Download accelerated learning program for positive living and united service mid term evaluation review PDF

Titleaccelerated learning program for positive living and united service mid term evaluation review
File Size956.2 KB
Total Pages107
Table of Contents
	Summary of Findings
	Summary of Recommendations
	Background: Purpose, Objectives, and Methodology of the Mid-Term Review
	Findings on the Status of Project Implementation and its Impact
	Objective 1: Assess Learning Outcomes of ALP Students to Determine the Effectiveness of the Program
	Objective 2: Assess the Performance of ALP Teachers to Determine if Training has a Long-Term Impact on their Teaching Skills and Ability to Provide Quality Instruction
	Objective 3: Assess The Impact Of ALPP Activities In Target Counties
	Objective 4. Assess ALP Students By Age To Ensure Appropriate Targeting The Age-Factor In The Determination Of Student Learning Achievement Level
	Objective 5: Provide a Common Monitoring Tool And Reliable Database to Obtain Information about Quality Implementation of The ALP/ALPP
	Objective 6: Scale Up ALP/ALPP to Cater to High Enrollments and Youth Preparation
	Objective 7: Determine the Contributions of the ALPP Sub-Contracts to the Achievement of the Over-All Goals and Objectives of the Program
	Specific Issues for consideration by USAID
	Specific Issues for consideration by Ministry of Education
	Potential Follow-On Activities
	Terms of Reference
	Constraints on the Survey
	Cost effectiveness of the ALPP
	Technical Discussion of Findings
		Student Testing Program
		Teacher Performance
			16. Develop policies and procedures that restrict students in the schoolyard from creating noise distractions that interfere with ongoing lessons.
	Survey Instruments
		Student Tests
		Lesson Observation Form
	Interview Instrument: Community Leaders, Chiefs, Members of PTAs, Parents, Education Officers, LRC Staff, Youth Leaders
	Focus Group Questions for Discussion with Community Leaders, Chiefs, Members of PTAs, Parents, Education Officers, Youth Leaders, LRC Staff
	Interview Schedule for Community Coordinators at Learning Resource Centers (LRCs)
	List of Principal Informants
Document Text Contents
Page 1

November 7, 2008
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for
International Development. It was prepared by DevTech Systems, Inc.

Accelerated Learning Program for Positive Living and
United Service

Mid Term Evaluation Review

Page 2



Geoff Coyne, Ph.D.
Bonnie L. Prince, Ph.D.
Eldora Burns Nielson, Ed.D.

November 7, 2008 (Final Version)

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views
of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States

Page 53

Accelerated Learning Program – PLUS Mid Term Review Final Report
DevTech Systems, Inc. 35 November 2008

Constraints on the Survey

Students assessed. The original design called for testing of students at ALP Levels I, II, and
III, and Grades 2, 4, and 6. This was to occur towards the end of school year 2007-08. In
practice, the study had to be conducted in the first weeks of the new school year 2008-09, so
it was inappropriate to test the beginning classes of Level I and Grade 1. Therefore only
Levels II and III, and corresponding Grades 3 and 5, were tested.

Selection of sites and programs. Sites were selected in each County, taking into account
Urban, Urban/Rural, and Rural/Rural characteristics. They had also to be selected to take
into account their accessibility in terms of travel time each day from the base of overnight
accommodation. The number of school sites visited (including number of students and
programs), should be therefore be considered as a series of case studies of schools and
programs. Case study theory states that each such study provides an indication of the
phenomenon under investigation, while collectively such studies provide a useful indication
of the direction and strength of the phenomenon under investigation.

Informants. At each school visited, the principal was interviewed, as well as some teachers.
The number of community representatives who were able to attend for interviews and/or
focus group work varied from site to site. In addition, the time they were available for such
information gathering was usually limited; most could come only in the morning and stay for
one to two hours. In practice therefore, it was often not possible to interview community
members but only to hold focus group discussions with them.

ALPP Youth. For the first three weeks of the site visits, students were still being recruited for
many of the ALPP Youth programs. It was therefore not possible to observe as many of
these programs as had been planned. In addition, in several cases, Youth classes were not
being conducted because the generator which provided lighting was not operational. It was
possible to observe only five Youth classes which were operational.

Record keeping. Enrollments for the year 2007-08 were obtained from each school visited.
For LRCs, the attendance records were available only for the current and previous 2-3
weeks. As schools were only commencing to function during this period, it was difficult to
gain first hand valid knowledge of the numbers of teachers, school administrators, or
students of ALP/ALPP programs who would normally attend, or the reasons for their

Relationship between Teacher performance and Student Achievements. Students were
being assessed on their learning from previous years. The teachers observed were, in
almost every case, not those who had taught the same students in these years. No direct
causal relationship could therefore be inferred between student and teacher performance.
Observed Teacher Performance is therefore only an indirect indicator of likely student
achievement in the coming school year.

Page 54

Accelerated Learning Program – PLUS Mid Term Review Final Report
DevTech Systems, Inc. 36 November 2008

Cost effectiveness of the ALPP

The following figures are a preliminary estimate of per capita costs per targeted student.

Table 10. Cost Effectiveness of the ALPP

Creative Associates International, Inc

Total Budget $14,504,921
Less: Sub-contracts
Talking Drum $949,388
Think Inc. $52,000
Total sub-contracts $1,001,388
Net Budget CAII $13,503,533

CAII Targeted Students
Over-aged students (8-18 years) 54,000
Out-of-school Youth (15-35 years) 13,500
Total Students 67,500
Per capita cost of students $200.00

Think Inc.
Total Budget $52,000
Total students 420
Per capita cost of students $124.00

Talking Drum 2
Total Budget $949,388
Targeted students 67,500
Per capita cost of students $14.00

2 Talking Drum is a project to produce and distribute Radio Instruction Programs with the objectives of
(i) increase teacher proficiency in ALPP curriculum content and student-centered teaching methods;
and (ii) increase student performance through the provision of educational radio-based support
programs. The cost-effectiveness of the project is based on the targeted number of students.

Page 106

Accelerated Learning Program – PLUS. Mid Term Review. Final Report
DevTech Systems, Inc. 88 November 2008

2007. PTA Revised Training Manual: WEP/MOE Capacity Building Project. February.
PTA. Process in the PTA Training.
PTA. Terms of Reference and Guidelines for Parent Teacher Association in Liberia.

Resource Room Guidelines.

School Grants. Accelerated Learning Program Plus School Community Grants (SCG):
Procedures Guide.
Small Grants: Purpose, Objectives, Method.

Service Learning.

Six Counties Profile. 2008. July.

Teacher Selection Guidelines.
Master Trainers’ Manual: Overview.
Master Trainers’ Manual: Revised Version June 2005.

Creative Associates International. Sub-Contracts

2007. Think Inc. Sub-Contract. December.

2007/2008. Talking Drum Studio and Search for Common Ground: Sub-Contract of May
2007 and Modification to Sub-Contract March 2008.

(d) Relevant Instruments and Documents from other Countries

RTI International. 2008. Assessing Early Grade Reading: Results from Pilots in English,
French and Spanish. Powerpoint presentation by Amber Gove to United States Agency for
International Development and the World Bank. January.

The Gambia.
RTI International. 2008. Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA): Results from 1,200
Gambian Primary Students Learning to Read in English. Report for the World Bank. January.

RTI International. 2007. Early Grade Reading Kenya – English Language Instrument.
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development. November.

RTI International. 2008. Early Grade Reading Kenya - Baseline Assessment: Analyses and
Implications for Teaching Interventions Design. Prepared for the United States Agency for
International Development. Final Report January.

Pakistan Early Childhood Education Program Evaluation. Classroom Observation Tool.

(e) General Technical References

World Bank. 1994. Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing Countries: A
Handbook for Policymakers, Managers, and Researchers. By Joseph Valdez and Michael
Bamberger. EDI Development Studies. Washington, DC.

------. 2007. How to build M & E Systems to support Better Government. Independent
Evaluation Group. Washington.

Page 107

Accelerated Learning Program – PLUS. Mid Term Review. Final Report
DevTech Systems, Inc. 89 November 2008

------. 2007. MENA Development Report - The Road not Traveled: Education Reform in the
Middle East and Africa. Washington.

------. 2008. Global Monitoring Report 2008: MDGs and the Environment – Agenda for
Inclusive and Sustainable Development. Washington.

United States Agency for International Development. 2007. Early Grade Reading
Assessment for Kenya: English Language Instrument. Prepared by RTI International.

Similer Documents