efforts for regional officers into the CD
process in order for them to appreciate where they fit into the vision of education decentralisation, how their roles and responsibilities may differ now because of it, and
how they should fulfil these duties.
Develop a comprehensive M&E Framework to integrate monitoring of
application of CD concepts
Although monitoring and reporting are the primary ways in which district officers and teachers are held accountable for their performance, monitoring is sometimes infrequent
and monitoring of capacity development specifically is insufficient. We recommend that based on what is identified in a formal needs assessment, UNICEF support the
development of a comprehensive strategy for future CD efforts in the education sector in Ghana. This should be accompanied by the development of a comprehensive M&E framework to ensure that monitoring of the CD process takes place on a regular basis.
This framework should recognise the limited resources for frequent visits by circuit supervisors to schools, and instead support head teachers and community structures to
play a role in the monitoring process. Our evaluation found that the CFS checklist was widely mentioned and used by respondents, suggesting that a physical checklist or tool is a valuable method to promote adoption of training content as well as subsequent
monitoring. We recommend that an M&E framework make use of similar self-assessment methods used by teachers themselves. Head Teachers should be provided further training
in supervision and monitoring so that they can be a stronger resource for circuit supervisors in the monitoring process. Additionally, SMCs and PTAs can also be provided with specific tools and guidelines to monitor time spent on classroom
instruction and regular student/teacher attendance; having individuals at different levels collect data validates findings regarding the level of CD taking place amongst teachers
and of the school at the organisational level. To ensure that an M&E framework is effectively used by stakeholders, UNICEF should
1) support the creation of monitoring tools (using qualitative and quantitative methods) that incorporate measures on capacity development, 2) train individuals at all levels on
how to complete the tool(s) and how to use the data captured to provide feedback and increase accountability, and 3) identify and facilitate a mechanism through which monitoring data can shared in a consultative way promoting learning in the CD process.
The Standalone M&E Note developed by AIR15 could be a useful tool to reference as UNICEF develops this framework and process.
15 American Institutes for Research (2017). What Works in Monitoring and Evaluation for Capacity Development in
the Education Sector: Recommendations for Ghana. Washington, DC.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—51
Develop accountability systems to ensure leaders at all levels are
held responsible for student learning outcomes
Respondents expressed several concerns about keeping staff at the district and school levels accountable in terms of applying training content. An M&E framework should be
accompanied by an effective accountability system, so that should monitoring determine any given stakeholder is not performing, he or she is held accountable and motivated to
improve. A system should be developed through consultation with stakeholders at all levels of the education sector to encourage ownership over the system and designate roles and responsibilities. Given the constraint of limited resources for in-person monitoring,
the MSRC pilot that UNICEF supported – which participants found effective in terms of increasing school-level accountability – could be an intervention to consider scaling, if
costs could be kept low. Engaging with the broader school community is key to accountability at the school level, while DEOCs could play a role in holding district officers accountable to their responsibilities. Several respondents also suggested that
donors or NGOs could make use of performance-based contracts to improve district and school-level accountability.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—52
References
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., Church, M., & Fort., L. (2004). Shoestring evaluation: Designing
impact evaluations under budget, time, and data constraints. American Journal of
Evaluation 25(1):5–37.
Gertler, P., Martinez, S., Premand, P. Rawlings, L., & Vermeersch, C. (2011). Impact evaluation
in practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Herz, B., & Sperling, G. B. (2004). What works in girls' education: Evidence and policies from
the developing world. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations.
Khandker, S. R. (1996). Education achievements and school efficiency in Rural Bangladesh.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lloyd, C., Mete, C., & Grant, M. (2007). Rural girls in Pakistan: Constraints of policy and
culture. In M. Lewis, & M. Lockheed (Eds.), Exclusion, Gender and Education: Case
Studies from the Developing World (pp. 99-118). Washington, DC: Center for Global
Development.
Rihani, M. A. (2006). Keeping the promise: Five benefits of girls' secondary education.
Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
Rugh, A. (2000). Starting now: Strategies for helping girls complete primary. Strategies for
Advancing Girls' Education Project. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational
Development.
Sperling, G., & Winthrop, R. (2016). What works in girls’ education. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/whatworksingirlseducation1.pdf
United Nations Development Programme. (2008). Supporting capacity development: The UNDP
approach. New York, NY: Bureau for Development Policy, Capacity Development
Group. Retrieved from
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-
development/support-capacity-development-the-undp-
approach/CDG_Brochure_2009.pdf
USAID. (2014). Post-implementation evaluation report: Evaluation of the more investment in
sustainable alternative development and areas for municipal alternative development
programs. Washington, DC: Author.
Warwick, D. P., & Jatoi, H. (1994). Teacher gender and student achievement in Pakistan.
Comparative Education Review, 38(3), 377–400.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—A–1
Appendix A. Resource Needs Respondents at all levels discussed a lack of resources that impact the extent to which they are able to carry out their responsibilities and apply the concepts of CD trainings effectively. In this
section we present findings related to the types of resources that regional and district officers and teachers view as critical to their roles, as well as who provides these currently.
Physical Resources
The majority of regional and district-level officials complained about the lack of supplies, maintaining that the only materials they receive regularly are from UNICEF or other donor
agencies. Several district officials from Builsa North recalled receiving occasional inputs (e.g., lamps and bicycles for girls) but not in sufficient quantity. Several respondents also complained
about the physical infrastructure of their offices, including one official from Builsa North, who stated: “I have a computer, I have table and chair, but we are five in the office, so this not conducive. You can’t sit and do your work properly.”
At the district level, most physical resource needs are
related to transportation. For example, a number of circuit supervisors indicated that they do
not receive sufficient funds to fuel their motorbikes to make
school visits. A district official from Savelugu-Nanton said, “We don’t have means of transport or
fuel to get to the community to monitor.” A fellow district
official added that they need computers (“where I can be building my data”) and reiterated
the issue of transport:
I don’t have means of transport. Sometimes you have to fall on somebody to get
means or wait for director, when he is free, you can take the vehicle. Sometimes when the vehicle is even there, fueling it becomes a problem.
The special education coordinator from Savelugu-Nanton is waiting on very specific inputs,
namely screening materials for new schools and wheelchairs (which are in Accra but have not been transported to Tamale).
Teachers, on the other hand, commented on the shortage of many critical materials, such as exercise books, supplementary readers, textbooks, and visual teaching aids (for example, to show shapes such as a polygon or a cylinder). At Rashidiya Primary School, several teachers also
commented on the school’s infrastructure shortcomings. For example, there is no playing field at the school, no source of potable water, limited tables and chairs, and broken desks. In some
Resource Challenges
“I will say nothing is here; anything you see here is either UNICEF, WFP, Learning, or LINK who supported. But the
central government, nothing, even A4 sheet which is basic here, we don’t have, you have to go and beg. How much will you beg, how much will you get to be able to write
correspondence to 13 districts and sometimes you have to write three, four, or five letters differently, and that is a basic thing, stationary is a basic thing. We don’t have how more
talk about car. Even the director, when she is traveling she has to take public means; she can’t go with her car, the car cannot even take her to Tamale.”
—Regional Education Officer, Upper East
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—A–2
classrooms, three or four students share a desk meant for two pupils. The school building itself was described as “old, cracking” and classrooms were described as “congested.”
Table 25 presents the findings from the school survey on teaching and learning materials. Although most school-level survey respondents reported having teaching and learning materials
(with the exception of mathematics and science equipment), the majority of respondents only considered one material (boards/writing material) to be adequate. In most cases, teaching and learning materials were provided either by NGOs/Development Partners or by the government.
Table 25: Teaching and Learning Materials
Yes
(n)
Are they
adequate? (%)
Who provided them? (%)
School Parents
NGOs/
DPs/Other GoG
Black/white boards 100 77.0 8.4 3.2 3.2 85.3
Chalk/markers 98 64.3 7.2 1.0 1.0 90.7
Computers/tablets 59 3.4 7.4 1.9 18.5 72.2
Concrete objects 74 17.6 22.2 0 27.8 50.0
Dictionary 91 42.9 2.2 0 5.5 92.3
Materials for pre-vocational studies
3 33.3 50.0 0 0 50.0
Math equipment 35 0.0 34.4 3.1 6.3 56.3
Notebooks 83 29.9 6.0 45.8 0 48.2
Pens/pencils 79 63.3 3.9 91.0 1.3 3.9
Posters 82 24.4 21.8 0 35.9 42.3
Science equipment 8 12.5 0 0 33.3 66.7
Textbooks 95 8.4 4.3 1.1 3.2 91.5
Workbooks 39 23.1 2.6 23.1 2.6 71.8
TOTAL 100 36.3 9.3 14.8 11.9 64.0
According to teachers from Pong Tamale Experimental School, UNICEF and Right to Play are
providing critical inputs: Teachers reported that the furniture and chalk they use comes from UNICEF, as do the teaching and learning materials (including a science box) and storybooks.
Right to Play provides footballs and teaching and learning materials. Rashidiya Primary School teachers reported receiving similar items—books, pens, pencils, and uniforms—from the Global Partnership for Education Grant (GPEG) and Camfed. However, numerous teachers, including
one from Pong Tamale Experimental School, expressed that the resources provided are insufficient: “I would say some resources are available but they are not even enough.” District
officials spoke more confidently than teachers about the resources the district office provides to teachers and school administrators, with respondents to the district survey indicating that they provide schools with lesson planning materials (38 responses), teaching and learning materials
(32 responses), support for community engagement (18 responses), and ICT software (10 responses).
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—A–3
Given the lack of basic material resources in many schools, it is not surprising that most teachers do not use computers for lesson planning, administrative work, or classroom instruction. Table
26 shows computer usage by teachers, according to school-level survey respondents.
Table 26: Computer Usage by Teachers
District Preparing Lesson Notes
Administrative Work Teaching
Builsa North 10.0 60.0 40.0
Garu-Tempane 20.0 80.0 50.0
Karaga 10.0 30.0 20.0
Komenda Edina Eguafo Abirem 0.0 60.0 40.0
Kwahu Afram Plains North 20.0 40.0 10.0
Lambussie Karni 0.0 23.1 0.0
Savelugu-Nanton 30.0 40.0 10.0
Upper Denkyira West 0.0 40.0 30.0
Upper Manya Krobo 0.0 30.0 40.0
Wa East 0.0 0.0 14.3
Total (N=100) 9.0 41.0 25.0
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–1
Appendix B. Instruments
District Level KII Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this
this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will
only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is
minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service
you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.
Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.
Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.
The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point, you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some
time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–2
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working in the District Education Office. If you are ready, let’s begin.
Introduction 1. Name and position at the district office
2. How long have you been working at this office? Have you held any other positions at this district office?
a. Have you worked previously at any other district education offices? If so, for how
long and what positions did you hold there? 3. Did you begin your career as a teacher? If no, how did you come to work in the field of
education? 4. How would you define ‘capacity development?’ What does it mean to you? Now I’d like to talk about how planning processes work at the district level.
Monitoring & Support 5. Can you describe how you communicate with:
a. Headquarters? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them? b. Regional Office? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to
them?
c. Circuit supervisors? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?
d. Head teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them? e. Teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?
6. Can you talk a bit about the visits you make to schools?
a. What is the purpose of school visits? Who conducts school visits? Is it the same person each time? Who do you meet with when visiting the school? What do you
monitor at the school? 7. What resources does your office provide for teachers in this district? School administrators in
this district? Resources may refer to both materials (e.g. lesson planning materials, ICT
software) and support (e.g. supporting community engagement efforts, facilitating the process of school-fundraising)
Now let’s discuss issues surrounding girls’ access to and enrollment in primary school in Ghana…
Girls’ education 8. Can you tell me about the challenges facing girls’ access and enrollment in school at the
primary and junior high level? a. Are these challenges different depending on the part of the country/region/district?
How so?
9. How do you think schools can help girls and their families address these constraints? 10. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your district?
11. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is at the: district level; circuit level; school-level; cluster level.
Participation in Trainings
12. Are you aware of or have you participated in any of the below trainings? If yes: please refer
to questions 14 a-e about each training
a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training b. Gender-based activities training
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–3
c. Child Friendly Schools d. Orientation on equity issues in education
e. Leadership for Learning f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills
13. If you participated, please tell me: a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training. b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about negative aspects? Please
describe. c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she
knowledgeable about the training topic?
d. Can you talk about how the training was conducted? i. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as
practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer
seek your feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest throughout the training?
e. Would you like to offer suggestions for improving the training in the future?
14. Following the trainings we’ve discussed today, do you receive any kind of follow up visits from those who trained you?
15. Are there any specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings?
a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials?
16. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not? a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?
17. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular? b. If no, why are you not able to do this?
c. Do you think the trainings have helped improve your work performance? If so, how so?
18. Mentoring a. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional
development at the district office?
b. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? How does this help your
career growth? c. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth?
Why or why not?
d. Do you yourself mentor anyone? How did you come to do this?
Now I want to ask about your experience with delivering trainings...
Training Delivery & Monitoring 19. Can you talk about the ADEOP design process?
a. Who is involved in this? Please tell me about the people who support you as well if
not part of the district team? b. How long does the planning take?
c. What steps are involved in developing and finalizing the ADEOP?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–4
d. Has this process changed in the past two years? If so: please describe what has changed?
20. Is it feasible to follow the ADEOPs once they are finalized? a. Please tell me about how ADEOPs are used once finalized. Who specifically uses
them at the office? How? b. What challenges exist to performing the tasks listed in the ADEOPs? c. In what ways are the ADEOPs helpful?
d. Are there any ways that the ADEOPs could better help you plan for activities? 21. Can you tell me about how you decide on trainings that should take place for teachers?
a. Do you identify and include specific trainings within the ADEOPs? b. How do you identify what topic to conduct a training on?
i. Do you receive information that highlights a need or information gap before
you decide on a training topic? How do you gather or receive this information?
ii. Are staff at your office involved in any kind of needs assessments for teachers, head teachers, or circuit supervisors? If no, who is involved in this?
iii. How often do these assessments occur?
c. How do you determine the frequency with which trainings should occur? iv. Does the ADEOP include multiple instances of the same training? Why/why
not? 22. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training head teachers, circuit
supervisors, and teachers? If not involved, skip #27-32
a. What trainings have head teachers and teachers received in the past two years? (after respondent lists the trainings, ask #27-32 about each training mentioned)
23. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a teacher trainer? Were they realistic?
24. Can you talk about the participants of the trainings?
a. Do you believe that the appropriate participants were included in this training? If not: why not? Who should have been included instead?
b. Do you think it is effective to have the head teachers attend the bulk of the teacher trainings? Why/why not?
25. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with
participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)? Please be specific.
26. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools? 27. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the
trainings?
a. What did you do once you had this feedback? 28. Do you think that head teachers/training participants are applying the learning from
the trainings in the classroom?
a. Why do you believe this? b. Do you follow up with head teachers and teachers who attended trainings conducted
by district officials? c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did training participants receive in order
to transfer or apply their learning?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–5
29. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used
frequently in Ghana?
a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach? Challenges?
30. Do you have any recommendations on ways teacher training in Ghana can be improved?
Now I want to ask you a few questions about how much progress your office is making in growing and implementing new planning and training practices.
Sustainability & Accountability 31. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work (specifically pertaining to
resources needed for capacity development) are available to you? Specifically, do you have access to the following kinds of resources:
a. Physical resources needed to perform duties at the office
b. Access to trainings to improve your performance, manuals on roles and responsibilities, other learning materials on fulfilling your work
c. Technical support from other staff at the district, regional, and national office? 32. Do you feel that the district director and other district leadership are committed to capacity
development? If so, how can you tell? If not, why not?
33. How are staff held accountable to fulfilling their roles and responsibilities at your office? a. Do you have any incentives to thoroughly fulfilling the responsibilities required of
your position? For example, is there a better chance of promotion if you do so? b. Do you believe it is possible to improve the ways staff are held accountable to their
tasks at the district office?
i. How so? 34. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the district office?
At the regional level? At the national level? 35. UNICEF and other partners have invested heavily in capacity development and
training interventions for teachers and education officials, and yet student learning
outcomes have still not improved to the extent we would like to see. What do you think
the reason for this is? Where do you think the disconnect is between the number of
trainings and the lack of improvement in student learning?
Thank respondent
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–6
DTST FGD Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district
was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share
will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will
only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made
available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service
you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.
Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.
Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.
The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point,
you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson
St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working on the DTST. If you are ready, let’s begin.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–7
Introduction 1. Name and position at the district office
2. How long have you been working at this office? Have you held any other positions at this district office?
a. Have you worked previously at any other district education offices? If so, for how long and what positions did you hold there?
3. Did you begin your career as a teacher? If no, how did you come to work in the field of
education? 4. How would you define ‘capacity development?’ What does it mean to you?
Now I’d like to talk about how planning processes work at the district level.
Planning 5. Does the DTST help determine what trainings are needed and when to conduct them? How
do you do this? 6. Can you describe how you communicate with:
a. Circuit supervisors? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?
b. Head teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?
c. Teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them? 7. Does the DTST ever make visits to schools?
a. If so, what is the purpose of school visits? Who conducts school visits? Is it the same person each time? Who do you meet with when visiting the school? What do you monitor at the school?
8. Can you tell me about how you decide on trainings that should take place for teachers? 9. How do you identify what topic to conduct a training on?
a. Do you receive information that highlights a need or information gap before you decide on a training topic? How do you gather or receive this information?
b. Are staff at your office involved in any kind of needs assessments for teachers, head
teachers, or administrators? If no, who is involved in this? c. How often do these assessments occur?
Girls’ education and Learning into Practice 10. Can you tell me about the challenges facing girls’ access and enrollment in school at the
primary and junior high level? a. Are these challenges different depending on the part of the country/region/district?
How so? 11. How do you think schools can help girls and their families address these constraints? 12. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your district?
Now I’d like to talk about trainings that you have received as the DTST…
Training received
13. Did you receive a training on (please ask the training topic one by one – if the official answers yes, please proceed with questions 14-a.-e. about each training)
a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training
b. Gender-based activities training c. Child Friendly Schools
d. Orientation on equity issues in education
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–8
e. Leadership for Learning? f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills?
14. If you participated in the training, please tell me: a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training.
b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about challenges? Please describe.
c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she
knowledgeable about the training topic?
d. Can you talk about how the training was conducted?
i. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer
seek your feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest throughout the training?
e. Would anyone like to offer suggestions for improving the training in the future? 15. Following the trainings we’ve discussed today, do you receive any kind of follow up visits
from those who trained you?
16. Are there any specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings?
a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials? 17. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not?
a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?
18. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular?
b. If no, why are you not able to do this? c. Do you think the trainings have helped improve your work performance? If so, how so?
Mentoring
19. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional development at the district office?
a. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? How does this help your career growth?
b. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth? Why or why not?
c. Do you yourself mentor anyone? How did you come to do this?
Now I want to ask about your experience with designing and delivering trainings...
Training Design, Delivery, Monitoring
20. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training head teachers, circuit supervisors, and teachers?
a. What trainings have you conducted for circuit supervisors, head teachers, and teachers in the past two years? (after head teacher lists the trainings, ask #21-25
about each training mentioned)
21. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a teacher trainer? Were they realistic?
22. Can you talk about the participants of the trainings?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–9
a. Do you believe that the appropriate participants were included in this training? If not: why not? Who should have been included instead?
b. Do you think it is effective to have the head teachers attend the bulk of the teacher trainings? Why/why not?
23. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)? Please be specific.
24. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools? 25. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the trainings?
a. What did you do once you had this feedback? 26. Do you think that head teachers/training participants are applying the learning from
the trainings in the classroom?
a. Why do you believe this? b. Do you follow up with head teachers and teachers who attended trainings conducted
by district officials? c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did training participants receive in order
to transfer or apply their learning?
27. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used
frequently in Ghana?
a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach? Challenges?
28. Do you have any recommendations on ways teacher training in Ghana can be improved?
Now I want to ask you a few questions about how much progress your office is making in growing and implementing new planning and training practices.
Sustainability & Accountability 29. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work are available to you? 30. Do you feel that the district director and other district leadership are committed to capacity
development? If so, how can you tell? If not, why not? 31. How are staff held accountable to fulfilling their roles and responsibilities as a DTST?
a. Do you have any incentives to thoroughly fulfilling the responsibilities required of your position as members of the DTST? For example, is there a better chance of promotion if you do so?
b. Do you believe it is possible to improve the ways staff are held accountable to their tasks at the district office? How so?
32. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the district office? At the regional level? At the national level?
33. UNICEF and other partners have invested heavily in capacity development and
training interventions for teachers and education officials, and yet student learning
outcomes have still not improved to the extent we would like to see. What do you think
the reason for this is? Where do you think the disconnect is between the number of
trainings and the lack of improvement in student learning?
Conclusion
Ask respondents if they have anything else to share about their experience serving on the DTST. Thank respondents for their time.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–10
Regional Level KII Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your region
was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share
will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will
only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made
available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service
you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.
Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.
Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.
The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point,
you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson
St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working in the District Education Office. If you are ready, let’s begin.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–11
Introduction 1. Name and position at the regional office.
2. How long have you been working at this office? Have you held any other positions at this regional office?
a. Have you worked previously at any other district or regional education offices? If so, for how long and what positions did you hold there?
3. Did you begin your career as a teacher? If no, how did you come to work in the field of
education? 4. How would you define ‘capacity development?’ What does it mean to you?
Now I’d like to talk about how planning processes work at the district level.
Monitoring & Support 5. Can you describe if and how you communicate with:
a. National GES staff? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?
b. District Officials? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?
c. Circuit supervisors? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to
them? 6. Can you talk a bit about the visits you make to district offices?
a. What is the purpose of district office visits? Who conducts them? Is it the same person each time? Who do you meet with when visiting the district office?
b. What do you monitor at the district office?
7. What resources does your office provide for district officials? School administrators in this region? Resources may refer to both materials (e.g. lesson planning materials, ICT software,
manuals) and support (e.g. facilitating the process of fundraising, supporting community engagement efforts)
Planning
8. Can you tell me about how you decide on trainings that should take place for district officials?
a. How do you identify what topic to conduct a training on? i. Do you receive information that highlights a need or information gap before
you decide on a training topic? How do you gather or receive this
information? ii. Are staff at your office involved in any kind of needs assessments for at the
school, circuit, or district levels? If no, who is involved in this? iii. How often do these assessments occur?
b. How do you determine the frequency with which trainings should occur?
Girls’ education 9. In your role, what is your involvement with girls’ education efforts? Are there other officials
at this office who engage more frequently with girls’ education? If yes, please describe who this is, and what your understanding of their role is.
10. Can you tell me about the challenges facing girls’ access and enrollment in school at the
primary and junior high level? a. Are these challenges different depending on the part of the country/region/district?
How so?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–12
11. How do you think schools can help girls and their families address these constraints? 12. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your region?
13. Did you receive a training on (please ask the training topic one by one – if the official
answers yes, please proceed with the following questions about each training)
a. Child Friendly Schools b. Orientation on equity issues in education c. Leadership for Change
d. Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design e. Roles and Responsibilities training
14. If you participated, please tell me: a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training. b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about negative aspects? Please
describe. c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she
knowledgeable about the training topic?
d. Can you talk about how the training was conducted? i. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as
practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer
seek your feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest throughout the training?
e. Would you like to offer suggestions for improving the training in the future?
15. Following the trainings we’ve discussed today, do you receive any kind of follow up visits from those who trained you?
16. Are there any specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings?
a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials?
17. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not? a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?
18. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular? b. If no, why are you not able to do this?
c. Do you think the trainings have helped improve your work performance? If so, how so?
i. Do you think the trainings have contributed to changes at the district office in general? If so, how so? Please describe.
Now I want to ask about your experience with designing and delivering trainings...
Training Design, Delivery, Monitoring 19. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is: at the school-level; at the cluster level.
20. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training district officials? Are you involved in training district officials on: Girls’ education, ADEOP design, Leadership for
Learning? If not involved, skip #21-25
a. What trainings have you conducted with district officials in the past two years? 21. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a trainer? Were they realistic?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–13
22. Can you talk about the participants of the trainings? a. Do you believe that the appropriate participants were included in this training? If not:
why not? Who should have been included instead? b. Do you think it is effective to have the head teachers attend the bulk of the teacher
trainings? Why/why not? 23. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with
participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)?
Please be specific. 24. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools?
25. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the trainings?
a. What did you do once you had this feedback?
26. Do you think that district officials are applying the learning from the trainings in the office? a. Why do you believe this?
b. Do you follow up with district officials who attended trainings conducted by regional officials?
c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did training participants receive in order
to transfer or apply their learning? 27. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used frequently
in Ghana? a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach?
Challenges?
28. Do you have any recommendations on ways teacher training in Ghana can be improved?
Now I want to ask you a few questions about how much progress your office is making in
growing and implementing new planning and training practices.
Sustainability & Accountability 29. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work (specifically pertaining to
resources needed for capacity development) are available to you? 30. Do you feel that the leadership at the regional office are committed to capacity development?
a. If so, how can you tell? If not, why not? 31. How are staff held accountable to fulfilling their roles and responsibilities at your office?
a. Do you have any incentives to thoroughly fulfilling the responsibilities required of
your position? For example, is there a better chance of promotion if you do so? b. Do you believe it is possible to improve the ways staff are held accountable to their
tasks at the district office? i. How so?
32. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the regional office?
At the district level? At the national level? 33. UNICEF and other partners have invested heavily in capacity development and
training interventions for teachers and education officials, and yet student learning
outcomes have still not improved to the extent we would like to see. What do you think
the reason for this is? Where do you think the disconnect is between the number of
trainings and the lack of improvement in student learning?
Thank respondent
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–14
SMC FGD Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district
was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share
will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will
only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made
available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service
you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.
Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.
Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.
The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point,
you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson
St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience on the SMC. If you are ready, let’s begin.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–15
Introduction 1. Name
2. Length of time on SMC, role on SMC (detailed composition – are they teachers, parents, community members, etc.)
3. Ever been a teacher? 4. Describe involvement with this school (Probe: how, why involved) 5. How would you define ‘capacity building’? What does it mean to you?
Role & Capacity of SMC 6. Do you know the district education officials in [name of district]? If yes, what is your
relationship to them? How often do you see them? 7. Please describe the role of the SMC. How does the role of the SMC differ from the role of
the PTA?
8. Have you, as the SMC, received any trainings? If yes, what kind(s) of trainings have you received?
9. Do you use any tools or checklists? [Probe: did you use these prior to receiving training or are these new tools/checklists?]
10. Have these trainings led to any changes at the school? If yes, what changes?
11. Has your SMC received any trainings related to child-friendly schools? (For interviewer: this refers to resources in the classroom that are child-friendly [seeing the blackboard,
posters on the wall, teacher not yelling at kids, etc.] a. Have there been any physical changes to schools and/or classrooms since the
training? (For example, more posters or pictures on the wall or new furniture)?
b. Have you received any other trainings in the past two years? Please describe. 12. Are there any specific areas in which you feel your SMC needs additional training? What
are these?
School Engagement 13. Does the SMC plan or support any professional development activities for teachers?
14. Please tell me a little about the trainings teachers at your school have received. [Probe: content of training, format, duration, perceived utility]
15. Have teachers at your school received any gender-sensitive pedagogy training or other training related to girls’ education?
a. Please describe.
b. Do you think the training led to any changes in the classroom? c. Do you think teachers treat male and female students differently now (after the
training)? How so? 16. Do you think there are specific areas in which teachers at your school would benefit from
additional training? Please describe.
Community Engagement 17. Does the school engage with parents and community members to encourage parents to
support their children’s education? If so, who from the school does this? How does this engagement occur?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–16
18. Do parents or community members volunteer to teach at the school? If so: a. Is there a system to determine who can be involved in teaching?
b. Are these parents/community members trained either formally or informally by head teachers or other school staff? Does someone monitor their performance in the
classroom? How so? c. What do you think about parents/community members teaching at your school?
(Probe: pros, cons)
19. Do parents or community members volunteer for anything else (apart from teaching) to support the school? What else do they volunteer for?
20. Do teachers at your school ever make home visits? (Probe: how often, purpose of visit) 21. Do teachers at this school often talk to parents? Do they talk about student progress? 22. Do you know whether the PTA is active at this school?
a. How does your role on the SMC differ from what the PTA does? 23. Do parents or community members actively participate in any activities at your school?
(Probe: drama, sports, music, contests, open day, speech day, construction work, school feeding program)
Conclusion
Ask participants if there is anything else they would like to share about their experience on the SMC and/or trainings they have received. Thank respondents for their time.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–17
Head Teacher KII Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your school
was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share
will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will
only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made
available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service
you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.
Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.
Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.
The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point,
you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson
St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working as a teacher. If you are ready, let’s begin.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–18
Introduction 1. Name
2. Grade(s) and/or subject(s) taught (currently and in the past). 3. Length of time teaching; length of time as head teacher at this school.
4. How would you define ‘capacity development’? What does it mean to you? Now I’d like to talk about your perceptions, as teachers, of the planning process for capacity development activities:
Planning 5. Do you know the district education officials in [name of district]? If yes, what is your
relationship to them? How often do you see them? Are they readily available to you should you need to contact them for any reason? Please describe for the following positions:
a. Circuit Supervisor
b. District Director of Education c. District Training Officer
d. Girls’ Education Officer e. Planning/Statistics/Schedule/Budget Officers
6. Do you ever communicate with staff at the regional education office in [name of region]? If
yes, please describe. 7. Can you talk a bit about the visits district/regional officers make to your school?
a. Who conducts the school visits? Is it the same person each time? What do the officers do/check when visiting your school?
b. When district/regional officers visit, what is their primary reason for visiting? Is the
visit arranged primarily to: a. Follow up on a training? If yes, describe. Or
b. Conduct ad-hoc supervision and monitoring? If yes, describe. 8. How are you informed of capacity development activities (trainings, etc.)? 9. Are you invited to participate? Required to participate?
10. Are you aware of any resources provided for your school (or you as teachers) by the district office? What are these? Resources may refer to both materials (e.g. lesson planning
materials, ICT software) and support (e.g. supporting community engagement efforts, facilitating the process of school-fundraising)
11. Are there any individuals at your school/cluster who are involved in planning training
activities for teachers? Who are these individuals? How do they determine the training topics and plan for trainings?
12. As a head teacher, are you consulted about areas in which you need or would like additional training by your circuit supervisor, or by district officers? Are there any specific areas or topics you feel you could use additional training? What are these?
Girls Education 13. Do you think girls face any challenges in enrolling at your school? What about attending
school? Completing the year and getting promoted to the next grade? What are the main challenges?
14. Do you treat male and female students differently? (Probe: call on one gender more than the
other, give one gender harder assignments, etc.) 15. How many female teachers are there at your school? Do you think there are too many / not
enough?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–19
16. What do you think you as a head teacher or the school could do to support girls better in pursuing their education?
17. Do you think further training is needed for you as a head teacher in the area of supporting girls’ education? What about the rest of the school staff?
Now I’d like to discuss let’s discuss the trainings you have received as a teacher:
Participation in Trainings 18. As head teachers, have you received any of the following trainings in the past two years?
(please ask the training topic one by one – if the respondent answers yes, please proceed with the questions #17 a-e about each training)
a. Child Friendly Schools b. Child-Centered and Gender-Responsive Pedagogy c. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills
d. Leadership for Learning 19. What were your impressions of these trainings? (Content of training, delivery style, length,
etc.) a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training. b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about negative aspects? Please
describe. c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? If yes, was she or he
knowledgeable about the topic? Do you think she or he is an effective trainer? (Probe: engaging, attentive, patient, etc.)
d. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as
practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer seek your
feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest throughout the training?
e. Were you asked for feedback on how the training could be improved in the future? If
yes: Can you tell me about some of the feedback that you provided? 20. How would you describe the quality of the support you received from the DTST during the
trainings?
Now I would like to ask you a few questions about follow-up to trainings:
Learning into Practice
21. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular?
b. If no, why are you not able to do this? 22. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance do you receive following trainings? 23. Are there specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings?
a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials? 24. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not?
a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–20
25. Mentoring a. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional
development as a head teacher? b. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become
your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? Do you think your mentor helps your career growth?
c. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth?
Why or why not? d. Do you yourself mentor any other teachers? How did you come to do this?
26. Do you have any recommendations on ways to improve or facilitate the application of lessons from trainings in the classroom?
Now I want to ask about your experience with delivering trainings...
INSET 27. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is at the: district level; circuit level;
school-level; cluster level. 28. What kind of follow-up have you experienced regarding INSET that you participated in? 29. Do you organize school-based INSET? If yes: How frequently? What content do you conduct
INSET on? Training Delivery
30. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training teachers? 31. What UNICEF-supported trainings have you conducted with teachers in the past two years?
These trainings include Child Friendly Schools and Child-Centered and Gender-Responsive
Pedagogy. a. (after head teacher lists the trainings, ask #32-36 about each training mentioned)
32. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a trainer? Were they realistic? 33. Did you feel well-prepared to conduct this training for teachers at your school? If yes: how
so? If not: why not?
34. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)?
Please be specific. 35. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools? 36. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the
trainings?
a. What did you do once you had this feedback?
37. Do you think that teachers are applying the learning from the trainings in the classroom? a. Why do you believe this? b. Do you follow up with teachers who attended the trainings you conducted?
c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did you provide training participants in order to transfer or apply their learning?
38. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used frequently in Ghana?
a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach?
Challenges? 39. Do you have any recommendations on ways teacher training in Ghana can be improved?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–21
Sustainability & Accountability 40. Is your workload as a head teacher manageable? Do you have enough time to attend capacity
development activities/trainings outside the school? a. Roughly how much time per school term would you say you spend attending
trainings? Is this amount: less than what is needed? Appropriate? Or too much time spent on trainings?
41. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work effectively (specifically
pertaining to resources needed for capacity development) are available? 42. Do you feel that your circuit supervisor is committed to your capacity development and
growth as a head teacher? 43. How committed are you to the education profession? If you were offered a higher paying job
doing something else, would you take it?
44. Is teacher turnover an issue at your school? Please describe. a. If yes: what are some of the reasons teachers leave your school?
45. Do you receive any incentives (financial or non-monetary) to participate in trainings? Describe.
46. What role does the SMC play at your school?
a. Are they actively involved in school management? Community engagement? Please describe.
b. How do you believe the SMC could play a better role interacting with the school? 47. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the district office?
Conclusion:
48. Is there any additional support you believe would better equip you to fulfil your responsibilities as a head teacher? Please describe.
Thank respondents for their time and give them the opportunity to share anything else they would like to say about capacity development for teachers.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–22
Student FGD Protocol Case Study
Verbal consent Hello, students. Thank you very much for being here today. We would like to ask you to
participate in a one-hour activity to help us better understand your experiences in your classroom with your fellow students and your teachers. Let’s begin by describing a little bit about the
activity to you.
What is a research study? Research studies help us learn new things. We can test new ideas. First, we ask a question. Then we try to find the answer. This paper talks about our research and the choice that you have to take
part in it. We want you to ask us any questions that you have. You can ask questions any time.
Important things to know…
You get to decide if you want to take part.
You can say ‘No’ or you can say ‘Yes’.
No one will be upset if you say ‘No’.
If you say ‘Yes’, you can always say ‘No’ later.
You can say ‘No’ at any time.
We would still take good care of you no matter what you decide.
Why are we doing this research? We are doing this research to find out more about what happens in your classroom, such as what
you learn, how you interact with your teachers and classmates, any discipline you face that may be upsetting to you. This information is very important in helping us understand your
experiences at school. If you need any immediate help with the situations you describe, we will do our best to help you.
What would happen if I join this research? First, anyone who would like to participate will be able to volunteer to act out different activities
you do at home in front of the group. Then, we will talk about your activities in school as a group and draw pictures that show an experience that you have had at school. Does anybody have any questions about the activities?
If you feel comfortable to share and discuss your feelings during the session you can do so, but if you do not you can say ‘No response’ and keep quiet. You do not have to participate and
choosing not to participate will not negatively affect you in any way. What you share with us will not be revealed to others. This is known as confidentiality. We will ask you about your experiences and we will note down your responses, without noting down your name on the
answer. So even if somebody reads what we have written, they cannot make out who said what. We will not reveal or share what you discuss during the session with anyone else. Everyone in
the group is also sworn to secrecy and you should also promise not to share what is discussed in the session with other children or adults who are not part of this session.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–23
Finally, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview. The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one
outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point, you may say so. If anyone has any questions about this session, you can
ask us now. Those of you who have a question about this session, please raise your hand.
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience as a student at this school. If you are ready, let’s begin.
Introduction
Name
Grade
Favorite subject in school Girls’ Education
Now, we’d like to tell you a couple of stories and then talk about them together.16
Positive Story: Teacher Adamba only has four reading books for his students to share.
Teacher Adamba made sure that both girls and boys were equally able to see the few books by dividing the students into small groups. This made the girls and boys all feel
happy because they were all able to read the lesson.
Script: How teachers interact with you in school can make you happy and excited to
learn. What are some other things that the teacher might do to make the students happy or excited to learn? Can anybody think of a story about a different situation that could make the students happy? Please raise your hand and share with the group.
Negative Story: Lamisi and her friends love playing football. One day after school there is a large group of children and teachers playing football. Lamisi and her friends ask if
they can play too, but are told by one of the teachers that football and other sports are for boys. Or
Lamisi really enjoys learning about math. She always raises her hand to answer questions during her class’s math lessons but her teacher never calls on her. The teacher only calls
on the boys in her class during the math and science lessons. When Lamisi tries to answer her teacher tells her that math and science are meant for boys.
16 UNICEF’s Participatory Assessment Tool Violence against children – Looking beyond experience informed the
development of the student participatory assessment guide for this evaluation.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–24
Script: How teachers interact with you in school can also make you unhappy or
upset. Can anybody think of a different situation that might make a student feel unsafe or uncomfortable? Please raise your hand and share with the group.
Now that we’ve talked a little bit about the ways boys and girls might be treated differently, I
want you to think about your school, your teacher, and the boys and girls in your classroom.
Girls’ Education, cont.
1. How many female teachers are there at your school? Do you think there are too many / not enough?
2. Are there about the same number of boys and girls in your class, or are there more boys or
more girls? (specify) 3. Does your teacher call on boy students and girl students in your class the same amount? Or
does your teacher call on girls more than boys or boys more than girls? 4. Now think about the questions your teacher asks during class – does your teacher ask more
questions to boys or girls? Or is it about the same amount?
5. Think about where everybody usually sits in your class. Do girls tend to sit in the front or the back? Or are girls and boys mixed throughout the whole classroom?
Child-Friendly Schools 6. Would say that your school is clean, for the most part? (Probe: toilets, classroom, etc.) 7. Do you feel safe at school? What about walking to/from school?
8. Is there soap or ash available for you to wash your hands at school? Do you wash your hands after going to the toilet/latrine?
9. Is there drinking water available at school? (Probe: borehole, stand pipe, well, reservoir or filtered water)
10. Are there separate toilets for boys and girls at school?
11. Do you play and sports or other games at school? Is there any equipment available for sports or games at school? (Probe: soccer ball, net, etc.)
12. Do you know whether any money is required for you to attend school? (Probe: school fees, cost of uniform, etc.)
13. Do you have a textbook for each subject in school? Do you have your own textbook or do
you share? If you share, how many other students do you share with? 14. Do you have enough room at your desk to open a textbook and take notes during class?
15. Are there pictures or posters on the walls in your classroom? How many are there and what are they? (Probe: maps, student artwork, etc.)
16. If something is bothering you at school, or somebody is giving you a hard time (a classmate,
teacher, or older student), do you know who to talk to about this? 17. Do you know whether girls who are pregnant are allowed to keep coming to school? What
about after they have the baby, are girls allowed to return to school then?
18. Have you ever learned about HIV/AIDS at school? Can you tell me a little bit about what you learned?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–25
Community Engagement 19. Does your teacher ever visit you or other students at home? (Probe: how often, purpose of
visit) 20. Do you know if your parents ever talk to your teacher?
21. Do you know whether parents serve on the PTA? 22. Do parents or community members actively participate in any activities at your school?
(Probe: drama, sports, music, contests, open day, speech day, construction work, school
feeding program) 23. Do parents or community members ever volunteer to teach at your school? If yes, what do
you think about this? 24. Do your parents/older siblings help you with homework? 25. Does anyone in your home encourage you to read outside of school?
Conclusion: OK, we are just about finished. I just have one more short activity for us. Please raise your hand if:
- You had fun during the session? - You felt uncomfortable during the session?
- You learned something?
- You felt happy? - There is something you want to tell us.
Closing: Please raise your hand if you have any questions you would like to ask. Otherwise, thank you for participating in the session. Let’s all clap for each other for a job well done.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–26
Teacher FGD Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your school
was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share
will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will
only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made
available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service
you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.
Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.
Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.
The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point,
you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson
St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of
project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working as teachers. If you are ready, let’s begin.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–27
Introduction 1. Name
2. Grade(s) and/or subject(s) taught 3. Length of time teaching; length of time teaching at this school
4. How would you define ‘capacity development’? What does it mean to you? Now I’d like to talk about your perceptions, as teachers, of the planning process for capacity development activities:
Planning 5. Do you know the district education officials in [name of district]? If yes, what is your
relationship to them? How often do you see them? Are they readily available to you should you need to contact them for any reason?
a. Circuit Supervisor
b. District Director of Education c. District Training Officer
d. Girls’ Education Officer e. Planning/Statistics/Schedule/Budget Officers
6. Can you talk a bit about the visits district/regional officers make to your school?
a. Who conducts the school visits? Is it the same person each time? What do the officers do/check when visiting your school?
b. When district/regional officers visit, what is their primary reason for visiting? Is the visit arranged primarily to:
i. Follow up on a training? If yes, describe. Or
ii. Conduct ad-hoc supervision and monitoring? If yes, describe. 7. How are you informed of capacity development activities (trainings, etc.)?
8. Are you invited to participate? Required to participate? 9. Are you aware of any resources provided for your school (or you as teachers) by the district
office? UNICEF? Any other organizations? What are these? Resources may refer to both
materials (e.g. lesson planning materials, ICT software) and support (e.g. facilitating the process of school-fundraising, supporting community engagement efforts)
10. Are there any individuals at your school/cluster who are involved in planning training activities for teachers? Who are these individuals? How do they determine the training topics and plan for trainings?
a. As teachers, are you consulted about areas in which you need or would like additional training? Are there any specific areas or topics you feel you could use additional training?
What are these?
Now I’d like to discuss let’s discuss the trainings you have received as teachers:
INSET
11. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is at the: district level; circuit level; school-level; cluster level.
12. Does your head teacher organize school-based INSET? If yes: How frequently? What content do you participate in INSET on?
13. What kind of follow-up have you experienced regarding INSET that you participated in?
Participation in Trainings 14. As teachers, have you received any of the following trainings in the past two years?
a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–28
b. Child-centered pedagogy training 15. What were your impressions of these trainings? (Content of training, delivery style, length,
etc.) a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training.
b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about challenges? Please describe. c. Was the training delivered by a head teacher? If yes, was she or he knowledgeable about
the topic? Do you think she or he is an effective trainer? (Probe: engaging, attentive,
patient, etc.) d. If no, was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she
knowledgeable about the training topic? e. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as practical
exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure
your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer seek your feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest
throughout the training? f. Were you asked for feedback on how the training could be improved in the future?
i. If yes: Can you tell me about some of the feedback that you provided?
16. How would you describe the quality of the support you received from the head teacher during the trainings?
Girls Education 17. Do you think girls face any challenges in enrolling at your school? What about attending
school? Completing the year and getting promoted to the next grade? What are the main
challenges? 18. Do you treat male and female students differently? (Probe: call on one gender more than the
other, give one gender harder assignments, etc.) 19. How many female teachers are there at your school? Do you think there are too many / not
enough?
20. What do you think you as a teacher or the school could do to support girls better in pursuing their education?
21. Do you think further training is needed for you as teachers in the area of supporting girls’ education? What about the head teacher?
Now I would like to ask you a few questions about follow-up to trainings:
Learning into Practice 22. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings?
a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular? b. If no, why are you not able to do this?
23. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance do you receive following trainings?
24. Are there specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings? a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials?
25. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not? b. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?
26. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional development as
a teacher?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–29
a. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? Do you think your mentor helps
your career growth? b. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth? Why or
why not? 27. Do you yourself mentor any other teachers? How did you come to do this? 28. Do you have any recommendations on ways to improve or facilitate the application of
lessons from trainings in the classroom? Sustainability & Accountability
29. Is your workload as a teacher manageable? Do you have enough time to attend capacity development activities/trainings outside the classroom?
30. Do you feel that the resources you need to teach effectively are available?
31. Do you feel that your head teacher is committed to your capacity development and growth as a teacher?
32. How committed are you to the teaching profession? If you were offered a higher paying job doing something else, would you take it?
33. Is teacher turnover an issue at your school? Please describe.
a. If yes: what are some of the reasons teachers leave your school? 34. Do you receive any incentives (financial or non-monetary) to participate in trainings?
Describe. 35. What role does the SMC play at your school?
a. Are they actively involved in school management? Community engagement? Please
describe. b. How is the SMC different from the PTA?
c. How do you believe the SMC could better support your school?
Conclusion: 36. Is there any additional support you believe would better equip you to do fulfil your
responsibilities as teachers? Please describe.
Thank respondents for their time and give them the opportunity to share anything else they
would like to say about capacity development for teachers.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–30
AIR/University of Ghana CD Evaluation for UNICEF Classroom Observation Tool
Data collector name(s): ___________________________________________________ Date of observation:
School name:
If any circumstances affected your ability to complete this observation, please describe:
1. Grade(s) in class (check all that apply).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. Time of observation
3. Subject observed. Mathematics Literacy/language arts Science
4. Number of girls enrolled in this particular class.
5. Number of boys enrolled in this particular class.
6. Number of girls present on the day of the observation.
7. Number of boys present on the day of the observation.
8. Of the 50% of students seated closest to the blackboard or whiteboard in the class, how many are girls?
9. Of the 50% of students seated closest to the blackboard or whiteboard in the class, how many are boys?
10. How many girls have a notebook?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–31
11. How many boys have a notebook?
12. How many girls have a pen or pencil?
13. How many boys have a pen or pencil?
14. How many girls have adequate space to do their work?
15. How many boys have adequate space to do their work?
16. How many girls are using furniture that is the correct size for them to work comfortably?
17. How many boys are using furniture that is the correct size for them to work comfortably?
18. How many girls are sitting in an area that has enough light to read a written page?
19. How many boys are sitting in an area that has enough light to read a written page?
20. How many girls are seated where they can see the blackboard or whiteboard?
21. How many boys are seated where they can see the blackboard or whiteboard?
22. How many girls are using pieces of classroom furniture that are unsafe?
23. How many boys are using pieces of classroom furniture that are unsafe?
Not at
All True
A Little
Bit True
Mostly
True
Very
True
24. Students in the class are protected from noise.
25. The teacher asks girls questions that require higher-order thinking.
26. The teacher asks boys questions that require higher-order thinking.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–32
Not at
All True
A Little
Bit True
Mostly
True
Very
True
27. During the time that the students are working, the teacher moves around the classroom to
provide girls academic support and guidance.
28. During the time that the students are working, the teacher moves around the classroom to provide boys academic support and guidance.
29. Teacher feedback about girls’ work is accompanied by positive comments about achievements and suggestions for improvement.
30. Teacher feedback about boys’ work is accompanied by positive comments about achievements and suggestions for improvement.
31. Girls pay attention in class.
32. Boys pay attention in class.
33. The teacher redirects girls who are not paying attention in class.
34. The teacher redirects boys who are not paying attention in class.
35. The teacher uses positive methods to manage girls’ behaviour.
36. The teacher uses positive methods to manage boys’ behaviour.
37. The teacher gives girls time to fully respond to questions.
38. The teacher gives boys time to fully respond to questions.
39. The girls ask the teacher questions.
40. The boys ask the teacher questions.
41. Girls participate in class activities.
42. Boys participate in class activities.
43. The teacher presents the lesson in a well prepared and organized manner.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–33
44. Teaching materials available in classroom (list all, including posters/maps/etc. on the walls):
45. Teaching materials used by teacher (list only those used by teacher during observation):
44. Student learning materials available in classroom (list all):
45. Student learning materials used by students (list only those used by students during observation, including the # available per student):
Other notable observations:
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–34
Participant Verbal Consent Form
“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team
from the University of Ghana and the American Institutes for Research (AIR). We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district
was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by
allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place and what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you
share will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.
Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only the researchers on the evaluation team will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will only
be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made available, no
individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. Your participation in the evaluation will not hinder your access to any service you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential.
If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:
Dr. Clement Adamba (Tel. 0244973913), School of Education and Leadership, P. O Box LG
1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
or
Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson
St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study you may
contact the Administrator of the Ethics Committee for Humanities, ISSER, University of Ghana at: [email protected]/[email protected] or 00233- 303-933-866.
Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some
time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.
Thank you for your participation today.
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–35
1. How long have you been working at this office? a. 0-1 year
b. 2-4 years c. 5-7 years
d. 8-10 years e. More than 10 years
2. Have you held any other positions at this district office? Circle one: Yes/No If yes, please list.
3. Please describe how you understand ‘capacity development’ in 1-2 sentences. ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
4. How often (and in what way) do you communicate with the following: a. Headquarters ____ times per _____________.
Mode of communication: ___________________________________________________
b. Regional Office ____ times per _____________.
Mode of communication: ___________________________________________________
c. Circuit supervisors ____ times per _____________. Mode of communication: ___________________________________________________
d. Head teachers ____ times per _____________. Mode of communication:
___________________________________________________ e. Teachers ____ times per _____________.
Mode of communication:
___________________________________________________
5. School visits: a. Purpose: __________________________________________________________ b. Frequency of school visits: _____ times per __________.
c. What is monitored: ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ d. Who conducts school visits: __________________________________
i. Is it the same person each time? Circle one: Yes/No
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–36
e. Who do you meet with when visiting schools? Circle all that apply: i. Teachers
ii. Administrators iii. Students
iv. Other: ________________________________________
6. What resources does your office provide for teachers and school administrators? Circle all
that apply: a. Lesson planning materials
b. ICT software c. Support for community engagement d. TLMs
e. Other: ______________________________________________
7. What are the top 3 challenges affecting girls’ access to and enrollment in school at the primary level? Please circle according to which challenges the respondent mentions:
Lack of parental support
Distance to school Lack of separate/acceptable bathroom facilities
Pregnancy Forced marriage Lack of uniforms
Community doesn’t value importance of girls’ education Learning difficulties
Illiteracy Girls needed by families for market days Seasonal farm work
Household chores Other (please write):
8. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your district? Circle one: Yes/No
9. Have you participated in any of the following trainings? If yes, answer sub-questions i.-
vii. below the name of the training. If no, skip to following training.
a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training Circle one: Yes/No
i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–37
iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training: ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No
v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No
vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each: 1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No
3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No 4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No
5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No
vii. Suggestions to improve this training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
b. Gender-based activities training Circle one: Yes/No
i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned.
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No
v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No
vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each:
1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No
3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No 4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–38
5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No
vii. Suggestions to improve this training: ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
c. Child Friendly Schools Circle one: Yes/No
i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No
v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No
vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each:
1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No 3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No
4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No 5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No
vii. Suggestions to improve this training:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
d. Orientation on equity issues in education Circle one: Yes/No
i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–39
ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No
v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No
vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each:
1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No
2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No 3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No
4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No 5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No
vii. Suggestions to improve this training: ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
e. Leadership for Learning Circle one: Yes/No
i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No
v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–40
vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each:
1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No
3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No 4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No 5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No
vii. Suggestions to improve this training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills Circle one: Yes/No
i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No
v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No
vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each: 1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No
3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No 4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No
5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No
vii. Suggestions to improve this training:
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–41
10. Did any of those who trained you conduct follow up visits? Circle one: Yes/No
11. Do you require specific materials to apply lessons from the trainings? Circle one: Yes/No a. If yes, do you currently have those materials? Circle one: Yes/No
12. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? Circle one: Yes/No
13. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? Circle one: Yes/No
a. Please list the 3 most significant ways that these trainings have changed how you
perform your daily tasks?
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
14. ADEOP Design Process
a. Who is involved in this? Circle all that apply:
i. Teachers ii. School-level administrators iii. District- level administrators
iv. County-level administrators v. Ministry of Education employees vi. Other (list all):
____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
b. Planning usually takes: Circle one i. 2 weeks – 1 month
ii. 1-3 months
iii. 4-6 months iv. 7 months – 1 year
c. Has this process changed in the past two years? Circle one: Yes/No
15. ADEOP Application
a. Who uses ADEOPs? Circle all that apply: i. Teachers
ii. School-level administrators iii. District- level administrators iv. Regional- level administrators
v. Ministry of Education employees vi. Other (list all):
____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
b. List the 3 primary ways ADEOPs are used in the district office:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–42
16. What trainings have head teachers and teachers received in the past two years? Circle all that
apply: a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training
b. Gender-based activities training c. Child Friendly Schools d. Orientation on equity issues in education
e. Leadership for Learning f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills
g. Other (list all): ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
Please ask questions #17-22 ONLY if the person you are speaking to delivered any of the
above trainings to head teachers or teachers:
17. Training participants a. The appropriate participants were included in this training. Circle one: Yes/No b. Having head teachers attend the bulk of teacher trainings is
i. Very effective ii. Somewhat effective
iii. Neutral iv. Somewhat ineffective v. Very ineffective
18. What techniques were used to transfer knowledge to participants? Circle all that apply:
a. Lecturing b. Practical exercises c. Group simulations
d. Quizzes e. Other (list all):
____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
19. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of the school? Circle one: Yes/No
20. How often do you follow up with head teachers and teachers who attended trainings?
a. Very often
b. Sometimes c. Rarely
d. Never
21. When you delivered the trainings, please tell me what worked well.
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–43
___________________________________________________________________________
22. What did not work so well in the trainings that can be improved upon in future trainings you deliver?
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
23. Who are you accountable to at this office? ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
24. How is your performance measured? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–44
UNICEF-GHANA PROGRAMME EVALUATION
AIR/University of Ghana CD Evaluation Survey
SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE
IDENTIFICATION
Name of School
School EMIS Code
Locality
Urban = 1: Rural:= 2
Type of School: Shift Schedule System [1] Single shift Schedule System [2]
School Level Primary Only [1] KG and Primary [2]
Primary and JHS [3] KG, Primary, and JHS [4]
School has the School Feeding Programme
Yes [1] No [2]
Does your school has GPEG
Yes [1]
No [2]
Locality type: Large Town = 1 Small town = 2 Village = 3
Region Name:__________________________: Code:
District Name:__________________________: Code:
Sub Metro Name:__________________________: Code:
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–45
Name of Circuit
Name of Headteacher/Respondent
Phone Number
Questionnaire No.
Date questionnaire was administered
INTERVIEWER FIELD EDITOR
NAME NAME
ID ID
DATE
DATE
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–46
List A: Regions
01= Western 03= Greater Accra 05= Eastern 07= Brong Ahafo 09= Upper East
02= Central 04= Volta 06= Ashanti 08= Northern 10= Upper West
List B: Districts
Western Region Central Region Greater Accra Region
001= Ahanta West
002= Aowin Suaman
003= Bia
004= Bibiani/Anhwiaso/Bekwai
005= Ellembele
006= Jomoro
007= Juabeso
008= Mpohor Wassa East
009= Nzema East
010= Prestea-Huni Valley
011= Sefwi Akontobra
012= Sefwi Wiawso
013= Sekondi Takoradi
014= Shama
015= Tarkwa Nsuaem
016= Wassa Amenfi East
017= Wassa Amenfi West
018= Abura-Asebu-Kwamankese
019= Agona East
020= Agona West
021= Ajumako/Enyan/Esiam
022= Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa
023= Assin North
024= Assin South
025= Awutu Senya
026= Cape Coast
027= Effutu
028= Gomoa East
029= Gomoa West
030= Komenda-Edina-Eguafo Abirem
031= Mfantsiman
032= Twifo/Heman/Lower Denkyira
033= Upper Denkyira West
034= Upper Denkyira East
035= Accra
036= Adenta
037= Ashaiman
038= Dangbe East
039= Dangbe West
040= Ga East
041= Ga West
042= Ledzekuku-Krowor
043= Tema
044= Weija
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–47
Volta Region Eastern Region Ashanti Region
045= Adaklu-Anyigbe
046= Akatsi
047= Biakoye
048= Ho
049= Hohoe
050= Jasikan
051= Kadjebi
052= Keta
053= Ketu North
054= Ketu South
055= Kpando
056= Krachi East
057= Krachi West
058= Nkwanta North
059= Nkwanta South
060= North Tongu
061= South Tongu
062= South Dayi
063= Akwapim North
064= Akwapim South
065= Akyemansa
066= Asuogyaman
067= Atiwa
068= Birim Central
069= Birim North
070= Birim South
071= East Akim
072= Fanteakwa
073= Kwabibirem
074= Kwahu East
075= Kwahu North (Afram Plains)
076= Kwahu South
077= Kwahu West
078= Lower Manya Krobo
079= New Juaben
080= Suhum/Kraboa/Coaltar
081= Upper Manya Krobo
082= West Akim
083= Yilo Krobo
084= Adansi North
085= Adansi South
086= Afigya Kwabre
087= Ahafo Ano North
088= Ahafo Ano South
089= Amansie Central
090= Amansie East
091= Amansie West
092= Asante Akim North
093= Asante Akim South
094= Atwima Mponua
095= Atwima Nwabiagya
096= Atwima-Kwanwoma
097= Bekwai
098= Bosome Freho
099= Bosomtwe
100= Ejisu-Juabeng
101= Ejura Sekyedumase
102= Kumasi
103= Kwabre
104= Mampong
105= Obuasi
106= Offinso
107= Offinso North
108= Sekyere Afram Plain
109= Sekyere Central
110= Sekyere East
111= Sekyere South
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–48
Brong Ahafo Region Northern Region Upper East Region
112= Asunafo North
113= Asunafo South
114= Asutifi
115= Atebubu Amantin
116= Berekum
117= Dormaa
118= Dormaa East
119= Jaman North
120= Jaman South
121= Kintampo North
122= Kintampo South
123= Nkoranza North
124= Nkoranza South
125= Pru
126= Sene
127= Sunyani
128= Sunyani West
129= Tain
130= Tano North
131= Tano South
132= Techiman
133= Wenchi
134= Bole
135= Bunkprugu-Yunyoo
136= Central Gonja
137= Chereponi
138= East Gonja
139= East Mamprusi
140= Gushiegu
141= Karaga
142= Kpandai
143= Nanumba North
144= Nanumba South
145= Saboba
146= Savelugu Nanton
147= Sawla-Tuna-Kalba
148= Tamale
149= Tolon-Kumbungu
150= West Gonja
151= West Mamprusi
152= Yendi
153= Zabzugu Tatale
154= Bawku
155= Bawku West
156= Bolgatanga
157= Bongo
158= Builsa
159= Garu-Tempane
160= Kassena Nankana
161= Kassena Nankana West
162= Talensi-Nabdam
Upper West Region
163= Jirapa 164= Lambussie Karni
165= Lawra 166= Nadowli
167= Sissala East 168= Sissala West 169= Wa
170= Wa East 171= Wa West
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–49
Content
Section ID Identification Codes
Section A General
Section B School Enrolment
Section C Teaching and Learning Materials
Section D School Facilities
Section E Staff Training
Section G Special Needs Children
Section H UNICEF Interventions/Trainings
Section J Perception on UNICEF Trainings
Section K Perceived Impact on UNICEF Trainings
Section L Sustainability and accountability
Section M Approaches to Training and Recommendations
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–50
Section A: General
I would like to ask questions regarding the teaching staff.
Mem
ber
ID
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
First name Last name What is the
sex of
[name]?
1= M
2= F
How old is
[name]?
Years
Employment
status
[List A1]
What is
[name]
rank as a
teacher?
(List A2)
What is the
highest level
of schooling
[name] has
completed?
(List A3)
What is
[name's]
area of study
during the
last school
grade?
(List A4)
What class does
[name]
normally teach?
(List A5)
How long has
[name] been
working as a
teacher in this
school?
(Complete in
Years)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–51
Section A: General
I would like to ask questions regarding the teaching staff
Mem
ber
ID
A1 A2 A11 A12 A13
First
name
Last name Has [name] been away
more than 2 weeks for
reasons other than illness?
1. Yes
2. No
Is [name] present in school
today?
1. Yes
2. No
Does [name] live in this community?
1. Yes
2. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–52
Section A: General
Parental Involvement: I would like to ask Questions about how parents are involved with activities in your school?
A:15 A16
Are parents involved in school activities?
1. Yes
2. No>> QA16
How are parents involved in school activities?
[List A6]
Multiple responses allowed
List A1 List A2 A3 List A4 List A5 List A6
1. Full Time Professional
Teacher
2. Full Time Pupil Teacher
3. Part Time Teacher
4. Teaching Assistant
5. Other Specify
Director [1]
Assistant Director 1 [2]
Assistant Director 2 [3]
Deputy Director 1 [4]
Deputy Director 2 [5]
Principal Superintendent [6]
Senior Superintendent 1 [7]
Senior Superintendent 2 [8]
Teacher [9]
Other specify [10]
01= Basic School
02= Secondary/Vocation
03= Teacher Training
Colleges/Colleges of
Education
04=Polytechnic/Technical
Education
05= University
06 = Other Specify
1. English
2. Maths
3. Science
4. Social Studies
5. Language
6. ICT
7. PE
8. General
9. Other Specify
00=Head teacher
01= Pre-school
11= P1
12= P2
13= P3
14= P4
15= P5
16= P6
17= JSS1
18= JSS2
19= JSS3
1. PTA
2. SMC
3. Open Days
4. Other Specify
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–53
Section A: Other General Questions
AO1. Are you generally satisfied with your profession as a teacher? 1. Yes 2. No
AO2. Are you more content now than when you began teaching as a teacher? 1. Yes 2. No
AO3. Do you plan to teach for as long as you can? 1. Yes 2. No
AO4. Are teachers satisfied with their job descriptions in this school? 1. Yes 2. No
AO5. How are teachers assessed in your school?
1. Observation by Head teacher
2. Observation by District Officers
3. Observation by Circuit Officers Teacher Peer review
4. Students Achievement
5. Other Specify
(Multiple responses expected)
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–54
Section B: School Enrolment
This section is about enrolment in the School
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7
What is the total
enrolment of
students in your
school last school
year -2015/2016?
What is the total
number of female
students enrolled in
your school last
school year-
2015/2016?
What is the
current
enrolment of
students in your
school-
2016/2017?
What is the current
enrolment of female
students in your
school
2016/2017?
What is the total
number of
classrooms in
your school?
What is the total number
of classrooms with
black/white boards in
your school?
What is the
average class
attendance?
KG1
KG2
PRIMARY 1
PRIMARY 2
PRIMARY 3
PRIMARY 4
PRIMARY 5
PRIMARY 6
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–55
SECTION C: Teaching and Learning Material
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
C11
Wh
at
teach
ing
an
d learn
ing
Mate
rials
are
av
ail
ab
le in
yo
ur
sch
oo
l?
1. Y
es
2. N
o>
> n
ex
t T
LM
Do
stu
den
ts h
av
e th
ese
reso
urc
es
in y
ou
r sc
ho
ol?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Are
th
ese
reso
urc
es
ad
eq
uate
in
yo
ur
sch
oo
l acco
rdin
g to
th
e
pre
scri
bed
rati
o?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Wh
o p
rov
ides
the m
ain
/majo
r
Teach
ing
an
d L
earn
ing
mate
rials
?
[Lis
t C
1]
Do
th
e a
vail
ab
le T
LM
s ass
ist
yo
u in
teach
ing
th
e p
resc
rib
ed
cu
rric
ulu
m?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Do
teach
ers
hav
e a
deq
uate
wo
rksp
ace f
or
teach
ing
an
d
Learn
ing
?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Do
yo
u u
se c
om
pu
ters
in
pre
pari
ng
yo
ur
less
on
no
tes?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Do
yo
u u
se c
om
pu
ters
in
yo
ur
ad
min
istr
ati
ve d
uti
es
in y
ou
r
sch
oo
l?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Do
yo
u u
se c
om
pu
ters
fo
r
cla
ssro
om
in
stru
cti
on
?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Ho
w m
an
y c
om
pu
ters
do
es
the
sch
oo
l h
av
e f
or
teach
ing
an
d
learn
ing
?
Wh
ich
gra
de l
ev
el(
s) h
av
e
access
to
use
th
e c
om
pu
ters
in
yo
ur
sch
oo
l?
Textbooks
Workbook
Note books List C1
1. Government/
GES
2. The School
3. The Parents
4. The Community
5. UNICEF
6. USAID
7. CAMFED
8. Right to Play
9. Other Specify
Pens/ Pencils
Chalk/ Marker
Black/white
boards
Concrete
Objects
Dictionary
Posters
Science
Equipment
Maths
equipment
Materials for
Pre-vocational
studies
Computers/
tablets
Other Specify
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–56
Section D: School Facilities
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
What is the main source
of water for the school?
(List D1)
What is the distance from
the school to the main
water source?
(List D2)
Is this water source
available all year round?
1. Yes
2. No
What is the type of
sanitary facility available
in your school?
(List D3)
If None Skip to D6
Are there separate sanitary
facilities for boys and
girls?
1. Yes 2. No
What types of hand
washing facility are
available in your school?
(List D4)
List D1 List D2 List D3 List D4
1. Bore-holes
2. Hand dug well
3. Stream
4. Rain water 5. Pipe borne water 6. River
7. Other
1. In the school
2. Less than 1 km from school
3. 1 km from school
4. More than 1 km from school
1. None
2. KVIP
3. Pit Latrine
4.Bucket Latrine
5.Water Closet
6.Other Specify
1= Hand-washing basin with soap
2 = Hand-washing basin without soap
3 = Running tap with soap
4 = Running tap without soap
5 = Veronica buckets with soap
6 = Veronica buckets without soap
7 = Polytanks
8= None
9 = Other Specify
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–57
Section E: Staff Training: This section is about all forms of training the staff have received in the last 12 months
Have you received any form of in-service training in the Last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No if No skip>> to Section G
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13
Types of
Training?
Please List
Who
requests
for the
training?
(List E1)
Who
determines
the need
for the
training?
(List E1)
How
frequent
is the
training in
a term?
(List E2)
Who
sponsored
this
training?
(List E3)
Who did the
in-service
training?
(List E1)
At what level
was the
training
conducted?
(List E4)
What is the
date of the
recent in-
service
training?
Is the training
relevant to
your
classroom
management?
1. Yes
2. No
Is the trainings
appropriate given
education sector
needs and
available
resources?
1. Yes
2. No
Is the
Training
relevant to
your needs
as a
teacher?
1. Yes
>>E13
2. No
If the
training is
not relevant
what do
you usually
do?
[List E7]
Do you use
the training
acquired in
your daily
classroom
activities?
1. Yes
2. No
LIST E1 List E2 List E3 List E4 List E5 List E6 List E7 List E8
1. Teachers
2. Head teacher
3. Circuit
Supervisor
4. DTST
5. District Director/Officers
6. Other Specify
1. Once a term
2. Two times a
term
3. Three times a term
4. Other
1. GES
2. UNICEF
3. CAMFED
4. USAID 5. Other (Specify)
1. School Level
2. Circuit Level
3. District office 4.Other (specify)
1. Children join classes
2. Training coincides with break time
3. School closes for
training
4. Children are left unattended
5. Class prefect leads
children with reading
activities
6.Other (specify)
[Multiple responses allowed]
1. English
2. Maths
3. Science
4.Life skills
5. Local language
6. Other Specify
1. Indifferent
2. Make it
applicable in my
teaching and learning
3. Share with other
colleagues who
need the training content
4. Other List
1. Required
2. Selected
3. Open Invitation
4. Other specify
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–58
Section E: Staff Training: This section is about all forms of training the staff have received in the last 12 months
Have you received any form of in-service training in the Last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No if No skip>> Section G
E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23
Have you
received
any other
form of
training in
the last
twelve
months?
1. Yes 2. No
When trainings are
conducted during
school hours, what
happens to instruction time?
(List E5 Multiple
responses allowed)
On average
how many
days of
training did
this
training take?
How many
times did
you have this
raining in a year?
How was
your school
selected for this trainings?
[List E8]
Are you
aware of
the Child
friendly
school
checklist?
1. Yes
2. No>>
E22
Do you
use this
check list
in your
school?
1. Yes 2. No
Have you
experienced any
changes in your
school since the
introduction of
the CFS checklist?
1. Yes 2. No
Do you know if
the district office
uses the CFS
checklist results?
1. Yes
2. No
Do teachers have
too many training
programmes?
1. Yes 2. No
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–59
Section G: Inclusive Education
This section is about Inclusive Education: Do you have children with special needs in this school?
1. Yes 2. No
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
What kind of Children with
special needs do you have in your school?
1. Yes
2. No >>
Have you or anybody in your
school received training to
manage children with special needs?
1. Yes
2. No>>
What training did you receive
on training children with special needs)
Were these training adequate to
help you manage the classroom better?
1. Yes
2. No
Children with Special Needs
(eg. Nomadic, hawkers, HIV?AIDS, street children etc)
Children with Special Learning
needs (eg. children with
learning difficulties such as
dyslexia dyscalculia,
dysgraphia…)
Children with Disability (eg.
ADHD - Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder,
physical impairment, epilepsy, etc)
Children with Special education
needs(eg. speech and language difficulties, deaf, blindness etc)
Other Specify
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–60
Section H: UNICEF Interventions/Trainings - This section is about UNICEF Interventions and Trainings that staff have received in the last 12 months
Respondents of this section must be beneficiaries of the Gender Based Trainings
H1 H1b H1c H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14
W
hic
h o
f th
e fo
llo
win
g U
NIC
EF
p
rog
ram
mes
hav
e y
ou
ben
efit
ted
fro
m?
1
. Yes
2. N
o>
>
Wh
o a
tten
ded
th
is tra
inin
g?(
Pre
-
load
lis
t o
f te
ach
ers
from
QA
1)
To
tal at
ten
dee
s fr
om
th
is s
cho
ol?
Wh
en w
as th
is tra
inin
g
org
aniz
ed?
Wer
e th
e o
bje
ctiv
e cl
earl
y s
tate
d
to y
ou
?
1. Y
es
2
. No
Wer
e th
e o
bje
ctiv
es o
f th
e
trai
nin
g m
et?
1. Y
es
2
. No
Hav
e y
ou
rec
eived
an
y f
oll
ow
up
vis
its
fro
m th
ose
wh
o tra
ined
yo
u?
1. Y
es
2
. No
Ho
w r
elev
ant w
as th
is tra
inin
g to
yo
ur
role
? [L
ist F
3]
Has
th
is tra
inin
g im
pac
ted o
n
yo
ur
teac
hin
g a
nd lea
rnin
g n
ow
?
1. Y
es
2
. No
Are
yo
u a
ble
to
ap
ply
th
e sk
ills
acq
uir
ed in
th
ese
trai
nin
gs
to d
aily
ta
sks?
1. Y
es
2
. No
Are
th
ere
spec
ific
mat
eria
ls th
at
yo
u r
equ
ire
to b
e ab
le to
ap
ply
the
less
on
s fr
om
th
e tr
ainin
g?
1. y
es 2
. No
>>
11
Do
yo
u h
ave
the
mat
eria
ls?
1. Y
es
2
. No
Wh
o o
rgan
ized
th
e tr
ainin
g?
(L
ist E
1)
Did
th
is tra
inin
g r
equ
ire
furt
her
trai
nin
g?
1. Y
es 2
. No
Wer
e th
e tr
ain
ers
able
to
im
par
t th
e re
qu
ired
kn
ow
led
ge
to y
ou
1. Y
es
2
. No
Was
th
e co
nte
nts
of th
e tr
ainin
g
app
rop
riat
e to
your
nee
ds
1. Y
es
2. N
o
GENDER BASED TRAININGS
Gender-responsive pedagogy training
Gender-based activities training
Child Friendly Schools
Orientation on equity issues in education
Equity and fairness issues in schools
Child-centered gender-based
activities/play-based activities (Literacy/ Numeracy)
Other related trainings related to girls’ education
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–61
Section H: UNICEF Interventions/Trainings - This section is about UNICEF Interventions and Trainings that staff have received in the last 12 months
Who is responding? (More than one person can respond, but must always agree. Respondents of this section must be beneficiaries of the Capacity Development Training)
H1 H1b H1c H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14
W
hic
h o
f th
e fo
llow
ing U
NIC
EF
pro
gra
mm
es h
ave
you b
enef
itte
d f
rom
?
1. Y
es
2. N
o>
>
Who a
tten
ded
this
tra
inin
g?
(Pre
-load
lis
t
of
teac
her
s fr
om
QA
1)
Tota
l at
tendee
s fr
om
this
sch
ool?
When
was
this
tra
inin
g o
rgan
ized
?
Wer
e th
e obje
ctiv
e cl
earl
y s
tate
d t
o y
ou?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Wer
e th
e obje
ctiv
es o
f th
e tr
ainin
g m
et?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Hav
e you r
ecei
ved
any f
ollow
up v
isits
from
those
who tr
ained
you?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
How
rel
evan
t w
as t
his
tra
inin
g t
o y
our
role
? [L
ist
F3]
Has
this
tra
inin
g i
mpac
ted o
n y
our
teac
hin
g a
nd lea
rnin
g n
ow
?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Are
you a
ble
to a
pply
the
skills
acq
uir
ed
in thes
e tr
ainin
gs
to d
aily
tas
ks?
1. Y
es
2
. N
o
Are
ther
e sp
ecif
ic m
ater
ials
that
you
requir
e to
be
able
to a
pply
the
less
ons
from
the
trai
nin
g?
1. yes
2. N
o
>>
11
D
o y
ou h
ave
the
mat
eria
ls?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Who o
rgan
ized
the
trai
nin
g?
(Lis
t E
1)
Did
this
tra
inin
g r
equir
e fu
rther
tra
inin
g?
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Wer
e th
e tr
ainer
s ab
le t
o im
par
t th
e
requir
ed k
now
ledge
to y
ou
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Was
the
conte
nts
of
the
trai
nin
g
appro
pri
ate
to y
our
nee
ds
1. Y
es
2. N
o
Training GES Staff
(DDEs/Frontiline Managers) on LfC/ Pre-tertiary
Professional Development/ Management
Training for District Support Training
Teams on LfL, Early Grade Reading (P1-P3),
Child-centred gender-based activities/play-
based activities (Literacy/ Numeracy)
Training on on
mSRC Application (strengthen access and utilisation of
real time data)
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–62
Training Workshop for Primary Prefects in Leadership Skills
Training for Headteachers/
Circuit Supervisors/DEOCs on Supportive
supervision and leadership skills
Training on Child Friendly Schools
(CFS)
Development of leadership for learning and
leadership for change manuals
Training of Headteachers and circuit supervisors
on leadership for learning
Training of GES management in
leadership for change
Training Headteachers and teacher on child
centred pedagogy
Training of Headteachers and teachers on school
based assessment
Training of teachers on Child centred and gender
responsive pedagogy
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–63
Please rank on a scale of 1-5 [List F1, F2, F3 and F4], with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest on how effective, efficient and Relevant UNICEF programme are.
EFFECTIVE – in relation to how the training was delivered.
EFFICIENT - Was the time and resources spent worth it?
RELEVANCE – Was the training Appropriate, Applicable, Practical, useful and Important
[List F1]
1. Not Very ineffective
2. Not Effective
3. Neutral
4. Effective
5. Very effective
[List F2]
1. Not Very efficient
2. Efficient
3. Neutral
4. Efficient
5. Very efficient
[List F3]
1. Not Very Relevant
2. Not Relevant
3. Neutral
4. Relevant
5. Very Relevant
[List F4]
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–64
Section J: Perception on UNICEF Trainings
NO
I would now like to ask you some questions about your perception of the effectiveness, efficiency and relevan ce of the UNICEF training programmes
Please rank on a scale of 1-5 [List F1, F2, F3], with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest on how effective, efficient and Relevant UNICEF programme are.
EFFECTIVE - How the training was delivered. EFFICIENT - Was the time and resources spent worth it?
RELEVANCE—Was the Appropriate, Applicable, Practical, useful and Important
Type of training received
J1 J2 J3 J4
Yes/No
EFFECTIVE
[list F1]
EFFICIENT
[list F2]
RELEVANCE
[list F3]
Scale of 1–5 Scale of 1–5 Scale of 1–5
1 Pre tertiary professional development
2
Orientation on the new Pre-Tertiary Professional Development Policy and their role in its
implementation
3 Leadership training to strengthen management skills
4 Training on use of real time data
5 Leadership training to strengthen management skills
6 Training to equip prefects with leadership skills
7 Training on Gender Centered Play-based activities
8 Gender-responsive pedagogy training
9 Gender-based activities training
10 Child Friendly Schools
11 Training on numeracy and literacy
12
Training to strengthen Head teachers/DSTS/training officers skills to support INSET to know
what is expected of teachers
13 Training on methods to promote effective teaching and learning
14 Training to strengthen head teachers monitoring skills
15 Training on school based assessment
16 Training on effective implementation of schools educational goals in their learning
17 Training on keeping orderly atmosphere in the school
18 Leadership for learning and leadership for change manuals teaching
19 Training on Child Friendly Schools (CFS)
20 Advising and assisting teachers who have problems with their teaching
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–65
Section K: Perceived Impact of UNICEF trainings on intended outcomes or purposes.
I would like to make a statement about the impact of the trainings that you participated in . Can you tell me whether you agree or disagree with me? I would like you to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree. Using a scale of 1-5 where 1 mean strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree please rate the impact of the following on these outcomes
TYPE OF TRAINING PURPOSE OF TRAINING/PERFORMANCE OUTCOME
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10
Did you
attend this training?
1. Y
es
2. No
Teachers are
equipped
with
knowledge
and skills on
[type of
training]
Trainees
have
acquired
leadership skills
Trainees
have
acquired
skills in the
supervision of learning
Trainees
Management
skills and their
role in
promoting
learning have
been strengthened
Head
teachers
managerial
skills have
been strengthened
Head
teachers
understand
their role in
promoting learning
Trainees
have
acquired
skills to
support INSET
Trainees
have
acquired
skills to
support
child
centered pedagogy
Trainees
monitoring
skills have
been Strengthened
GENDER BASED TRAININGS
Gender-responsive pedagogy training
Gender-based activities training
Child Friendly Schools
Child-centered gender-based
activities/play-based activities
(Literacy/Numeracy)
Other trainings related to girls’
education
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–66
Section K: Perceived Impact of UNICEF trainings on intended outcomes or purposes.
I would like to make a statement about the impact of the trainings that you participated in. Can you tell me whether you agre e or disagree with me? I would like
you to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree. Using a scale of 1-5 where I mean strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree please rate the impact of the following on these outcomes
TYPE OF TRAINING PURPOSE OF TRAINING/PERFORMANCE OUTCOME
K11 K12 K13 K14 K15 K16 K17 K18 K19 K20
Trainees
are
equipped
with
knowledge
and skills
on [type of training]
Trainees
can operate
the mobile
school
report card
software
Trainees
have
acquired
leadership skills
Trainees
have
acquired
skills in the
supervision
of learning
Trainees
Management
skills and their
role in
promoting
learning have
been strengthened
Head
teachers
managerial
skills have
been
strengthened
Head
teachers
understand
their role in
promoting
learning
Trainees
have
acquired
skills to
support
INSET
Trainees
have
acquired
skills to
support
child
centered pedagogy
Trainees
monitoring
skills have
been strengthened
Training for District
Support Training Teams
on LfL, Early Grade
Reading (P1-P3),
Training on mSRC
Application (strengthen
access and utilization of
real time data)
Training to equip
prefects with leadership
skills
Training on numeracy
and literacy
Training to strengthen
skills to support INSET
to know what is expected of teachers
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–67
Training for Head
teachers/Circuit
Supervisors/DEOCs on
Supportive supervision
and leadership skills
Training on methods to
promote effective teaching and learning
Training of Head
teachers and teachers on school based assessment
Training on effective
implementation of
schools educational
goals in their learning
Keeping orderly
atmosphere in the school
Development of
leadership for learning
and leadership for
change manuals teaching
Training on Child
Friendly Schools (CFS)
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–68
Section L:Sustainability and accountability
L1 L2 L3
Do you think District trainers are skilled to
handle the training sessions?
1. Yes
2. No
Do you think the district officers are committed
to Capacity Building?
1. Yes
2. No
How are the District and Circuit officers building
the capacity of the staff?
1
Section M:Approaches to Training and Recommendations
M1 M2 M3 M4
Do you think the cascade method of
training is the most effective
technique for training teachers in the
GES?
1. Yes
2. No
Share at least two thoughts on the
cascade approach to teacher training,
which is used frequently in Ghana
What other approach would you
prefer in training the teachers?
Suggest at least 3 recommendations
on ways teacher training in Ghana
can be improved?
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—C–1
Appendix C. Additional Tables from Quantitative
Surveys
Table C–1: Do teachers have adequate work space?
District Adequate space (%)
Builsa-North 90.0
Garu-Tempane 70.0
Karaga 60.0
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo 60.0
Kwahu North (Afram P 60.0
Lambussie Karni 76.9
Savelugu Nanton 70.0
Upper Denkyira West 70.0
Upper Manya Krobo 80.0
Wa East 42.9
Total (N=100) 67.4
Table C–2: What is the main source of water for the school?
District Borehole/well
(%) River/stream/rain/
other (%) Pipe (%)
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo- 30.0 0.0 70.0
Upper Denkyira West 40.0 10.0 50.0
Kwahu North (Afram Pl 30.0 50.0 20.0
Upper Manya Krobo 50.0 40.0 10.0
Karaga 50.0 30.0 20.0
Savelugu Nanton 60.0 0.0 40.0
Builsa 100.0 0.0 0.0
Garu-Tempane 100.0 0.0 0.0
Lambussie Karni 100.0 0.0 0.0
Wa East 85.7 14.3 0.0
Total (N=100) 65.0 14.0 21.0
Table C–3: What is the type of sanitary facility available in your school?
District None (%) KVIP (%) Pit latrine
(%) Water closet
(%) Other
(%)
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo- 10.0 70.0 0.0 10.0 10.0
Upper Denkyira West 10.0 80.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
Kwahu North (Afram Pl 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upper Manya Krobo 10.0 70.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—C–1
Karaga 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Savelugu-Nanton 0.0 90.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
Builsa 20.0 50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0
Garu-Tempane 20.0 40.0 30.0 10.0 0.0
Lambussie Karni 7.7 76.9 15.4 0.0 0.0
Wa East 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (N=100) 12.0 72.0 12.0 2.0 2.0
Table C–4: What type of handwashing facility is available?
District Water & soap
(%)
Water without soap (%)
None/Other
(%)
Komenda-Edina-Eguafo- 70.0 30.0 0.0
Upper Denkyira West 40.0 20.0 40.0
Kwahu North (Afram Pl 60.0 20.0 20.0
Upper Manya Krobo 70.0 10.0 20.0
Karaga 30.0 10.0 60.0
Savelugu-Nanton 70.0 20.0 10.0
Builsa 70.0 30.0 0.0
Garu-Tempane 50.0 0.0 50.0
Lambussie Karni 53.9 23.1 23.1
Wa East 42.9 0.0 57.1
Total (N=100) 56.0 17.0 27.0
Table C–5: Who conducted the training?
Training Total
N Teachers/ Heads (%)
DTST (%)
DEO (%)
Other (%)
Child Friendly Schools 64 2.1 21.9 60.7 15.3
Child-centered gender-based activities 60 10.3 10.8 65.3 13.7
Equity and fairness issues in schools 18 7.3 18.5 67.2 7.0
Gender-based activities training 58 3.4 11.4 67.2 18.0
Gender-responsive pedagogy 60 4.3 17.4 61.8 16.5
Orientation on equity issues in education 32 6.3 9.3 64.3 20.1
Other related trainings related to girls’ education 35 10.5 12.1 53.7 23.8
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the
UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—–D1
Appendix D. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme
2012-2017: Output Mapping Document
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
1 Multi‐Sectoral + District Educ Oversight Comms X X X X C2NECC, Multi‐Sectoral team at National/Districts and District Educ Oversight Comms X X X X X
1. Leadership, community entry and mobilisation skills for the development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives.
2 Joint Review Meeting on ECD X X X X C2 Regional/District ECD Coordinators X X X X X
1. Shared/adapt best practices to enhance teaching abilities of teachers at KG level (preparation and use of age‐approriate TLMs).2. Community entry, mobilisation skills development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives and effective supervision to support District/Attendants/Teachers.
3 Training Workshop for Examiners and Tutors X XUniversity and College of Education Tutors and Examiners
X X
Enhanced Knowledge through shared information/TLMs for better insight and for guidance/technical support for the development of KG Pre‐service Manual.
4Training of District Support Training Teams on Early Grade Reading using play/games X X X X X C3 District Training Support Teams X X
Enhanced knowledge and teaching abilities of teachers at KG level (preparation and use of age‐approriate TLMs)
5Training of Planning/Stats/Budget/trng officers on BNA X C2
Statisticians/Training/Planning and Budget Officers X X
To understand and improve skills for the development of district operational plans (esp. with KG lens)
6Training ECD Coord/Cir Sup/H'Teachers‐provide Supportive Supervision X X X X C3
Regional/District ECD Coordinators, Circuit Supervisors X X X X Supportive supervision relevant to ECD to improve
learning at KG levels
7Comprehensive in‐serv Training for KG Teachers and Attendants on Early Grade Reading X X X X X C3 KG Teachers and Attendants X X To enhance the teaching abilities of teachers at KG
level (preparation and use of age‐approriate TLMs)
8Educ study tour for SMC/PTA Executives to KG Model Schools X X X C2
KG Teachers/Attendants/SMCs/PTA Executives/DEOCs X X Enhanced skills and abilities to teach and support KG
children in classroom with talking walls
9 Sensization of Head teachers on ECD/KG issues X X X X C2 Head teachers X X Community entry, mobilisation skills development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives.
10 Community Sensitization X X X X X C2 Community members X X X Community entry, mobilisation skills development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives.
Output 18: Complementary basic education opportunities expanded to out‐of‐school children aged 8‐14 years in at least 5 deprived districts.
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
WHEN: Implementation time‐frameLEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION
Administrative LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION
Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly comment on purpose, what did it
Output 17: Young children’s school readiness improved through increased access to quality pre‐school education programmes in at least 20 deprived districts.
#
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHEN: Implementation time‐frame
WHO? Target audience
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly
comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
1 Training x x x x x
1st Batch Implementation (2012‐2015) 1) Savelugu 2) Afram Plains North 3)
CBE Facilitators, teachers of basic schools near CBE communities and Local Committee Members (LCM)
x x
Initial and refresher trainings for new and old facilitators, respectively on participatory gender‐sensitive pedagogy in mpther‐tongue numeracy and literacy. LCM are trained on leadership and their roles in supporting CBE. CBE is monitored by SfL, UNICEF, District Assembly and the GES.
2 Capacity building x x x x x " CBE community committees x x
Capacity building for CBE community committees on the purpose of the programme, importance of education, monitoring of the programme, etc
3 Development of materials x x x x " CBE learners, CBE Facilitators, x xCBE is taught in local languages so TLMs need to be developed in different languages used in target districts.
4 Printing TLMs x x x x x " CBE learners, CBE Facilitators, x xOnce the TLMs are developed in local langugages, they are printed to proide all the CBE facilitators and learners.
5 Development of strategy xCBE national committee, MoE, NSS (National Service Secretariat)
x x
The study was made on the use of NSPs (National Service Personnel) as CBE facilitators. Based on the UNICEF's experience in the CBE using NSPs, engagement strategy was developed for better posting system and implementation.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
2 Capacity Building x x x x x C4DTST, Teachers, Headteachers, Circuit Supervisors
x x x x
To enable stakeholders to understand the concept of disability and its forms. To relate it to Inclusive Education (principles, standards and guidelines). Teachers also trained on early detection and referal of health problems in KG and lower primary pupils. Monitoring was done by the GES and UNICEF.
Output 19: Capacity of primary schools enhanced to provide appropriate care and support for children with special needs including children with disabilities in at least 20 deprived districts
#
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHEN: Implementation time‐frame
WHO? Target audience
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly
comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
#supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHO? Target audience involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
3 Sensitisation x x x x x C4Teachers, Headteachers, District Inclusive Education Team (DIET), Parents, NGOs, Regional & District Directors of Education.
x x x x X x
To increase awareness on the Inclusive Education Policy and to leverage for support from all stakeholders. Monitoring was done by GES and UNICEF
4 Screening x x x x x C2 Learners, DIET, headteachers, teachers x x
For early detection of disability amongst learners. Again, to build the capacity of DIET, headteachers and teachers in basic screening. Monitoring was done by GES and UNICEF.
5Development of IE related Materials including basic screening materials
x x x x x C2DIET,headteachers, teachers, learners, SpED (HQ) and CRDD (HQ)
x x x x x
To increase awareness on the Inclusive Education, copies of the IE Policy, Standards and Guidelines and costed implementation plan have been printed and distributed to key stakeholders. Additionally, UNICEF has supported the development and distribution of some screening materials includibg the snellen charts etc. Further, in building inclusive classrooms, UNICEF has supported the development of IE supplemenatry readers for basic schools. Monitoring was done by GES and UNICEF.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
1Training of Regional and District Girls Education Officials in Child friendly schools and Social/community mobilisation
x x x x C2Regional and District Girls Education Officials
x x x
To carry out community sensitisation and enrolment of girls into Primary school. The islamic clerics were targeted because Islam was identified as one of the deterents to girls' education.
Output 20: Awareness of and demand for education increased among disadvantaged groups, especially girls, in at least 20 deprived districts;
#
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHEN: Implementation time‐frame
WHO? Target audience
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
2Orientation of Girls Education officers on Equity issues in Education
x x x x C2 Girls Education Officers x x
The purpose was to stregthen their understanding of equity,how to plan from an equity lens, identify who the marginalised are . It was monitorired through the normal GES process.
3 Orientation of Education Officials on C4D x C2District Officials‐ DDE, Schedule officers and other government departmets
x x xTo introduce the officials to C4D and its potentail benefits ( enrollment, rention and completion)
4Training of New Regional and District Girls Education Officials on their roles and responsibility ( including report writing )
x C2New Regional and District Girls Education officials
x xTo introduce the officials to their roles and responsibilities as girls education officers
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
Training x x x x C2 Regional Planning and Statistics Oifficers x x x
Training on Bottleneck Analysis for application in designing ADEOPs. UNICEF monitored the implementation of some of the activities that resulted in the devcelopment of ADEOPs in all focus districts.
2 Strengthen District oversight committees x C2 Regional Planning and Statistics Oifficers x xOrientation on their roles and responsibilities
3Strengthen District capacity for decentralisation
x C4 National, Regional and District Officials x x xTraining in leadership for change for National, Regional and District officials
Output 21: Enabling environment: Issues of exclusion in and quality of education explicitly addressed in national and sub‐national sector strategies and plans and timely and sufficient funds allocated
#
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHEN: Implementation time‐frame
WHO? Target audience
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
4Support local governance and increase social accountability
x C4 District officials xTraining of Districts officials on how to stregthen community engagement in Education delivery
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
1Training GES Staff (DDEs/Frontiline Managers) on LfC/ Pre‐tertiary Professional Development/ Management
X X X X X C4
Key National GES Staff Directors‐(CRDD, BED, SPED, ECD, Inspectorate, G&C, SHEP), District Directors, the 4 District Frontline Managers (Planning, HR, AD Supervision, …),
X XPupose was to orient them to the new Pre‐Tertiary Professional Decvvelopment Policy and their role in its implementation
2
Training for District Support Training Teams on LfL, Early Grade Reading (P1‐P3), Child‐centred gender‐based activities/play‐based activities (Literacy/Numeracy)
X X X X X C4 District Schedule Officers (Training, PRO, Basic, Circuit Supervisors, Selected Heads)…
X X To equip teachers with knowldge and skills on delivery of early grade literacy effectively
3 Training on on mSRC Application (stregthen access and utilisation of real time data)
X X X X X
KEEA, GT, SN, APN, KE, WW, UWA, WE, UDW, UMK
National/Regional Level: Statisticians, IT, EMIS, UNICEF, Consultants. District level: DDEs, AD Supervision, Statisticians, IT, Headteachers, Teachers Others: WVI, FHI360, Social Impact
X X To equip officials how to operate the mobile school report card.
4Training Workshop for Primary Prefects in Leadership Skills X X X X X C4 School pupils X X To equip the prefects with leadership skills
5Training for Headteachers/Circuit Supervisors/DEOCs on Supportive supervision and leadership skills
X X X X X C4 Headteachers, Circuit Supervisors X X To equip headteachers and circuit supervisors in supervision of learning.
6 Training on Child Friendly Schools (CFS) X X
9 of C2 districts Garu‐
Tempane,
Headteachers and PTA X X X To equip them with Knowlledge on CFS and skills on how to make their schools child friendly
7Development of leadership for learning and leadership for change manuals x x x C2
Mid management staff ( leadership for Change ) and Headteachers/circuit supervisors ( leadership for learning)
x x x
Leadership for Change is intended to strengthen management skills while the Leadership for learning is to help headteachers understand their role in promoting learning.
8Training of Headteachers and circuit superviors on leadership for learning x x x C4 Headteachers, Circuit Supervisors x
Leadership for learning training s to help headteachers understand their role in promoting learning.
9Training of GES management in leadership for change x C4
Regional Directors District Directors , Divisional Directors and Regional manager x x x Leadership for Change is intended to strengthen
management skills
10Training Headteachers and teacher on child centred pedagogy x x x C4 Headateachers and teachers x Strengthening their skills to support INSET and child
centered pedagogy
11Training of Headteachers and teachers on school based assessment x x x C2 Headateachers and teacher x Strengthening their skills on monitoring
Output 22: Quality of Teaching and Learning Improved through the Increased availability of Trained Teachers and Teaching/Learning Materials and the Practice of Child‐Centred, Activity‐based Teachi
#
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHEN: Implementation time‐frame
WHO? Target audience
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly
comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
13Training of teachers on Child centred and gender responsive pedagogy x C4 Teachers x Strengthening their skills to support INSET and to
know what was expected of the teachers
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/
Institutional Levels
1Training upper primary school Headteachers, Teacher and Circuit supervisors
x x C2 Head teachers, Circuit Supervisors, x
To mainstream eSHEP issues (DRR, Food & Nutrition, Guidance & Counselling, HIV/AIDS, Physical Education and sports) and positive discipline in schools. Closely linked to Output 19 and 20. Monitored by UNICEF and GES.
2 Training of District Officials on SHEP x x x x x C3 District SHEP committee members x xTo equip them with knowledge on eSHEP issues
3Training of pupils on Peer to Peer counselling
x x C4 Teachers and pupils xTo equip them with knowledge on peer counselling
4 Develop Safe School resource pack x x SHEP division xTo provide guidaance on how to make schools safe
1 Central Upper Denkyi2 Eastern Upper Manya3 Upper East Builsa North4 Upper East Builsa South*5 Northern Karaga6 Northern Kpandai7 Upper West Wa East8 Upper West Wa West9 Eastern Kwahu Afram
10 Eastern Kwahu Afram11 Central KEEA12 Upper East Garu Tempan13 Upper West Lambuissie K14 Northern Savelugu-Nan
* BN/APN split into 2 each, hence districts became 14 from 12
14 Districts (selected in 2013: started impl. 2014)
Category 2
All 20 Districts Categor
y 4
Output 23: Healthy, safe and gender‐sensitive learning environments established in primary schools in at least 20 deprived districts
#
WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between
January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT
WHEN: Implementation time‐frame
WHO? Target audience
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative
LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly
comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and
result achieved if relevant)
1 Central Asikuma Odo2 Eastern Upper West A3 Volta Krachie East4 Volta North Dayi5 Northern Tolon6 Greater Accra Ga East
10 Eastern Kwahu Afram11 Central KEEA12 Upper East Garu Tempan13 Upper West Lambuissie K14 Northern Savelugu-Nan
5 Districts (selected in 2015 started implementation 2016-….)
Category 3
(was added to commence imlementation in 2014-….)
Category 1
American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—E–1
Appendix E. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme
Evaluation: Terms of Reference & Evaluation Criteria