Final presentation Research Quality of rural primary education Uganda rene vermeulen

02-05-2023 1

Research Master HGPL

Research questions, methodological approach and main findings

final presentation René Vermeulen

Final presentation

02-05-2023 2

Introduction Research questions Methodology Main findings Conclusion

final presentation René Vermeulen

Content

02-05-2023final presentation René Vermeulen

3

An examination of the constructs of implementation process of the Thematic Curriculum in Uganda and an analysis of the factors that support or hinder the teachers’ and students’ capabilities in rural public primary schools by using a School Development Index

Introduction


4

An examination of the constructs of implementation process of the Thematic Curriculum in Uganda and an analysis of the factors that support or hinder the teachers’ and students’ capabilities in rural public primary schools by using a School Development Index

Introduction


5

Millennium Development Goals Introduction of Free Primary Education in Uganda in 1997 enrolment more than doubled quality of education under pressure

In general, rural education is worse off than urban education quality is lower and additional barriers hinder teaching and learning

analyse these barriers beyond standard quality indicators

Traditional indicators of quality of education [inputs and outcomes] do not take the context [rural] into account

Capability Approach to Education School Development Index [SDI]

Introduction new primary curriculum in Uganda in 2007 aims at increasing quality of education

Theoretical assumptions


6

Conceptual Model


7

The aim:

This research aims at determining the success of the introduction of the Thematic Curriculum in Uganda as a quality improvement intervention. The level of success will be established on the basis of utilising a Capability Approach School Development Index beyond the standard education quality indicators in rural government primary schools.

Research questions:

1. Which preconditions [outside support, innovative capacity and practices] for successful implementation of the curriculum are (not) met in Uganda and to what extent does that hinder or support improvement of the quality of education?

2. To what extent do the education quality indicators represent the needs and the required capabilities of government primary school teachers and students in rural areas?

3. Which other barriers exist in rural areas that obstruct teachers’ and students’ capabilities?

Aim and research questions


8

1. Desk research2. In-depth semi-structured interviews3. Group discussion and observation reports

3 months in Uganda; 10-day fieldwork in Namasale Sub-County (4 out of 10 government primary schools)

Methodology [1]

Interviews 35

Ministry of Education and Sports and affiliated 9

NGOs and other development partners 13

District officials Amolatar District 5

Head teachers in Primary schools in Namasale 4

Community Namasale 4

Group discussions (head-)teachers & students 5

Observation reports in schools and community 8


9

Additional secondary data:◦ DevEd participatory assessment in July 2012.

3 primary schools 434 respondents

Methodology [2]

Respondents per Gender M=291 F=143 434

Head teachers in Primary schools in Namasale 8 0 8

Teachers in Primary schools 23 10 33

Pupils/learners of primary 6 and 7 130 85 215

Community 128 45 173

District officials 6 3 9


10

Findings


11

Main findings [1.1] Constructs of implementation and quality of

education• Profile of implementation good in theory, bad in practice:

– Coverage of learning areas > focus on literacy, numeracy & life skills– Language of instruction > PROBLEM!– Classroom interactions > still a lot of rote teaching– Assessment practices > Continuous assessment misunderstood & exam-oriented teaching

• Capacity factors: – Physical resources > lacking and in bad condition– School ethos and management > SMCs, but still in development– Teacher factors > low motivation, underpaid, little training– Student factors > low motivation, little parental support, NO FOOD!

• Support from outside agencies:– Teacher professional development > little to none. CCTs not able to provide in-service

training. – Provision of physical resources > Problem!! Buildings are in bad condition and learning

materials absent.– Monitoring > monitoring and inspection is failing


12

Main findings[1.2] Constructs of implementation and quality of

educationInput indicators:

- Teacher’s capacity: little training, low motivation, not enough resources

Ratio 1999 2009/10/11Enrolment 3.1 million [1996]

6.3 million [1999]8.1 million

Drop out 61.8% 68.2%PTR Uganda 57:1 49:1PTR Northern R. - 90:1Survival to P5 57% 57%Survival to P7 38% 32%


13

Constructs of implementation and quality of education

Outcome indicators % proficiency in:

◦ Literacy [English] ◦ Numeracy ◦ Oral reading

Main findings [1.3]


14

[1.4] Literacy [English]

Oral reading

Numeracy

Uganda

2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

P3 boysP3 girlsP3 allP6 boysP6 girls

2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

P3 boysP3 girlsP3 allP6 boysP6 girlsP6 all

2003 2007 201105

101520253035404550

P3 boysP3 girlsP3 all


15

Findings


16

Main findings [2.1] Education quality indicators and capabilities

in rural areas Amolatar District: *official numbers can differ from actual situation

*note difference between NAPE and Uwezo

Enrolment 2011

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Total

Male 3,618 2,676 2,897 3,260 3,145 2,659 1,551 19,806Female 3,430 2,866 2,985 3,448 3,377 2,565 1,039 19,710

Average drop-out rate 59%

Boys' drop-out rate 53%

Girls' drop-out rate 68%

Uwezo Report 2011 Amolatar District UgandaCompetence in English 15.0% 34.3%Competence in Maths 41.8% 51.1%Competence in Both 10.2% 27.7%

NAPE test 2011 Amolatar

Uganda

P3 numeracy 47% 63%P3 literacy in English

26% 47.9%

P3 oral reading 15% 46.2%P6 numeracy 11% 41.3%P6 literacy 12% 45.6%

Namasale

Amolatar

Uganda

PTR 66:1 62.5:1 49:1

02-05-2023 17final presentation René

Vermeulen

Main findings [2.2] Education quality indicators and capabilities

in rural areas

Adapted from Tao 2010

Capabilities

1. Basic survival capabilities

2. Mental well-being, bodily integrity, social networks, respect and recognition, voice, freedom to act and freedom to aspire3. Having a well-managed school with adequate resources4. Teacher capability to manage a class

5. Teacher capability of accessing in-service training

6. Teach capability of being adequately remunerated

7. Student capability of parental support8. Student capability of accessing appropriate pedagogies


18

Interpretation SDI [2.3]


19

Interpretation SDI [2.4]

Teachers’ capabilitiesStudents’ capabilities

Teachers’ and students’ capabilities


20

Findings


21

Main findings [3] Additional barriers in rural areas

◦ Additional barriers poverty, commuting distances, poor living conditions, gender bias poor educational facilities

◦ Decentralized education system provision of learning materials, teachers’ salary, the construction of classrooms and sanitation facilities, the accessibility of in-service teacher training Insufficient inspection/monitoring corruption

◦ Limited support by parents.


22

Preconditions for successful implementation of the Thematic Curriculum are not sufficiently present in Uganda.

The inputs and outcomes show that the quality of education in Uganda is low.

The SDI shows that the indicators fundamental to the low quality of education are inadequately taken into account and are insufficiently provided for.

Several additional barriers that hinder the educational performance in the rural area of Namasale are understood.

Conclusion

Thank you