View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
0
Evaluation Study of
Malawi’s Open Distance
Learning Teacher Training
Program
Year 1 Baseline Report
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
EVALUTION OBJECTIVES ................................................................ 2
EVALUTION DESIGN....................................................................... 2
SAMPLE ......................................................................................... 2
OUTCOMES.................................................................................... 3
TIMELINE ....................................................................................... 3
BASELINE STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................ 5
ADHERENCE TO ASSIGNED STANDARDS ....................................... 5
BALANCE BETWEEN TYPE 1 & 2 SCHOOLS .......................................... 6
STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS & KNOWLEDGE................................ 6
TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS & KNOWLEDGE ................................ 6
SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................... 7
SCHOOL FINANCING ...................................................................... 7
TEACHER ATTENDANCE ................................................................. 8
CLASSROOM SIZE, ORGANIZATION & RESOURCES........................ 9
TEACHERS: BACKGROUND, INCENTIVES, SUPPORT & MOTIVATION .. 9
PLACE OF BIRTH, RESIDENCE & MEANS OF TRANSPORT .............. 9
TRAINING CONTENT, RELEVANCE AND PERCEPTION OF QUALITY10
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE................................................................ 10
TEACHER ATTENDANCE ............................................................... 10
SALARY ........................................................................................ 11
PEER SUPPORT, MENTORING & SUPERVISION............................ 12
SATISFACTION & MOTIVATION ................................................... 13
THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT .................................................... 13
STANDARDS ................................................................................. 13
LEARNER ATTENDANCE ............................................................... 14
TEACHER BEHAVIOR .................................................................... 14
STUDENT BEHAVIOR & ENGAGEMENT ....................................... 15
TIME ON TASK ............................................................................. 15
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME PER YEAR ................................................. 16
DETERMINANTS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE ................................. 17
TABLES ANNEX ................................................................................. 19
List of Figures
Figure 1 Relationship between GDP per capita & pupil to teacher ratio ........ 1
Figure 2 Sample selection process .................................................................. 2
Figure 3 Map of sampled districts ................................................................... 3
Figure 4 Three measures of teacher absence, by district ............................... 8
Figure 5 Delays in salary payment by district ............................................... 11
Figure 6 Anatomy of a class: distribution of tasks every 30 seconds ............ 15
Figure 7 Expected number of instructional hours per student per year, by
district .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 8 Returns to experience and education ............................................. 37
List of Tables
Table 1 Comparison of IPTE & ODL training programs ................................... 1
Table 2 Description of instruments & datasets............................................... 4
Table 3 Percentage of teachers interviewed, by standard and teacher
training type ........................................................................................... 5
Table 4 Distribution of ODL & IPTE-3 teachers by standard ........................... 5
Table 5 General school characteristics ......................................................... 19
Table 6 General staff characteristics ............................................................. 19
Table 7 Student enrollment .......................................................................... 19
Table 8 Student characteristics, by intervention group ................................ 20
Table 9 Student & teacher proficiency, by intervention group .................... 20
Table 10 Teacher proficiency, by training type ............................................. 21
Table 11 Staff characteristics ........................................................................ 21
Table 12 School infrastructure: access to electricity, water & sanitation .... 22
Table 13 School infrastructure: facility characteristics ................................. 23
Table 14 School resources: institutional financing ....................................... 24
Table 15 School resources: in-kind contributions ......................................... 25
Table 16 School resources: parent contributions ......................................... 26
Table 17 Teacher attendance ....................................................................... 27
Table 18 Reasons for teacher absence ......................................................... 28
Table 19 General characteristics of classrooms observed ............................ 29
Table 20 Learning environment & classroom resources ............................... 30
Table 21 Distribution of classroom time by task performed by teacher ...... 31
Table 22 Background, contract type, experience & education ..................... 32
Table 23 Place of birth, residence & means of transportation ..................... 33
Table 24 Distribution of teachers by standard, expected duration teaching
standard, teaching approach ............................................................... 34
Table 25 Teacher training: content, relevance and perception of quality .... 35
Table 26 Teacher absence............................................................................. 36
Table 27 Teacher salary ................................................................................ 36
Table 28 Peer Support .................................................................................. 38
Table 29 Supervision by head teacher .......................................................... 39
Table 30 Supervision by community ............................................................. 40
Table 31 Supervision by PEA ......................................................................... 41
Table 32 Supervision by DEM ....................................................................... 41
Table 33 Supervision by Inspectorate ........................................................... 42
Table 34 Mentoring ...................................................................................... 43
Table 35 Satisfaction with school assignment .............................................. 44
Table 36 Teacher satisfaction ....................................................................... 45
Table 37 Determinants of Teacher Satisfaction ............................................ 47
Table 38 Classroom observations: general characteristics ........................... 48
Table 39 Classroom characteristics: Learner absence and tardiness, use of
books and learner motivation .............................................................. 49
Table 40 Classroom observations: teacher engagement .............................. 50
Table 41 Classroom observations: teacher actions ...................................... 51
Table 42 Distribution of classroom time, by task.......................................... 52
Table 43 Determinants of English proficiency (z-scores) .............................. 53
Table 44 Determinants of Math proficiency (z-scores) ................................. 55
INTRODUCTION
Under the Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation (APEIE), the World Bank is financing a number of impact evaluations to build evidence of what works to improve education quality in Sub-Saharan Africa. The program also seeks to build in-country capacity to develop and implement rigorous evaluations of policy interventions aimed at improving schooling outcomes and particularly students’ learning achievement. Currently, the World Bank is undertaking an impact evaluation of a distance training program in Malawi – the focus of this report. Malawi has for many years suffered a chronic shortage of teachers, resulting in an extremely high pupil: teacher ratio (PTR) which stands at 89:1, one of the highest in the world (Figure 1). Furthermore, this figure masks large differences between rural and urban areas, where PTRs can range from 150:1 to 35:1, respectively. To provide an immediate solution to the critical shortage of teachers, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) has developed an innovative Open Distance Learning (ODL) program providing training for student teachers in the schools where they are needed. As opposed to conventional teacher training programs such as the Inter Primary Teacher Education (IPTE) program, the ODL program recruits teachers from districts or zones with an acute need for qualified primary teachers (based on above average pupil to qualified teacher ratios) and who wish to work in their district or zone of residence or birth. In addition, rather than spending a significant portion of their training at a college, ODL teachers primarily learn and develop skills “on-the-job” in the classroom, with the support from tutors who provide in-service training and mentorship. Table 1 provides a more detailed comparison of the IPTE and ODL programs. Otherwise, the ODL programs follow the same curriculum as IPTE using manuals derived from IPTE manuals.
Figure 1 Relationship between GDP per capita & pupil to teacher ratio
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators, 2011
Table 1 Comparison of IPTE & ODL training programs
IPTE ODL Length of Program
Teacher Training College (TTC) component
1 year 3 weeks + holidays
In school (residential) component
1 year [in rural schools selected to be
training schools]
2 years [in rural schools
from their community with acute need for
qualified teachers]
Selection Criteria
Education
MSCE: 1 credit in English 1 pass in Mathematics 1 pass in any science subject
MSCE: 1 pass in English 1 pass in Mathematics 1 pass in any science subject
Origin Anywhere in
Malawi
Community with acute need of
qualified teachers
Allowance
In TTC 1,500 per month
In School 5,000 per month
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pu
pil
to T
ea
che
r R
atio
(20
09
)
200400
8001600
32006400
1280025600
51200
GDP per capita (constant 2000 USD)
Malawi
Other Sub-Saharan Africa
Other
Lowess fit
2
EVALUTION OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of this evaluation study is to assess the ability of distance training as implemented by ODL to improve the quality of education provided to underserved populations in Malawi. This will be achieved by comparing outcomes associated to new teachers trained through ODL and through conventional Teacher Training Colleges. The evaluation will consider two primary research questions:
(1) What is the impact of using ODL, instead of conventionally trained teachers, on the educational attainment and performance of students in underserved populations in Malawi?
(2) How does the quality of teaching delivered by ODL and conventionally trained teachers compare over time? Since ODL teachers that are still in training will be compared to teachers having graduated from IPTE, does the relative performance of ODL teachers vary over time?
By providing a rigorous evidence base, this impact evaluation will be informative not only to Malawi, but will also provide lessons learned for other Sub-Saharan countries considering the use of ODL types of program to train teachers. EVALUTION DESIGN
In order to estimate the impact of the ODL program on teaching quality and student learning outcomes, the evaluation pursued a randomized control design, assigning schools randomly to one of two modes of allocating new teachers to standards. In Type 1 schools, incoming ODL teachers are assigned to standards 3 and 5 (new IPTE teachers to 4 and 6) while in type 2 schools, incoming ODL teachers are assigned to standards 4 and 6 (new IPTE teachers to 3 and 5). In this way, comparisons of student outcomes in standards taught by ODL teachers in Type 1 schools with student outcomes in standards
taught by IPTE teachers in Type 2 schools (and vice-versa) will provide the basis for estimating the effect of ODL teachers on student outcomes. Randomization helps ensure that these comparisons are valid so that the estimated program effect can be attributed to ODL teachers and not to differences in the characteristics of the students (e.g. skills, socioeconomic status) or schools (e.g. level of resources, community support, leadership). In order for the evaluation strategy to hold, in each academic year, the number of IPTE teachers assigned to study schools will approximately match the number of ODL teachers assigned to the same set of schools.
SAMPLE
Participating schools were selected among 15 districts (out of a total of 34 in Malawi) with the highest pupil to qualified teacher ratio based on Education Management Information System (EMIS) data in 2009 (Figure 3). Within each district, schools where teachers from the latest cohort of both IPTE and ODL programs were teaching were chosen to take part in the study. Overall 425 schools were selected for the study representing over 1400 IPTE
Figure 2 Sample selection process
3. Randomization
Standards Type 1 Type 2
3 ODL IPTE
4 IPTE ODL
5 ODL IPTE
6 IPTE ODL
N 213 212
425 Schools
34 districts
15 district s
1. Selection on need
2. Selection among
schools receiving
IPTE/ODL teachers
3
and ODL teachers (Figure 2). Selected schools were then randomly assigned to Type 1 and Type 2 modalities as explained above. Among the 425 sampled schools, only 6 (3 type 1 and 3 type 2) were not visited due to logistical constraints (inaccessible in reasonable amount of time, staff sit-in, and holiday). OUTCOMES
The main outcome of interest is whether the ODL training resulted in any improvement in teaching quality and pupil learning. Intermediate indicators are also measured, including enrollment, attendance and drop-out rates. Learning is measured by learner performance on standardized tests that measure knowledge in basic competencies in Math and English. Teaching quality is assessed through surveys and classroom observations designed to measure specific characteristics of teaching behavior such as effort, attendance, knowledge, capacity and pedagogical approach as measure by time on task, interactions with students and use of materials. TIMELINE
In May 2010, representatives of the MoEST, who
attended the Africa Program for Education Impact
Evaluation (APEIE) workshop in Ghana, proposed
that a rigorous impact evaluation (IE) of the Malawi
ODL program be carried out. The team worked with
education and evaluation experts during the
workshop to design the evaluation strategy.
Sampling was conducted in September 2010 using
available MoEST data regarding past IPTE and ODL
teachers: EMIS data 2008, 2009, 2010, and District
level assignments of IPTE cohorts 3 (having
reported in schools around December 2009) and
School-level assignment of ODL cohort 1 (having
reported in schools in May 2010).
From October to December 2010, a series of head
teacher meetings were held to inform authorities
(Primary Education Advisers, District Education
Managers of all 15 districts and head teachers of
the 425 selected schools) participating in the study
of the objectives and design of the impact
evaluation study. In particular, head teachers were
instructed on the standards to which relevant
teachers needed to be assigned. In general, both
the head teachers, PEAs and DEMs reacted very
positively to the study. This was corroborated by
the fact that almost all attending head teachers
were willing to think through and implement the
Figure 3 Map of sampled districts
Source: (GADM 2012)
Mzimba
Karonga
Nkhata Bay
Mangochi
Kasungu
Rumphi
DedzaLilongwe
Zomba
Nkhotakota
Chitipa
Dowa
Chikwawa
Ntcheu
SalimaMchinji
MachingaBalaka
Nsanje
Mwanza
Mulanje
Ntchisi
Thyolo
Blantyre Phalombe
Chiradzulu
Districts in sample
Districts not in sample
100
Kilometers
4
Classroom Observation
Facility Questionnaire
Sample of Schools
School Schedule
Learner Test Results: Std 3
Learner Test Results: Std 4
Learner Test Results: Std 5
Learner Test Results: Std 6
Teacher Questionnaire
Teacher Roster
Teacher Test Results
Time on Task
1,556
419
425
415
8,277
8,286
7,692
7,320
1,572
4,689
1,550
1,550
Description of the general classroom learning environment
Head teacher interview on general school & staff characteristics
Identifies schools and districts selected for evaluation study
Identifies directions to schools and other administrative characteristicss
Standard 3 students math and english assessment results
Standard 4 students math and english assessment results
Standard 5 students math and english assessment results
Standard 6 students math and english assessment results
Teacher interview on standards taught, background, training, salary, attendance
Teacher list with information on position, education, training, presence & lateness
Teacher math and english assessment results
Description of teacher tasks performed by class on a 30 second basis
Tch
Tch
Sch
Sch
Stu
Stu
Stu
Stu
Tch
Tch
Tch
Stu
Dataset Obs Unit1 Description
1Unit of observation: Sch = School, Tch = Teacher, Stu = Student
necessary teacher’s reassignment following the
moderator’s presentation.
Instrument preparation…// Pilot… // Instrument
revisions based on pilot…
Baseline data used in this report was collected in
October of 2010. As the evaluation study is
designed to follow teachers through the full length
of ODL training (in order to assess how ODL
performance relative to IPTE teacher performance
evolves over time), follow up data collection is
administered once per year (in May or June) over
six years around the end of the school year so that
the study follows three intakes of ODL teachers (in
2010, 2011, 2012) throughout the entire course of
their training. This characteristic of the study is
important as ODL teachers are assigned to
classrooms without complete training while IPTE
teachers are fully trained when they are assigned to
classrooms. A summary of the data collection
timeline is presented in and a description of the
instruments and resulting data sets used in this
study are presented in Table 2. Apart from teacher
and learner tests mentioned previously, the
baseline data collection consisted of interviews with
head teachers, interviews with a subset of teachers
in standards 3 through 6 and in-depth classroom
observations. While all head teachers at the
sampled schools were targeted for an interview, at
each school only 1 teacher was interviewed per
standard. The study’s first priority was to interview
the ODL or IPTE-3 teacher that followed the study
assignment, followed by an ODL or IPTE-3 teacher
that did not adhere to their assignment, followed by
any other teacher in that standard. Table 3 displays
the percentage of teachers interviewed by
Table 2 Description of instruments & datasets
5
standard. Among ODL teachers teaching a single
standard, between 74 and 84 percent of teachers
were interviewed; among IPTE teachers, between
54 and 65 percent were interviewed.
Table 3 Percentage of teachers interviewed, by standard and teacher training type
Standard ODL IPTE Other
3 80 56 36 4 74 54 32 5 83 65 48 6 84 58 38
Multiple 100 98 44
[Add in reference to missing data]
BASELINE STUDY OBJECTIVES
The baseline study presented in this report has two major objectives:
(1) To assess the success of the randomization by comparing student, teacher and school characteristics using data collected for the baseline study between type 1 and type 2 schools.
(2) To assess the linkages between student, teacher and school characteristics with student learning outcomes.
ADHERENCE TO ASSIGNED STANDARDS
Non- adherence to assigned standards (for example,
if a large percentage of ODL teachers end up
teaching standard 4 instead of standard 3 in type 1
schools) could potentially bias impact estimates. In
total, 722 new ODL teachers and 649 IPTE Cohort 3
(IPTE-3) teachers recently completing training were
assigned to sample schools in 2010. The
experimental design called for 100 percent of ODL
teachers to be assigned to standards 3 or 5 in type 1
schools and standards 4 or 6 in type 2 schools1. In
1 The initial communication with the sampled school indicated
that ODL could also be assigned to standard 7 in type 1 schools.
However, When ODL teachers returned to their Teacher
practice (as documented by the teacher roster) 88
percent of ODL teachers in both type 1 (with 348
ODL teachers) and type 2 (with 374 ODL teachers)
adhered to expected assignments. With respect to
IPTE cohort 3 graduates, the degree of adherence
was lower: in type 1 schools (with 346 IPTE-3
teachers) 76 percent adhered to assigned standards
and in type 2 schools (with 303 IPTE-3 teachers) 75
percent adhered to assigned standards. Three
percent of ODL teachers were assigned to multiple
standards compared to over 13 percent for IPTE-3
teachers.
Training Colleges in December 2010, their lecturers believed
that ODL teachers teaching higher standards (5-8) would face
too heavy workloads and would have little time to devote to
their distance learning studies and preparations for the June
teaching exams. As a result, the Department of Teacher
Education (DTED) advised ODL teachers to only teach in
Standards 3 or 4 whenever possible. In order to lessen the
chance that an ODL teacher would be teaching in higher
standards, MoEST suggested that Standard 7 be taken out of
the study. Thus, as of January 2011, the experimental design
focuses on grade 3 to 6. Information to this effect was provided
to the schools during the baseline data collection via a letter
from MoEST.
Table 4 Distribution of ODL & IPTE-3 teachers by standard
Type 1 Type 2
Standard ODL IPTE-3 ODL IPTE-3
1 0.3 2.6 0 1.7
2 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.7
3 52.2 2.3 4.8 21
4 7.8 34.2 60.3 0.7
5 26.5 4.7 1.61 26.7
6 0.3 33.6 27.1 4.7
7 9.2 3.5 0.3 24.7
8 0.3 3.5 0.3 4.7
Multiple 2.6 13.7 4.3 14.3
N 347 342 373 300
Note: Does not include 2 observations with missing
information regarding standards.
6
BALANCE BETWEEN TYPE 1 & 2 SCHOOLS
As schools were randomized to distribute observed
and unobserved characteristics equally between
type 1 and 2 schools and ensure unbiased estimates
of the ODL program’s impact, in addition to
describing school, staff and classroom organization
and conditions, this section also assesses the extent
to which the randomization was successful by
looking at the balance of characteristics between
type 1 and 2 schools.
On the whole, type 1 and 2 schools are well
balanced. Among more than 300 variables for which
balance was assessed (Table 5 through Table 21)
approximately 30 (10 percent) were statistically
different between the two groups. In terms of
ownership, location and staff levels relative to
enrollment, the groups are identical on observed
characteristics: approximately 62 percent are faith
based, 28 percent are government-run and less
than 1 percent are private for profit, the vast
majority are in rural areas, have upwards of 130
pupils per classroom and 90 pupils per teacher,
have between 10 and 11 teachers with vacancies
for between 4 and 5 additional teachers2 (Table 5
and Table 6) enroll around 950 students (split
almost equally between boys and girls) with the
largest fraction of students (25 percent) enrolled in
standard 1 and gradually falling to 6 percent
enrollment in standard 8 (Table 7).
STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS & KNOWLEDGE
2 The question on teacher vacancies caused some
confusion among respondents (Respondents questioned the definition of vacancy, for example, if the school has a teacher for every standard but very high learner to teacher ratios, do they have vacancies?) One additional problem with this question is that there may be an incentive for head teachers to over-report vacancies if they feel there is a chance the MoEST will provide additional teachers.
Background characteristics of students in standards
3 through 6 (Table 8) are also statistically
indistinguishable between type 1 and 2 schools with
the exception of gender and language spoken at
home. Students in type 1 schools are slightly more
likely to be male and more likely to speak Chichewa
at home compared to students in type 2 schools.
Given their small magnitude, it is unlikely these
differences are educationally significant on average.
In the sample overall, the average age of the
students tested is 12.3 years (90 percent of
students are over-age for their standard), have 5
siblings and overwhelmingly speak Chichewa at
home (88 percent of students). About one in four
students is repeating the same standard they were
in last year (Table 8) – signaling significant gaps in
student learning.
Student performance is alarmingly low in both
English and Math as measured by the baseline
student assessment (Table 9) the average
percentage of correctly answered questions varies
from a low of 12 to 34 percent. Students across all
standards perform better in Math than in English.
Standard 3 students in type 2 schools tend to
perform worse in English and Math relative to type
1 schools. No statistically significant difference in
testing performance is detected for students in
other standards.
TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS & KNOWLEDGE
In terms of staff composition, background,
experience and education (Table 11) type 1 schools
have a larger percentage of female teachers (35 vs.
33 percent), teacher assistants (3.3 vs. 2.4 percent)
and a lower percentage of staff with ODL training
(14.5 vs. 16.5 percent). Despite these differences
(that are relatively small in magnitude), type 1 and 2
schools are more similar than different: staff are 34
years old on average, teachers comprise 70 percent
of all staff positions and 79 percent of staff have
completed upper secondary education (less than
7
0.1 percent have started a university diploma). In
terms of training, 27 percent of staff completed
MITEP, 29 percent completed or are currently in
IPTE, 19 percent completed 1 or 2 year programs,
15 percent are in ODL and 3 percent completed
MASTEP.
Just as students were given an assessment to test
their English and math proficiency, teachers in
standards 3 through 6 were also tested to gauge
their level of proficiency on key English and math
concepts. On the teacher test, teachers from both
type 1 and 2 schools performed equally well (Table
9), correctly answering 80 percent of English items
and 60 percent of math items.
SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE
Only 5 percent of schools in the sample have some
access to electricity (Table 12). Among the small
minority that does have electricity, about 60
percent are able to provide electricity to all
classrooms. By comparison, access to water is more
likely, with close to 90 percent of schools having
access to some kind of water source (which is more
often than not a borehole – only 1 in 10 schools
have access to piped water). Around 86 percent of
schools have access to safe-drinking water which
tends to be about 10 minutes away from the school.
The majority of schools (around 84 percent) have
toilet facilities that are open and gender specific, in
about 5 percent of schools toilets are not gender
specific. On average, schools in the sample have 11
toilet facilities, 95 percent of which are functional.
Close to a third of the schools have no facilities for
hand washing, another third use a bucket, around
20 percent use a borehole and less than 10 percent
use piped water.
The average composition of rooms is also similar
between type 1 and type 2 schools: on average,
schools are comprised of 8 classrooms, one make-
shift classroom, a head-office, a store-room and 4
rooms for staff housing for a total of 15 rooms per
school (Table 13). Approximately 90 percent of
these rooms are usable year round. Apart from this
core set of rooms, very few schools benefit from
additional physical resources such as a library (only
20 percent of schools had access to a library), a
computer room (no school reported having access
to a computer room) or a kitchen (about 25 percent
of schools have a kitchen).
SCHOOL FINANCING
Approximately 40 percent of the sampled schools
receive supplementary external financial or in-kind
resources from institutions or the community (Table
14). In terms of institutional financing, the most
common (and important in terms of amounts
received) source is the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (MoEST) (28 percent of all
schools reporting receiving some funding from the
MoEST) which provided an average of
approximately 500,000 KW. Other common sources
of external funding are the DEM, NGOs,
International organizations and school committees.
Overall, the amount of external funding (among
schools reporting the amounts) averaged around
634,000 KW. The most common in-kind
contributions were for textbooks, teacher guides
and stationary (Table 15). There are no salient
differences between Type 1 and 2 schools in terms
of the level of in-kind resources received. Financial
support to schools from parent out-of-pocket
contributions (Table 16) are commonly for the
school management and the Parent-Teacher
Association (28 percent of schools receive
contributions from parents for this purpose),
development fees (36 percent), exams (45 percent)
and teacher salaries (17 percent). In terms of value,
the largest contribution from parents is for school
management and development fees which are
upwards of 35,000 KW on average. The parents of
students in Type 1 schools tend to give more for the
PTA and school management (although this result is
8
only weakly statistically significant given the
relatively low number of schools reporting).
TEACHER ATTENDANCE
Attendance patterns for teachers were assessed
from three different perspectives, the head teacher
interview, the teacher roster and teacher
interviews. Data gathered from the head-teacher
interviews that drew from the teacher attendance
log (seen in about 2 out of every 3 interviews)
(Table 17) indicates absence amounts to about 44
teacher-days per year (41 full days and 6 partial
days). When interviewed, teachers reporting being
absent an average of 6.5 days the last calendar year
(Table 26), given an average of 10 teachers per
school, this absence-rate represents 65 teacher-
days per school year. The teacher roster indicated
that 75 percent of teaching staff were on the school
grounds, on average, at the time of the interview
(no difference between type 1 and 2 schools)3 with
17.5 percent of teachers absent due to non-official
or authorized reasons. Given that the official school
year represents X days, teachers are absent
approximately X percent of the school year. Figure 4
displays these different measures of teacher
absence for each district. About 80 percent of all
teachers usually always inform the head teacher of
their absence, the remainder either seldom or
never inform of their absence (Table 17). Teachers
in Type 2 schools tend to take more partial days of
absence and ODL teachers in these schools are
more likely to always inform the head teacher of
their absence.
From the head teachers perspective, the most
common reason for a teacher’s absence is poor
3 It is difficult to ascertain which measure of teacher
attendance is most precise. Arguably, the percentage of staff registered as present in the staff roster on the day of the school visit would be least vulnerable to biases from self-reported figures from the head teacher or teachers.
health (60 percent of head teachers indicated
health as the primary reason), followed by personal
engagements (18 percent) and travel on ministry
business (less than 5 percent) (Table 18). ODL
teachers in type 2 schools were more likely to be
absent for health reasons and less likely to be
absent because the school is too far from home
compared to teachers in type 1 schools. Teacher
perspectives on attendance are presented in Table
26 and reinforce the head-teacher perspective:
when interviewed, teachers reported poor health,
personal engagements and official teaching related
duties as the most common for a school absence
and admitted to having been 10 minutes late to
class between one and two times in the week
before the interviews (Table 24).
Figure 4 Three measures of teacher absence, by district
3786
24
6572
19
5469
16
11466
12
7662
11
6655
15
9251
19
7648
22
7744
29
5542
21
7428
16
5128
9.7
6818
8.9
791514
44
[% / Teacher-hours]
0 25 50 75 100 125
Dowa
Mchinji
Dedza
Thyolo
Salima
Phalombe
Mangochi
Lilongwe
Zomba
Chikhwawa
Ntcheu
Nsanje
Mulanje
Machinga
Nkhatabay
Percentage of staff not presentduring day of interview [Teacher Roster]
Teacher-days of absence [Head teacher interview]
Teacher-days of absence [Teacher interviews]
9
CLASSROOM SIZE, ORGANIZATION & RESOURCES
Detailed characteristics of classroom activities as
well as teacher and student behavior were collected
through classroom observations of 1,550 teachers
teaching standards 3 through 6. Classes averaged 35
minutes each (no difference between type 1 and 2
schools), in 70 percent of classes, the subject being
taught was English or Math (Table 19). Other
observed subjects included Chichewa (13 percent),
agriculture (6 percent) and environmental science
(5 percent). Classes in both type 1 and 2 schools
held approximately 70 students, (on average 23
percent of students registered were not in
attendance). Approximately one in three students
had with them a Math, English or Chichewa
textbook, while close to 90 percent had an exercise
book. Only one in three students had access to a
desk and chair, meaning that close to two thirds of
the students were standing. In most cases, male
and female students were seated together (in 30
percent of the classrooms visited, boys and girls
were separated). Almost all classrooms had a
chalkboard, 60 percent had a table for the teacher,
78 percent had a chair for the teacher and about
one in three classrooms had a locker or cupboard
for storage (Table 20). Over 90 percent of the
teachers had at their disposal a teacher guide (for
math, English and Chichewa) as well as copies of
pupil textbooks for these subjects. Less than half of
the classrooms had other reference books to draw
from for instructional purposes.
TEACHERS: BACKGROUND, INCENTIVES,
SUPPORT & MOTIVATION
This section takes a closer look at data obtained
from interviews and classroom observations among
standard 3 through 6 teachers across the 419
visited schools, making comparisons between
teachers with different types of training.
About two thirds of the teachers interviewed are
male, average 30 years of age, have 2.6 years of
experience in their current school of employment,
5.4 years of experience overall and have previously
taught at about 2 schools. Approximately 90
percent completed upper secondary, with the
majority of the rest having at least completed lower
secondary. About one third of the teachers
interviewed are student ODL teachers on temporary
contract. On average, ODL teachers are 5 years
younger than the sample average, twice as likely to
be female than the most experienced teachers
(those having graduated from older training
programs that were trained neither through
MATEP, MIITEP and other programs) have about 1.4
years of teaching experience and most all of them
completed upper secondary (this was a
requirement of ODL selection). Teachers trained
through MASTEP, MIITEP are the oldest (averaging
42 years), almost all male (80 percent), on
permanent teaching contract, are less likely
(compared to IPTE and ODL teachers) to have
completed upper secondary and have 17 years of
teaching experience overall (Table 22).
About 80 percent of teachers teach only one
standard. The predominant reasons for teaching
multiple standards is to accommodate subject
teaching and because the school has a double shift.
Only 5 percent of ODL teachers teach more than
one standard. On average, teachers cover 35
periods in a week (or 7 per day); ODL teachers cover
an average of 30 periods per week (or 6 per day).
Over half of all teachers teach remedial classes and
the vast majority teaches independently with fewer
than 15 co-teaching some or all their classes (Table
24).
PLACE OF BIRTH, RESIDENCE & MEANS OF
TRANSPORT
Among trained teachers, those trained through ODL
were the most likely to have been born in the zone
10
or community where the school is located (42.7
percent of ODL teachers were born in the same
zone or community as the school compared to 5.6
percent of IPTE teachers and 22.5 percent of
teachers with other credentials) (Table 23). IPTE
teachers were most likely to live in the same
community as the school (77 percent) and most
likely to walk to school presumably because they
are more likely to live on faculty housing close to
the school (on average, IPTE teachers live 1.6km
away from school). ODL teachers on the other hand,
have the option of living at their own home or with
family (on average, ODL teachers live 2.6 km from
school). After walking (71 percent of all teachers
use this transportation to get to or from school), the
second most common form of transportation is by
bike (26 percent of teachers). These characteristics
point to the success of the ODL program in
recruiting local teachers.
TRAINING CONTENT, RELEVANCE AND
PERCEPTION OF QUALITY
At the time of the baseline data collection, ODL
teachers had an average of 1 year of completed
training, IPTE teachers and those having gone
through other programs had an average of 2 years
of completed training (Table 25). IPTE teachers had
the most favorable perception of their training
program (although this must take into account the
fact that ODL student teachers have not completed
the full course of training) with 91 percent
describing the program as “very good” or “good”,
compared to 69 percent of ODL teachers and 77.7
percent of teachers with other training credentials.
The fact that one in three ODL teachers described
the training quality as “average” potentially signals
the need to understand this sentiment and make
adjustments to the curricula accordingly. In regards
to relevance and applicability, almost all ODL
teachers (as well as IPTE teachers) expressed that
they were able to apply the training in practice.
Compared to IPTE teachers (as well as teachers
from other training programs) ODL teachers were
less likely to have studied educational psychology,
theories of schooling and strategies for students
with behavioral or emotional problems but this may
just reflect the fact that some ODL teachers had
not, at the time of the survey, been given the
associated coursework or tutorials for these
concepts. In terms of self-perceived ability or skills,
ODL teachers were less able to: “often work with
children from poor/disadvantaged backgrounds”4,
“often develop strategies to reflect upon teaching
effectiveness” and “develop strategies to identify
learning needs”. Across all teachers, the skill with
the biggest gap in terms of ability and practice is
developing strategies or curricula for pupils with
learning disabilities – only 20 percent of teachers
were often able to implement this skill in the
classroom.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE
As mentioned previously, teachers performed
better on items testing English knowledge (on
average answering 81 percent of the test items
correctly) than on items testing Math knowledge
(on average answering 60 percent of the test items
correctly) (Table 10). Relative to IPTE and other
formally trained teachers, ODL teachers performed
about 2 percentage points worse on English items,
(answering 79.6 percent correctly on English) and 6
percentage points worse (compared to IPTE) on
Math (answering 57.9 percent correctly on Math).
TEACHER ATTENDANCE
While teacher absence was touched upon in the
first section of this report, findings from attendance
related questions in the teacher interviews are
summarized in Table 26 by type of training
4 In practice, this question was problematic. Teachers
often had a hard time drawing a comparison particularly if their teaching experience was limited to their own community (i.e. poor/disadvantaged in comparison to what?)
11
program. With 5 total days of absence in the last
calendar year, ODL teachers reported fewer days of
absence then IPTE teachers (6.8 days) and other
teachers (8.3 days) – although this may partially
reflect their timing in terms of entry to the school
and not having been present for the full school
year. In almost all cases (94 percent), absences
were reportedly covered by a replacement teacher.
There were no major differences across teacher
training in terms of underlying reasons for absence,
which in over half of the cases, was due to sickness.
SALARY
Salary details for ODL, IPTE and teachers trained
through other programs is provided in Table 27.
Compensation is closely associated with experience
- ODL student teachers earn a base salary averaging
80,000 KW, IPTE teachers earn 172,700 KW,
teachers trained through MIITEP, MASTEP and
other programs earn 281,900 KW and teachers
without training earn 45,990 KW. The most
common form of supplementary income is from a
remote and hardship allowance that averages
18,900 KW for ODL teachers, 24,050 KW for IPTE
teachers and 27,700 KW for other trained teachers.
Other, less prevalent sources of supplementary
income include compensation for double shift;
remedial, enrichment or part time teaching, good
teaching awards, community contributions for
volunteer teachers and gifts from parents. Taking
into account all sources of income, average earnings
for ODL, IPTE and other trained teacher is 84,000,
190,000 and 309,000 KW. The returns to teacher
experience and education are depicted in Figure 8.
A simple multivariate linear regression quantifies
the returns to experience at 8,600 KW for each
additional year of experience (controlling for years
of training); and close to 50,000 KW for each
additional year of training (controlling for years of
experience). If squared terms are included for
experience and years of training in the model, there
is statistical evidence that the returns on training
are diminishing (i.e. the marginal benefit of an
additional year of training when you have a lot of
training is less than the marginal benefit of training
when you have no training) but that returns on
experience are constant.
Figure 4 displays the total number of days salary
payments were delayed, and the number of days
needed to collect payments once available.
Across the entire sample of interviewed teachers,
65 percent had experienced a delay in the payment
of their salary in the calendar year prior to the
interview– this was fairly consistent across groups
defined by type of training falling in the range of 55
percent (for ODL teachers) to 70-75 percent (for
IPTE and other trained teachers), but ranged
substantially across districts: Almost all of the
teachers interviewed in Dowa district (99 %) had
Figure 5 Delays in salary payment by district
66 2.3
63 3.2
44 2.8
36 4.7
32 2.1
29 2.1
29 2.9
27 4.2
22 2.1
18 2
14 2.2
14 2.9
10 3.2
9.3 2.8
7.8 2.9
7.52.8
[Days]
0 20 40 60 80
Mangochi (78%)
Zomba (58%)
Mulanje (70%)
Nkhatabay (74%)
Lilongwe (76%)
Dowa (99%)
All Districts (65%)
Ntcheu (86%)
Dedza (84%)
Machinga (42%)
Chikhwawa (39%)
Salima (91%)
Mchinji (45%)
Nsanje (42%)
Phalombe (44%)
Thyolo (56%)*
Average number of days salary payment is delayed
Average number of days required to collect salary
* The percentage next to the district name refers to the percentageof interviewed teachers who experienced a delay in payment
12
experienced a delay, while in Chikhwawa, only 39
percent had experienced a delay. In terms of days
of delay, among the ODL teachers that experienced
a delay, the average waiting time was 54 days –
almost twice the number of days of delay for IPTE
teachers (23 days) and more than five times the
delay for more experienced teachers from other
trained programs (9 days) (Table 27). Teachers in
Mangochi district waited the most for salary
payments (66 days) while those in Thyolo waited
the least (7.5 days). Overall, 44 percent of
interviewed teachers cited having to always or
sometimes take time to collect salaries, which
implied taking an average of 3 days off during the
academic year.
PEER SUPPORT, MENTORING & SUPERVISION
Opportunities for peer support are structured
through informal and formal channels (such as
regularly scheduled meetings). Informal
opportunities for support could occur before
school, after school or in-between classes. Teacher
interviews suggest that these encounters are
infrequent with conversations discussing strategies
for teaching specific concepts occurring only one
time a week on average (Table 28). ODL teachers
engage more with other teachers (1.4 conversations
per week with peers to discuss pedagogy)
compared to more experienced teachers.
Observing lessons is another means through which
teachers can support each other and exchange
ideas, on average this occurs once every two weeks.
Close to fifty percent of teachers meet prior to
assembly with other teachers. More formal
encounters happen through staff meetings which
occur an average of 3 times per year and last an
average of two hours. These meetings tend to focus
on teacher and student absenteeism, school
incidents and student performance (Table 28).
The fact that on-site mentoring is a significant
component of the ODL program is reflected in the
teacher interview. Close to 80 percent of ODL
teachers receive mentoring from another teacher in
the school, compared to 20.3 percent of IPTE
teachers and 16.8 percent of teachers with other
training credentials (Table 34). A large share of
teachers without any formal training (57 percent)
also receives mentoring. Among the teachers that
receive mentorship, in two out of three cases the
mentor is assigned by the head teacher and in the
remainder the mentor is selected by the Primary
Education Advisor (PEA). Close to half the ODL
teachers thought that not enough time was spent
on mentoring and that the quality was average. To
improve the quality of mentoring, ODL and other
teachers alike primarily suggested providing training
programs for mentors.
Teacher supervision is carried out mainly by the
Primary Education Advisor (PEA) and the head
teacher (75 and 54 percent of all teachers cited the
PEA and head teacher, respectively, when asked
who supervised their teaching). The Inspectorate,
District Education Manager’s (DEM) office and the
community (for example the PTA) played secondary
supervisory roles, with less than 15 percent of
teachers citing these entities when asked about
supervision (Table 29 - Table 33). On average, head
teachers supervised teachers 5 times per year, with
ODL teachers receiving supervision at a higher
frequency (5.5 times per year) than IPTE (3.8 times
per year) and other more experienced teachers (4.6
times per year). Overall, teachers had a favorable
opinion of the quality of the head teacher’s
feedback, with approximately 3 in 4 teachers citing
that the feedback was very useful. PEA supervision,
by comparison is less frequent, averaging 2.3 times
per year but was also highly regarded by teachers
with 79 percent citing that PEA feedback was very
useful. Feedback given by both the head teacher
and PEA tended to focus on lesson content,
13
teaching methods and use of teaching and learning
materials (Table 29 and Table 31).
SATISFACTION & MOTIVATION
When asked whether they wanted to work at their
current school of employment, 45 percent of
teachers in the sample responded affirmatively,
citing proximity to home, proximity to a trading
center and the school’s good reputation as primary
reasons (Table 35). Interestingly, ODL teachers were
close to twice as likely as IPTE teachers to have
desired their current placement (citing proximity to
home as the primary reason) indicating that one
important outcome of the ODL program, may be
that it produces student teachers with a
comparatively better attitude and satisfaction
regarding their placement. That said, close to half of
ODL teachers (47 percent) responded as not having
initially wanted their current school placement,
citing distance from home, distance from a trading
center, desire to be posted in a district other than
the home district and the lack of teacher housing as
primary reasons. When asked whether teaching
was their first choice profession-wise, about half of
teachers responded affirmatively (Table 36).
Interestingly, the highest proportion of teachers
affirming that teaching was their first choice, where
those without formal training. ODL teachers were
about 30 percent more likely to affirm that teaching
was their first choice compared to IPTE teacher
(Table 35). When asked about the primary reason
for becoming a teacher, the most common
response (given by 45 percent of all teachers)
alluded to the importance that education has for
society at large, the second most common response
was an enjoyment of teaching. About one in ten
teachers cited job security and stability as a primary
reason for joining the teaching profession and
among teachers without formal training, close to 6
percent cited an inability to pursue other studies as
a primary reason. When asked why they remain in
teaching, about 50 percent of teachers responded
that they enjoy teaching and 25 percent responded
that teaching is important for society. Interestingly,
the social motivation for teaching seems to diminish
with experience.
When asked about the most unsatisfying aspect of
teaching, two in three teachers cited low pay, 11
percent cited excessive workload, 8 percent cited
low recognition and 4.5 percent cited few
opportunities for professional development (Table
36). ODL teachers were less likely to cite low pay
and more likely to cite excessive workload
compared to other teachers. In terms of overall
levels of satisfaction, teachers without formal
training seemed to be happiest; with 36 percent
citing they were very satisfied, followed by ODL
teachers (30 percent were very satisfied). Pockets
of dissatisfaction were highest among IPTE and
other experienced teachers where close to one in
five teachers expressed that they were not very
satisfied or very unsatisfied with teaching.
Factors that were very important to workplace
satisfaction among more than 70 percent of the
teachers interviewed were clustered around
workplace conditions (availability of classroom
supplies and teacher housing), financial incentives
(level and timeliness of salary payments) and
opportunities for professional growth (promotion
and training opportunities) (Table 37). Interestingly,
factors that were less frequently cited as very
important were the public’s perception of the
status of teachers, distance to school and the
location of school (urban, rural, remote).
THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
STANDARDS
ODL teachers are more likely than IPTE teachers and
others to be assigned to standard 3 and 4
classrooms (approximately 65 percent of all ODL
14
teachers are assigned to standards 3 and 4
compared to 41.6 percent of all IPTE teachers)
(Table 38). The distribution of subjects taught is
fairly even across teachers with formal training,
although a lower percentage of IPTE teachers teach
math as more are involved with more specialized
subjects such as agriculture and science. Since ODL
teachers are more likely to teach standards 3 and 4,
their class sizes tend to be higher (71 students) than
those taught by IPTE teachers (65 students).
LEARNER ATTENDANCE
Seventy-seven percent of learners registered for
class were absent the day the classroom was visited
by the interviewer (both girls and boys were equally
likely to be in attendance) (Table 38) -
approximately 2 more students are absent on
Friday compared to other days of the week (Table
38) In terms of tardiness, according to teachers,
about 7-9 students (6 percent of the class) arrive
late to class on a daily basis. Teachers also reported
that on average over the week between 1 and 2
student leaves 10 minutes early on a daily basis,
Friday is an exception however, when 3 students
leave early on average.
TEACHER BEHAVIOR
Interviews with teachers indicate that they take
attendance most days of the week (4.6 days per
week on average) taking 10.5 minutes on average to
complete this task (this likely explains to some
degree why a large proportion of class time at the
beginning of class was coded is “non-instructional
activity” by classroom observers as noted in the
following section on the classroom time on task).
Close to 80 percent of all teacher always use
learners textbooks in class, but far fewer (23
percent) cited that they always use teacher guides.
One in five teachers stated that school policy does
not allow students to take their textbooks home,
about half of the teachers stated that this is allowed
for all subjects and close to one in three stated that
this is allowed only for some subjects.
Records taken during observations of classroom
activities by enumerators indicate that one in ten
teachers is not present during the entire class,
averaging 3 minutes of absence – it was not clear
from the data what prompted these classroom exits
(Table 40). During class, approximately one in three
teachers used teaching resources, close to two
thirds used textbooks and almost all teachers
engaged the students with questions. The majority
of teachers (77.9 percent) posed these questions in
such a way as to be answered individually.
Enumerators perceived that on the whole (in over
90 percent of the observations) questions were not
biased towards boys or girls given the gender ratio
of the class.
As noted by classroom observers, teachers
frequently gave positive feedback (82 percent of
teachers gave positive feedback more than once,
ODL and IPTE teachers gave positive feedback more
frequently than other formally trained teachers)
(Table 41) and frequently gave feedback to correct a
mistake (71 percent of all teachers gave this type of
feedback more than once). Teachers less commonly
gave feedback to scold a mistake (close to one in
four teachers did this more than once with ODL
teachers being more likely to do this than more
experienced teachers) and less commonly
encouraged student opinion (50 percent of teachers
encouraged more than once). Interestingly close to
one in three teachers never asked student to carry
out a task during the course of class, suggesting that
students in these classrooms play more of a passive
than active role in their learning. Approximately two
in three teachers only use the chalkboard
themselves, while the remainder actively involve
students in chalkboard activities. The chalkboard is
primarily and frequently used by teachers to write
lessons and questions for learners to copy,
15
summarize lessons and provide examples. However,
about one third of the teachers observed never
used the chalkboard for any of the aforementioned
activities. Less than one percent of the teachers
observed used corporal punishment on learners and
between 4 and 5 percent of the teachers observed
assigned or collected homework during the class
(Table 41). During interviews, teachers reported
assigning homework 2.4 times per week (Given this
rate of homework assignment - the number of
classrooms in which homework assignment was
observed seems low suggesting that teachers may
overstate the amount of homework they assign,
unless the day of the interview and classroom
observations fell systematically on a day in which
teacher or school policy dictated that no homework
be assigned).
STUDENT BEHAVIOR & ENGAGEMENT
When interviewed, teachers expressed that close to
one in three students was highly motivated to do
well in class while close to two thirds had only a
medium desire to do well in class. Very few
teachers cited low or very low motivation among
students to do well in class (about 7 percent
overall). These views did not vary by teacher
training type or experience (Table 39).
Despite the high frequency of questions asked by
the teachers to the students, in less than 2 percent
of classes did students ask questions to the teachers
- when this happened, however, teacher responses
were overwhelmingly supportive (Table 40).
TIME ON TASK
Total class time averaged between 35 and 36
minutes (ranging from a minimum of 13 minutes to
a maximum of 40 minutes). Student tasks that
absorbed significant amounts of class time included
receiving instructions or demonstrations from the
teacher (18 percent of total class time or 6.2
minutes), individual work (17.7 percent of class time
or 6.1 minutes) , group work (12.7 percent of class
Figure 6 Anatomy of a class: distribution of tasks every 30 seconds
Receiving instructions/demonstration
No instructional activity
Group work
Individual or written seat work
Asking or answering questions
Receiving questions or answers
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40[Minutes]
20%
40%
60%
80%
[Cla
ssro
om
s(%
)]
Class ended
Break
No instructional activity
Disrupting class or being disciplined
Taking exam
Kinesthetic
Group work
Discussion (whole class)
Individual/written seat work
Copying (from chalk board)
Reading in silence
Reading aloud
Receiving assignment
Receiving question(s) or answer(s)
Asking or Answering questions
Recitation/Rote Learning/Practice Drill
Listening to teacher read
Receiving instructions/demonstration
16
time or 4.4 minutes) and receiving or answering
questions (20 percent of class time or 17 minutes).
Close to 10 percent of class time (or 3.5 minutes)
was not spent on any instructional activity (Table
42).
The distribution of classroom activities performed
by students for every 30 seconds of class time is
displayed in Figure 6 showing how classroom tasks
evolve over time on average. In the opening
minutes of each class, virtually all time is used by
the teacher giving instructions or not used for any
instructional activity (presumably because students
arrive at different times, find their seats, settle in
with their materials and attendance is taken). By
the fifth minute of class, there is a greater
frequency of exchange between students and
teachers in the form of questions asked and
answered – the intensity of activity on asking
questions and receiving answers (representing
approximately 20 percent of class activity at any
moment) is fairly constant over the duration of the
class suggesting that learners – or a subset of
learners - are continuously engaged. By minute 10
class activities are increasingly characterized by
learner work (reading, copying, writing or working
in groups) with group work tending to precede
individual work. Between minutes 20 and 30
approximately 50 percent of all class activity is
allocated to individual or group work. Towards the
end of the first half hour of class, classes begin to
finish, with a spike of classes ending at minute 35
and minute 40. While the distribution of time spent
on no instructional activity is centered at the very
beginning of class, no instructional activity persists
beyond the first 10 minutes. Virtually no time was
consumed by students disrupting class or being
disciplined – which likely reflects in part the effect
the presence an observer had on the behavior of
students.
Interestingly, there were no major differences in
the overall distribution of how teachers used
classroom time, with a couple of exceptions:
Students in both ODL and IPTE teachers spent less
classroom time doing individual work at their seats
compared to other formally trained teachers,
allocating this time instead to group work and more
time asking or answering questions (Table 42).
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME PER YEAR
To gauge the quantity of instruction students
receive, the expected time of instruction per year is
computed (Equation 1) using the official number of
days in the school year the average number of
periods of instruction given by teachers per day ,
the instructional time per period (the average
duration of class minus time spent on no
instructional activity), the probability a student is in
attendance (estimated using the average
percentage of students registered who attended
class during class observations) and the probability
a teacher is present (estimated as 1 minus
the average proportion of total days teachers
reported being absent in the last calendar year).
Equation 1 Expected days of instruction
[ ]
For the overall sample of observed schools,
teachers taught 7 periods per day providing total
instructional time of 32 minutes per period (or 0.53
hours). In addition, the observed probability of
student attendance was 0.774 and the probability
of teacher attendance was 0.968 (based on
reported days missed by teachers). Given these
parameters and an official school year of 200 days,
on average learners in standards 3 through 6
receive 562 hours of instruction per year. If student
and teacher attendance was 100 percent and
classes did not lose any time on non-instructional
activity (from early dismissal or class disruption),
17
the number of hours of instruction would be 933
hours per student per year. In other words, only 60
percent of potential instructional time is used and
40 percent is “lost” to system inefficiencies.
Figure 7 displays the expected number of
instructional hours received per student per year by
each district. Out of the 15 districts in the sample,
students in Lilongwe, receive on average, the
smallest number of hours of instruction per year
(504 hours) and those in Nkhata bay the largest
number (683 hours). Nitcheu and Lilongwe districts
lose the largest number of in-class hours to non-
instructional activity (134 and 124 hours,
respectively) while Dowa and Dedza lose the largest
number of hours to student absence (239 and 200
hours, respectively). Instructional hours lost to
teacher absence is highest in Nkhata Bay (36 hours)
and Thyolo (35 hours) (it is important to note that
the calculation for instructional hours lost to
teacher absence, does not take into account the
likelihood that the lesson is covered by another,
equally qualified teacher).
DETERMINANTS OF STUDENT
PERFORMANCE
As mentioned previously, one objective of this
baseline study is to assess linkages between student
learning outcomes and student, teacher and school
characteristics. Rather than measure causal linkages
(which will be assessed in future reports) the
objective here is to undertake a preliminary analysis
using the baseline data to identify factors that are
associated with student learning outcomes. This
analysis draws from data collected in the learning
assessments (standardized tests measuring
understanding of core math and English
competencies in standards 3 through 6), school
characteristics from the head teacher interview,
Figure 7 Expected number of instructional hours per student per year, by district
683 96 169 36
637 77 239 22
636 40 151 21
607 99 171 23
583 78 179 33
572 55 200 24
567 35 163 16
562 82 170 24
560 39 187 25
556 115 142 17
547 104 159 35
530 62 167 25
527 112 180 25
522 134 141 23
514 75 145 19
504 124 166 25
[Hours]
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Nkhatabay
Dowa
Chikhwawa
Mulanje
Salima
Dedza
Nsanje
All Districts
Machinga
Phalombe
Thyolo
Mchinji
Mangochi
Ntcheu
Zomba
Lilongwe
instruction
in-class time not used on instruction
instruction time lost to student absence
instruction time lost to teacher absence
Expected hours per student per year of:
18
teacher characteristics from the teacher interviews
and classroom characteristics from the classroom
observations. Student outcomes were standardized
by using the standard specific mean and standard
deviation of the percentage of correct answers on
math and English tests.
Student outcomes are modeled using a multivariate
linear regression. When analyzing student data in a
setting where students are grouped in classrooms
and schools, it is important to take into account the
possibility that the error term is not independent
across individuals. For example, students in the
same classroom may have systematic similarities or
be subjected to a common shock (such as the
repeated absence of their teacher) meaning that
their outcomes would be correlated. To take this
feature of the data into account, clustered standard
errors are used in the regression framework.
Overall, the analysis draws on data from 28,671
unique students, 1,431 unique teachers and 419
unique schools. Missing values among explanatory
variables used in the model is not imputed.
The regression results for English and Math
outcomes are displayed in Table 43 and Table 44.
Four regression models for each outcome is used:
the first incorporates only student-level
characteristics, each subsequent model adds
teacher characteristics, classroom activity
characteristics and school characteristics as
explanatory variables. Several student-level
characteristics are strong predictors of English
proficiency (with an effect size between 0.14 and
0.33 standard deviations): all else equal, male
students outperformed female students; students
who were age appropriate for their standard at the
time of the test outperformed students who were
overage and students with more siblings performed
worse than students with fewer siblings. Students
who were repeating the same standard
outperformed those who were at the expected
standard. Students dropping or advancing a
standard are particularly vulnerable – scoring 0.3
standard deviations lower on average compared
other students.
Few teacher characteristics were strongly
associated with English proficiency. Students whose
teachers receive mentoring from other teachers
tended to score lower than students whose
teachers did not receive mentoring. This result likely
captures the effect that mentorship resources are
allocated to the weakest teachers. While teachers
subject-specific knowledge (as measured by their
scores on the Math and English assessments) was
not associated with their students’ English
proficiency, a teacher’s score on the math test was
associated with their students’ math proficiency,
suggesting that the teacher’s command of key math
concepts enables more effective math learning in
math.
Larger classes were associated with lower student
performance (in both English and Math) and
additional minutes spent on reading aloud were
associated with higher English proficiency. At the
school level, students in schools with larger pupil to
teacher ratios performed worse than students in
schools with smaller pupil to teacher ratios and
students in government-run schools also performed
worse than students in faith based or private for
profit schools, all else equal.
19
TABLES ANNEX
Table 7 Student enrollment
Total enrollment: boys (#)
Total enrollment: girls (#)
Total school enrollment (#)
Girls enrolled (%)
Boys enrolled (%)
Enrollment in standard 1 (%)
Enrollment in standard 2 (%)
Enrollment in standard 3 (%)
Enrollment in standard 4 (%)
Enrollment in standard 5 (%)
Enrollment in standard 6 (%)
Enrollment in standard 7 (%)
Enrollment in standard 8 (%)
213
213
213
210
210
210
210
210
210
203
189
182
167
483.3
496.3
979.5
50.7
49.3
25.1
17.8
16.7
12.9
10.5
8.1
6.3
5.6
212
212
212
209
209
209
209
209
208
196
186
175
168
452.9
468.8
921.7
50.8
49.2
25.5
18.2
17.3
13.9
10.4
8.1
6.3
5.6
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(***)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
Table 5 General school characteristics
Table 6 General staff characteristics
Government school (%)
Private for profit school (%)
Faith based school (%)
Rural School (%)
Semi-urban school (%)
Pupil to classroom ratio
Double shift (%)
210
210
210
210
210
207
210
37.6
0.5
61.9
99.0
1.0
133.1
17.6
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
37.8
0.0
62.2
98.6
1.4
130.5
13.9
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means, significance levels:
(***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 2/1/2012
Teaching staff & assistants (#)
Non teaching staff (#)
Vacant teaching positions (#)
Total teaching positions (#)
Vacant teaching positions (%)
Pupil to teacher ratio
210
210
208
208
208
210
11.1
0.5
4.9
16.5
26.4
91.6
209
209
208
208
208
209
10.4
0.5
4.2
15.0
25.3
90.5
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means, significance levels:
(***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 2/1/2012
20
Table 8 Student characteristics, by intervention group
Table 9 Student & teacher proficiency, by intervention group
Male student (%)
Female student (%)
Student's age (years)
Student is over-age for standard (%)
Student is age appropriate for standard (%)
Student is under-age for standard (%)
Number of student siblings (#)
Student speaks english at home (%)
Student speaks chichewa at home (%)
Student speaks other language at home (%)
Class size (#)
Student repeating same standard (%)
Student fell a standard(s) (%)
Student in expected standard (%)
Student advanced a standard(s) (%)
Standard 3 (%)
Standard 4 (%)
Standard 5 (%)
Standard 6 (%)
49.0
50.6
12.3
91.6
8.4
0.0
5.1
0.7
89.0
10.2
70.3
24.7
2.3
72.3
0.8
25.0
26.1
24.0
24.9
48.0
51.8
12.3
92.0
8.0
0.0
5.1
0.8
87.4
11.8
69.7
24.6
2.0
72.7
0.7
25.7
26.6
24.1
23.5
(*)
(**)
(n)
(n)
(n)
NA
(*)
(n)
(***)
(***)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(***)
48.5
51.2
12.3
91.8
8.2
0.0
5.1
0.8
88.2
11.0
70.0
24.6
2.2
72.5
0.8
25.4
26.4
24.0
24.2
Type
All Diff?2 2 1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: stu_p.dta Date generated: 1/27/2012
Standard 3: English test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 3: Math test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 3: All test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 4: English test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 4: Math test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 4: All test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 5: English test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 5: Math test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 5: All test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 6: English test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 6: Math test items answered correctly (%)
Standard 6: All test items answered correctly (%)
Teachers: English test items answered correctly (%)
Teachers: Math test items answered correctly (%)
Teachers: All test items answered correctly (%)
4078
4077
4078
4121
4121
4121
3791
3791
3791
3698
3698
3698
768
768
768
12.7
15.5
13.4
20.9
29.5
22.9
26.8
33.1
28.3
35.5
30.1
34.2
81.0
60.0
76.0
4079
4079
4079
4049
4049
4049
3744
3744
3744
3507
3507
3507
767
767
767
11.8
14.9
12.6
20.6
29.8
22.8
26.5
32.8
28.0
35.1
29.7
33.8
80.8
59.1
75.6
(***)
(*)
(***)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: std3_tst.dta std4_tst.dta std5_tst.dta std6_tst.dta tete_tst.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
21
Table 10 Teacher proficiency, by training type
Table 11 Staff characteristics
Teachers: English test items answered correctly (%)
Teachers: Math test items answered correctly (%)
Teachers: All test items answered correctly (%)
Teachers: English z-score
Teachers: Math z-score
Teachers: All items z-score
452
452
452
452
452
452
79.6
57.9
74.4
-0.2
-0.1
-0.2
468
468
468
468
468
468
82.5
64.1
78.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
337
337
337
337
337
337
81.0
57.3
75.3
0.0
-0.2
-0.1
6
6
6
6
6
6
77.8
54.9
72.3
-0.5
-0.3
-0.5
1263
1263
1263
1263
1263
1263
81.0
60.0
76.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
All No Training Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values}
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tete_tst.dta Date generated: 2/2/2012
Staff size (#)
Female Staff (%)
Staff age
Position: Head Teacher (%)
Position: Teacher (%)
Position: Teacher Assistant (%)
Position: Student Teacher: ODL (%)
Position: Student Teacher: IPTE (%)
Education: primary complete (%)
Education: Lower secondary incomplete (%)
Education: Lower secondary complete (%)
Education: Upper secondary incomplete (%)
Education: Upper secondary complete (%)
Education: University diploma incomplete (%)
Training: None/unknown (%)
Training: MASTEP (%)
Training: MIITEP (%)
Training: 2 year (%)
Training: 1 year (%)
Training: IPTE cohort 1 (%)
Training: IPTE cohort 2 (%)
Training: IPTE Cohort 3 (%)
Training: IPTE Cohort 4 (%)
Training: IPTE Cohort 5 (%)
Training: ODL (%)
Staff present during day of interview (%)
213
2414
2383
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2405
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2403
2414
11.3
35.3
34.4
8.9
70.9
3.3
14.8
2.0
0.4
0.0
19.0
1.0
79.5
0.1
5.9
3.1
28.1
12.6
6.8
3.7
6.4
14.4
2.6
1.9
14.5
75.4
212
2275
2266
2271
2271
2271
2271
2271
2262
2262
2262
2262
2262
2262
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2267
2275
10.7
32.8
34.3
9.4
68.9
2.4
16.4
2.8
0.6
0.1
19.2
1.1
79.0
0.0
5.5
2.7
26.2
13.5
6.9
4.5
6.3
13.4
1.9
2.6
16.5
76.6
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: tero.dta Date generated: 1/19/2012
22
Table 12 School infrastructure: access to electricity, water & sanitation
Access to electricity (%)
No classroom has access to electricity (%)
All classrooms have access to electricity (%)
Some classrooms have access to electricity (%)
Hours of electricity
Access to water (%)
Water source: borehole (%)
Water source: pipe (%)
Water source: other (%)
Access to safe drinking water (%)
Time to drinking water source (Hrs.)
Toilets: None (%)
Toilets: Open facilities, no gender separation (%)
Toilets: Open facilities, gender separation (%)
Toilets: Restricted facilities, no gender separation (%)
Toilets: Restricted facilities, gender separation (%)
Total toilets (#)
Total usable toilets (#)
Usable toilets (%)
Handwashing: Other (%)
Handwashing: None (%)
Handwashing: Bucket (%)
Handwashing: Borehole (%)
Handwashing: Piped water/tap (%)
210
12
12
12
9
210
208
208
208
210
207
210
210
210
210
210
213
213
208
210
210
210
210
210
5.7
25.0
50.0
25.0
16.8
91.4
76.4
8.7
14.9
87.6
0.1
1.0
4.3
85.2
1.0
8.6
11.6
11.0
95.2
5.7
33.8
34.3
18.1
8.1
209
10
10
10
10
209
205
205
205
209
208
209
209
209
209
209
212
212
208
209
209
209
209
209
4.8
0.0
70.0
30.0
16.0
87.6
72.2
11.7
15.6
84.2
0.2
0.5
3.8
82.3
1.4
12.0
11.2
10.5
94.2
4.8
31.1
36.8
19.6
7.7
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/20/2012
23
Table 13 School infrastructure: facility characteristics
Classrooms: All (#)
Non-classrooms: All (#)
Make-shift classrooms: All (#)
Computer rooms: All (#)
Libraries: All (#)
Staff rooms: All (#)
Head-office: All (#)
Store-rooms: All (#)
Cafeteria: All (#)
Kitchens: All (#)
Dormitories: All (#)
Staff housing: All (#)
Classrooms: Usable year round (#)
Non-classrooms: Usable year round (#)
Make-shift classrooms: Usable year round (#)
Computer rooms: Usable year round (#)
Libraries: Usable year round (#)
Staff rooms: Usable year round (#)
Head-office: Usable year round (#)
Store-rooms: Usable year round (#)
Cafeteria: Usable year round (#)
Kitchens: Usable year round (#)
Dormitories: Usable year round (#)
Staff housing: Usable year round (#)
Total rooms (#)
Total rooms usable year-round (#)
Rooms usable year-round (%)
210
210
210
209
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
207
133
147
95
110
142
159
145
96
118
97
198
213
213
210
8.0
0.4
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.1
4.2
7.7
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.2
4.1
15.6
14.1
88.9
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
126
153
85
99
128
163
137
86
112
87
192
212
212
209
7.6
0.4
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
4.0
7.2
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.1
4.0
15.0
13.2
86.5
(n)
(n)
(n)
NA
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
NA
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means, significance levels:(***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 2/1/2012
24
Table 14 School resources: institutional financing
Additional financial or in-kind resources received (%)
Institutional financing: MoEST (%)
Institutional financing: DEM's office (%)
Institutional financing: NGO (%)
Institutional financing: International org.(%)
Institutional financing: School Commitee/PTA (%)
Institutional financing: Local Community (CBOs) (%)
Institutional financing: Private Donor (%)
Institutional financing: MoEST (KW)
Institutional financing: DEM's office (KW)
Institutional financing: NGO (KW)
Institutional financing: International org.(KW)
Institutional financing: School Commitee/PTA (KW)
Institutional financing: Local Community (CBOs) (KW)
Institutional financing: Private Donor (KW)
Institutional financing: Other (%)
Institutional financing: Other (KW)
Total value of institutional financing (KW)
207
82
82
81
82
81
82
82
21
14
12
11
14
1
7
82
18
81
39.6
26.8
17.1
16.0
13.4
17.3
1.2
8.5
384,359.3
41,935.7
129,083.3
122,181.8
58,398.6
111,000.0
213,300.0
22.0
2563264.0
742,124.4
205
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
27
14
17
12
14
4
8
88
9
88
42.4
30.7
15.9
19.3
13.6
15.9
4.5
9.1
628,408.8
67,535.7
112,118.1
569,839.2
50,758.6
31,500.0
78,687.5
10.2
2030021.6
527,192.4
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
NA
(n)
(**)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/20/2012
25
Table 15 School resources: in-kind contributions
In-kind financing: Textbooks (%)
In-kind financing: Textbooks (man-days)
In-kind financing: Teacher Guides (%)
In-kind financing: Teacher Guides (man-days)
In-kind financing: Exercise/ notebooks(%)
In-kind financing: Exercise/ notebooks (man-days)
In-kind financing: Displays (%)
In-kind financing: Displays (man-days)
In-kind financing: Stationary (%)
In-kind financing: Stationary (man-days)
In-kind financing: Food (%)
In-kind financing: Food (man-days)
In-kind financing: Labor(%)
In-kind financing: Labor (man-days)
In-kind resources: Other (%)
In-kind resources: Other (man-days)
Total value of in-kind contributions (man-days)
82
21
82
14
81
12
82
11
81
14
82
1
82
7
207
36
88
26.8
384,359.3
17.1
41,935.7
16.0
129,083.3
13.4
122,181.8
17.3
58,398.6
1.2
111,000.0
8.5
213,300.0
17.4
234.2
158,883.6
88
27
88
14
88
17
88
12
88
14
88
4
88
8
206
27
101
30.7
628,408.8
15.9
67,535.7
19.3
112,118.1
13.6
569,839.2
15.9
50,758.6
4.5
31,500.0
9.1
78,687.5
13.1
434.6
278,559.1
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
NA
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/20/2012
26
Table 16 School resources: parent contributions
Parents contribution: Pay PTA (%)
Parents contribution: PTA/School management (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay registration fee (%)
Parents contribution: Registration fee (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay for books (%)
Parents contribution: Books (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay for Feeding (%)
Parents contribution: Feeding (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay Developmnet fee (%)
Parents contribution: Developmnet fee (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay for Exam (%)
Parents contribution: Exam (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay teacher salary (%)
Parents contribution: Teacher Salary (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay for Sports (%)
Parents contribution: Sports (KW)
Parents contribution: Pay for other items (%)
Parents contribution: Other (KW)
Total value of parental contributions (KW)
208
58
208
4
210
0
203
7
201
76
206
97
210
34
210
8
210
188
203
27.9
47,249.5
1.9
130.0
0.0
.
3.4
17,725.6
37.8
47,659.6
47.1
18,216.4
16.2
20,014.0
3.8
5,191.3
10.5
0.0
44,217.7
207
60
209
0
208
0
204
14
204
70
205
88
207
37
208
8
209
192
202
29.0
30,753.7
0.0
.
0.0
.
6.9
18,847.1
34.3
36,937.1
42.9
13,728.0
17.9
32,515.1
3.8
16,212.5
8.1
0.0
35,819.3
(n)
(*)
(**)
NA
NA
NA
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(*)
(n)
NA
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/24/2012
27
Table 17 Teacher attendance
Log of teachers's attendance (%)
Able to see teacher attendance log (%)
Full teacher-days of absence
Partial teacher-days of absence
ODL teachers: Always inform of absence (%)
ODL teachers: Usually inform of absence (%)
ODL teachers: Seldom inform of absence (%)
ODL teachers: Never inform of absence (%)
IPTE teachers: Always inform of absence (%)
IPTE teachers: Usually inform of absence (%)
IPTE teachers: Seldom inform of absence (%)
IPTE teachers: Never inform of absence (%)
All teachers: Always inform of absence (%)
All teachers: Usually inform of absence (%)
All teachers: Seldom inform of absence (%)
All teachers: Never inform of absence (%)
210
160
91
77
197
197
197
197
194
194
194
194
208
208
208
208
76.2
59.4
38.0
1.8
52.8
31.5
14.7
1.0
55.7
27.3
14.4
2.6
41.3
42.8
14.4
1.4
209
158
98
81
198
198
198
198
196
196
196
196
206
206
206
206
75.6
63.3
44.5
9.5
63.1
21.2
14.6
1.0
51.5
31.1
15.8
1.5
41.7
37.4
19.4
1.5
(n)
(n)
(n)
(**)
(**)
(**)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/20/2012
28
Table 18 Reasons for teacher absence
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Health (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Health (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Health (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Personal engagements (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Personal engagements (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Personal engagements (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Travel on ministry business (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Travel on ministry business (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Travel on ministry business (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Private tutoring (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Private tutoring (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Private tutoring (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Agricultural work (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Agricultural work (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Agricultural work (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Another job (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Another job (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Another job (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: School too far from home (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: School too far from home (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: School too far from home (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Poor transport/road connections (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Poor transport/road connections (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Poor transport/road connections (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Household chores (%)
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Household chores (%)
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Household chores (%)
ODL teachers: Primary reason for absence: Other
IPTE teachers: Primary reason for absence: Other
All teachers: Primary reason for absence: Other
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
213
213
213
55.7
64.8
70.0
14.8
18.1
21.0
6.2
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.4
0.5
1.4
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
4.2
0.9
1.4
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
212
212
212
66.5
68.4
76.6
13.4
17.2
14.4
8.6
1.9
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
0.5
(**)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(**)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(n)
NA
NA
(n)
(**)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: faci.dta Date generated: 1/20/2012
29
Table 19 General characteristics of classrooms observed
Official length of class (mins)
Actual length of class (mins)
Actual class time used out of total available (%)
Standard 3 classroom (%)
Standard 4 classroom (%)
Standard 5 classroom (%)
Standard 6 classroom (%)
Subject: Chichewa (%)
Subject: English (%)
Subject: Math (%)
Subject: Agriculture (%)
Subject: Science & environmental sciences (%)
Subject: Arts (%)
Subject: Life skills (%)
Subject: Bible knowledge, religion (%)
Total students in class (#)
Students arriving at least 10 minutes late (%)
Students leaving at least 10 minutes early (%)
Students (both sexes) registered for class today (%)
775
775
774
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
781
775
774
540
35.2
35.4
100.8
26.1
25.7
25.2
22.9
12.7
23.9
45.7
6.9
4.2
2.8
2.8
1.3
67.9
5.5
0.0
77.1
771
772
769
774
774
774
774
774
774
774
774
774
774
774
774
775
771
771
545
35.0
35.1
100.1
25.7
26.5
24.7
23.1
13.0
27.9
42.0
5.8
5.0
2.6
4.5
0.6
68.6
5.7
0.1
77.7
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(*)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means, significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference
Dataset: clob.dta Date generated: 2/2/2012
30
Table 20 Learning environment & classroom resources
Learners in class with math textbooks (%)
Learners in class with english textbooks (%)
Learners in class with chichewa textbooks (%)
Learners in class with math exercise books (%)
Learners in class with english exercise books (%)
Learners in class with chichewa exercise books (%)
Learners in class with a desk and chair (%)
Learners in class sitting on furniture without desk (%)
Learners in class sitting on floor (%)
Learners in class standing (%)
Classroom has corner library with books (%)
Classroom displays on wall (#)
Displays on wall in good condition (%)
Student hygiene: clean & well maintained (%)
Student hygiene: reasonably clean and maintained (%)
Student hygiene: not clean or well maintained (%)
Seating arrangement: males and females integrated (%)
Seating arrangement: males and females separated (%)
Classroom resources: Chalkboard (%)
Classroom resources: Teachers's table (%)
Classroom resources: Teacher's chair (%)
Classroom resources: Cupboard/ locker (%)
Classroom resources: Teacher guide for math (%)
Classroom resources: Teacher guide for english (%)
Classroom resources: Teacher guide for chicewa (%)
Classroom resources: Copy of pupil's math textbook (%)
Classroom resources: Copy of pupil's english textbook (%)
Classroom resources: Copy of pupil's chichewa textbook (%)
Classroom resources: Other reference books (%)
776
775
776
776
776
776
775
772
770
772
774
777
473
777
777
777
744
744
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
777
30.2
29.3
26.2
89.2
89.0
88.4
26.8
8.9
63.7
0.8
12.5
5.7
1.2
12.9
65.6
21.5
70.2
29.8
99.7
58.0
77.9
29.7
92.0
93.4
91.4
90.1
90.1
89.7
48.6
773
773
773
773
773
773
764
763
769
762
765
774
465
773
773
773
752
752
773
773
773
773
773
773
773
773
773
773
773
30.9
30.5
27.7
90.9
90.3
90.2
29.9
8.2
63.4
0.8
16.2
5.5
1.2
10.6
66.0
23.4
71.1
28.9
99.4
60.8
79.9
28.6
93.1
94.4
93.5
90.0
91.2
88.5
49.8
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(**)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Test of difference in means: significance levels: (***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference Dataset: clob.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
31
Table 21 Distribution of classroom time by task performed by teacher
Time on: No instructional activity (%)
Time on: Reading aloud (%)
Time on: Recitation/Rote Learning/Practice Drill (%)
Total class time (min)
Total observation time (min)
Time on: Copying (from chalk board) (%)
Time on: Listening to teacher read (%)
Time on: Discussion (whole class) (%)
Time on: Individual / written seatwork (%)
Time on: Receiving instructions/demonstration (%)
Time on: Group work (%)
Time on: Receiving question(s) or answer(s) (%)
Time on: Asking or Asnwering questions (%)
Time on: Reading in silence (%)
Time on: Kinesthetic (%)
Time on: Receiving assignment (%)
Time on: Disrupting class or being disciplined (%)
Time on: Taking exam (%)
Time on: Break (%)
9.9
4.5
4.3
35.6
34.6
3.2
3.0
2.9
18.1
17.8
12.4
10.3
10.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.1
(0.0-62.0)
(0.0-64.3)
(0.0-73.9)
(18.0-40.0)
(16.5-40.0)
(0.0-49.3)
(0.0-42.4)
(0.0-47.4)
(0.0-91.0)
(0.0-80.0)
(0.0-68.9)
(0.0-54.0)
(0.0-53.8)
(0.0-42.1)
(0.0-43.3)
(0.0-31.4)
(0.0-16.3)
(0.0-84.8)
(0.0-21.7)
10.1
4.0
3.5
35.4
34.6
3.6
3.1
3.3
17.5
18.3
12.9
9.9
10.0
1.4
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
(0.0-76.8)
(0.0-56.3)
(0.0-54.3)
(13.0-40.0)
(12.5-40.0)
(0.0-64.6)
(0.0-67.2)
(0.0-66.7)
(0.0-88.0)
(0.0-78.4)
(0.0-77.5)
(0.0-68.8)
(0.0-88.3)
(0.0-35.6)
(0.0-41.8)
(0.0-25.7)
(0.0-11.3)
(0.0-95.0)
(0.0-7.5)
(n)
(n)
(**)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Type 2 Type 1
Diff?2 Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Test of difference in means, significance levels:
(***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference Dataset: tita.dta Date generated: 2/1/2012
32
Table 22 Background, contract type, experience & education
Female teachers (%)
Male teachers (%)
Age (years)
Position: teacher (%)
Position: teacher assistant (%)
Position: student teacher - ODL (%)
Position: student teacher - IPTE (%)
Position: student teacher - other (%)
Contract: permanent (%)
Contract: temporary (%)
Contract: voluntary (%)
Contract: in practicum (%)
Contract: other (%)
Teaching experience in this school (years)
Years of teaching experience overall (years)
Schools previously taught at (#)
Education: Lower secondary incomplete (%)
Education: Lower secondary complete (JCE) (%)
Education: Upper secondary incomplete (%)
Education: Upper secondary complete (MSCE/O-level) (%)
Education: Diploma (%)
Education: Degree (%)
Education: Masters (%)
Education: Other (%)
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
41.6
58.4
24.9
0.9
0.4
98.7
0.0
0.0
1.1
98.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
98.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
552
552
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
45.9
54.1
26.8
91.1
0.2
0.2
8.5
0.0
79.7
14.1
0.2
6.0
0.0
1.2
1.9
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
98.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
376
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
20.4
79.6
41.8
95.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
4.5
96.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
17.1
3.5
0.0
28.1
4.2
66.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
21.8
78.2
25.8
35.6
48.3
1.1
0.0
14.9
0.0
33.3
65.5
0.0
1.1
2.2
2.6
1.2
0.0
16.1
8.0
75.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1559
1558
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
36.9
63.1
29.7
57.6
3.0
34.5
3.0
1.9
52.0
42.1
3.8
2.1
0.1
2.6
5.4
1.8
0.0
7.7
1.6
89.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
All No training Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
33
Table 23 Place of birth, residence & means of transportation
Born in community (%)
Born in zone but outside school community (%)
Born in district but outside school zone (%)
Born in division but outside school district (%)
Born outside school division (%)
Born outside Malawi (%)
Live in community (%)
Live in zone but outside school community (%)
Live in district but outside school zone (%)
Live in division but outside school district (%)
Live outside school division (%)
Live outside Malawi (%)
Transportation to school: walk (%)
Transportation to school: bike (%)
Transportation to school: bike taxi (%)
Transportation to school: bus/ public transport (%)
Transportation to school: taxi (%)
Transportation to school: motorcycle (%)
Transportation to school: personal vehicle (%)
Transportation to school: official vehicle (%)
Transportation to school: other (%)
Cost of transportation per day (KW)
Distance to school (km)
Distance to school (min)
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
14
538
543
13.8
28.5
25.2
8.7
22.3
1.5
61.5
33.3
3.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
64.3
33.0
1.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
145.0
2.6
24.1
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
15
547
553
3.4
2.2
19.3
16.5
57.0
1.6
76.7
19.2
3.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
80.1
16.8
2.0
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
218.0
1.6
14.7
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
11
372
377
9.0
13.5
33.2
11.9
30.8
1.6
69.8
23.3
6.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
66.3
30.5
1.9
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
168.2
2.4
17.8
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
2
86
87
36.8
26.4
12.6
6.9
16.1
1.1
65.5
28.7
3.4
0.0
2.3
0.0
74.7
23.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
150.0
2.0
23.4
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
42
1543
1560
10.3
15.4
24.4
12.1
36.3
1.5
69.1
25.6
4.2
0.4
0.7
0.0
71.0
26.1
1.9
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
177.4
2.2
19.2
All No training Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
34
Table 24 Distribution of teachers by standard, expected duration teaching standard, teaching approach
Teaches one standard (%)
Teaches more than one standard (%)
Single standard teacher: Teaches standard 3 (%)
Single standard teacher: Teaches standard 4 (%)
Single standard teacher: Teaches standard 5 (%)
Single standard teacher: Teaches standard 6 (%)
Teaches multiple standards: double shift teaching (%)
Teaches multiple standards: multi-standard teaching (%)
Teaches multiple standards: subject teaching (%)
Periods taught per week (#)
Expected length of stay in standard: Don't know (%)
Expected length of stay in standard: 0-2 yrs (%)
Expected length of stay in standard: 2-4 yrs (%)
Expected length of stay in standard: 5 or more yrs (%)
Expected length of stay in standard: never changes (%)
Teaches remedial classes (%)
Teaching style: all independent (%)
Teaching style: independent & co-teaching mix (%)
Teaching style: all co-teaching (%)
543
543
513
513
513
513
32
32
32
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
94.7
5.3
31.0
36.3
16.0
16.8
12.5
6.3
81.3
30.7
44.0
41.8
11.4
2.8
0.0
55.8
85.5
11.4
3.1
553
553
409
409
409
409
144
144
144
551
553
553
553
553
553
551
552
552
552
73.8
26.2
18.3
23.5
27.1
31.1
19.4
0.7
79.9
37.0
46.7
40.1
9.4
3.6
0.2
57.4
88.6
8.9
2.5
377
377
245
245
245
245
132
132
132
376
377
377
377
377
377
376
377
377
377
65.0
35.0
25.3
15.5
38.8
20.4
18.2
0.0
81.8
38.9
45.1
37.4
11.7
5.3
0.5
57.2
87.8
10.1
2.1
87
87
71
71
71
71
16
16
16
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
81.6
18.4
45.1
29.6
22.5
2.8
18.8
0.0
81.3
35.4
50.6
28.7
14.9
4.6
1.1
47.1
85.1
10.3
4.6
1560
1560
1238
1238
1238
1238
324
324
324
1557
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1557
1559
1559
1559
79.4
20.6
26.5
27.5
24.6
21.4
18.2
0.9
80.9
35.2
45.6
39.4
11.0
3.8
0.3
56.2
87.1
10.1
2.8
All No training Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
35
Table 25 Teacher training: content, relevance and perception of quality
Training: None (%)
Training: MASTEP (%)
Training: MIITEP (%)
Training: 2 year (%)
Training: 1 year (%)
Training: IPTE (%)
Training: ODL (%)
Training: Other (%)
Years of teacher training completed
Teacher training quality: Very Good (%)
Teacher training quality: Good (%)
Teacher training quality: Average (%)
Teacher training quality: Poor (%)
Teacher training quality: Very Poor (%)
Able to apply teacher training in practice (%)
Studied educational psychology (%)
Studied theories of schooling (%)
Studied assessment and measurement: theory & practice (%)
Studied knowledge of teaching (%)
Studied strategies for students with behavioral/emotional problems (%)
Often able to develop strategy for students w/behavioral/emotional issues (%)
Often able to develop strategy/curriculum for pupils w/learning disabilities (%)
Often able to develop strategy/curriculum for gifted pupils (%)
Often able to work with children from poor/disadvantaged backgrounds (%)
Often able to develop strategies to reflect upon effectiveness of teaching (%)
Often able to develop strategies to identify learning needs (%)
Attended in-service training in past year (%)
Able to apply lessons from in-service training to teaching (%)
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
541
543
543
543
543
543
542
542
542
542
542
542
525
463
533
536
539
541
543
299
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.9
19.5
49.5
29.7
1.1
0.2
99.8
81.2
88.4
96.1
98.9
88.7
23.8
21.0
34.9
38.4
46.9
46.6
54.5
97.0
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
552
553
553
553
553
553
553
552
552
551
552
552
544
485
544
549
552
547
553
302
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
51.4
39.6
8.9
0.0
0.2
99.5
95.7
96.7
98.4
99.5
92.8
24.4
20.4
38.1
47.2
56.2
53.9
54.4
96.4
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
371
326
374
371
376
376
377
272
0.0
5.8
61.5
18.8
13.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
36.1
41.6
21.0
1.3
0.0
99.2
92.3
96.6
91.8
99.5
93.4
33.2
18.7
39.3
50.1
53.5
55.1
72.1
96.7
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
1
5
5
5
5
5
2
10
10
10
10
10
3
3
3
4
4
4
87
42
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
25.0
50.0
25.0
48.3
95.2
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1471
1478
1478
1478
1478
1478
1474
1481
1481
1480
1481
1481
1443
1277
1454
1460
1471
1468
1560
915
5.6
1.4
14.9
4.6
3.3
35.4
34.8
0.0
1.6
35.7
43.8
19.7
0.7
0.1
99.4
89.0
93.1
95.3
98.7
90.9
26.4
20.1
37.2
44.7
52.1
51.4
58.4
96.6
All No training Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
36
Table 26 Teacher absence
Table 27 Teacher salary
Days of absence last calendar year
Days of absence with replacement last calendar year
Percent of absences with teacher replacement last calendar year (%)
Teacher absence reason: official teaching related duty (%)
Teacher absence reason: official non-teaching related duty (%)
Teacher absence reason: sick (%)
Teacher absence reason: suspended (%)
Teacher absence reason: agricultural work (%)
Teacher absence reason: another job (%)
Teacher absence reason: school too far from home (%)
Teacher absence reason: poor transport/road connections to school (%)
Teacher absence reason: have to perform household chores (%)
Teacher absence reason: private tutoring (%)
Teacher absence reason: personal engagements (%)
Teacher absence reason: collecting salary or base allowances (%)
Teacher absence reason: bad weather (%)
Teacher absence reason: other (%)
Times teacher was 10 minutes late last week
Times teacher dismissed class 10 minutes early last week
542
504
504
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
527
543
543
5.0
5.0
94.5
17.8
8.0
56.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.2
10.6
1.5
0.2
0.8
1.0
0.7
548
506
505
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
533
553
553
6.8
6.9
93.9
20.1
7.3
53.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
11.3
1.5
0.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
375
361
361
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
377
377
8.3
8.2
95.8
26.8
10.0
50.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
8.9
1.4
0.0
0.3
1.1
0.5
84
72
72
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
87
87
4.9
4.8
88.7
8.8
10.0
51.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
17.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.8
1549
1443
1442
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1510
1560
1560
6.5
6.5
94.3
20.3
8.3
53.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
10.8
1.4
0.1
0.7
1.1
0.7
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/20/2012
37
Figure 8 Returns to experience and education
Annual salary: Base salary or basic allowances (KW)
Annual salary: Remedial/ Enrichment / Part-time teaching (KW)
Annual salary: Supplement for Double shift (KW)
Annual salary: Supplement for Multi-standard (KW)
Annual salary: Remote and hardship allowance (KW)
Annual salary: Good teacher award (KW)
Annual salary: Community contribution (for volunteer teachers) (KW)
Annual salary: Gift from parents (KW)
Annual salary: Other (KW)
Total Annual Salary (KW)
Experienced delay in receiving basic salary in past year (%)
Delay in receiving basic salary (days)
Salary paid by: MoEST/ DEMs (%)
Salary paid by: Community/PTA/Parents (%)
Salary paid by: Other (%)
Always takes time to collect base salary (%)
Sometimes takes time to collect base salary (%)
Never takes time to collect base salary (%)
Days missed this academic year to collect base salary
Supplementary income earned during year (%)
Supplementary income earned during year (KW)
504
12
2
0
256
0
2
40
15
543
523
276
533
533
533
535
535
535
229
543
142
80,071.4
7,525.0
13,500.0
.
18,906.3
.
4,250.0
1,038.5
4,510.0
83,666.7
55.4
53.8
99.6
0.2
0.2
10.8
32.1
57.0
2.2
26.5
67,742.7
546
8
22
2
428
6
2
41
14
553
543
342
547
547
547
548
548
548
232
553
83
172,703.2
8,025.0
21,431.8
15,000.0
24,050.2
6,800.0
200.0
1,784.8
5,151.4
190,491.2
69.8
23.3
99.3
0.2
0.5
11.3
31.4
57.3
3.0
15.0
81,384.9
377
8
13
1
338
5
2
24
14
377
375
272
377
377
377
377
377
377
184
377
121
281,943.5
21,656.3
21,923.1
60,000.0
27,676.0
13,100.0
3,850.0
617.1
16,782.1
308,987.9
75.5
9.5
100.0
0.0
0.0
17.8
31.3
50.9
3.8
32.4
88,749.6
21
5
0
0
9
0
46
1
1
87
46
14
58
58
58
56
56
56
10
87
44
45,990.1
8,100.0
.
.
23,888.9
.
23,660.9
1,500.0
25,500.0
26,858.5
37.0
40.9
41.4
41.4
17.2
7.1
8.9
83.9
1.8
50.6
85,517.7
1448
33
37
3
1031
11
52
106
44
1560
1487
904
1515
1515
1515
1516
1516
1516
655
1560
390
167,065.2
11,159.1
21,175.7
30,000.0
23,960.2
9,663.6
21,250.0
1,236.1
9,095.9
172,819.1
65.2
28.7
97.4
1.7
0.9
12.6
30.8
56.6
2.9
25.2
79,169.0
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 2/6/2012
0
200
400
600
800
1000
To
tal S
ala
ry (
Ba
se +
Sup
ple
me
nta
ry)
[KW
100
0s]
0 10 20 30 40 50Years of teaching experience overall (years)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
To
tal S
ala
ry (
Ba
se +
Sup
ple
me
nta
ry)
[KW
100
0s]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Years of teacher training completed
No training
ODL
IPTE
Other (MIITEP, MASTEP, 2 year, 1 year)
Lowess fit
38
Table 28 Peer Support
Teacher meets everyday before assembly with other teachers (%)
School had staff meetings in prior calendar year (%)
Frequency of staff meetings (# per year)
Teachers attending last staff meeting (#)
Length of last staff meeting (mins)
Official agenda prepared for staff meeting (%)
Primary agenda topic: Teacher Absenteeism (%)
Primary agenda topic: Student Absenteeism (%)
Primary agenda topic: Incidents at school (%)
Primary agenda topic: Student Performance (%)
Primary agenda topic: School Improvement Plans (%)
Primary agenda topic: School finance issues (%)
Primary agenda topic: Organization of activities (eg. festivals, sports) (%)
Primary agenda topic: Teaching methodology (%)
Primary agenda topic: Lesson planning (%)
Primary agenda topic: Need for additional teachers and/or staff (%)
Primary agenda topic: Planning for next term (%)
Primary agenda topic: Promoting community participation (%)
Primary agenda topic: Outreach to disadvantaged children (%)
Primary topic of discussion: Other (%)
Peer support: conversations with peers for teaching guidance (# per week)
Peer support: visits to other teachers' classrooms (# per week)
Peer support: visits by other teachers to own classroom (# per week)
543
542
511
529
530
531
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
543
543
543
543
47.5
98.0
3.3
9.8
104.8
95.7
20.5
16.9
11.9
17.8
10.5
2.5
4.2
5.4
6.5
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.0
6.6
1.4
0.6
0.7
552
540
515
527
527
526
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
522
553
553
553
553
40.9
98.5
3.3
10.9
130.8
95.8
24.5
18.6
10.2
15.7
7.7
2.7
4.6
6.7
7.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.2
7.2
1.0
0.4
0.4
377
365
358
360
361
361
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
377
377
377
377
49.6
98.9
3.4
9.8
133.7
96.4
24.8
14.5
9.5
11.7
7.2
2.2
5.6
10.3
9.7
0.0
1.4
0.3
0.0
7.4
0.8
0.4
0.3
87
83
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
87
87
87
87
56.3
98.8
4.8
8.0
120.3
97.6
14.6
20.7
12.2
13.4
8.5
3.7
12.2
9.8
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
1.4
0.5
1.0
1559
1530
1465
1498
1500
1500
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1485
1560
1560
1560
1560
46.2
98.4
3.4
10.1
121.7
96.0
22.6
17.1
10.7
15.4
8.6
2.6
5.1
7.3
7.3
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.1
7.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
39
Table 29 Supervision by head teacher
Supervised by head teacher (%)
Frequency of supervision by head teacher (# per year)
Head teacher feedback: Content of lessons (%)
Head teacher feedback: Teaching method (eg group work, participatory methods) (%
Head teacher feedback: Use of teaching and learning materials (%)
Head teacher feedback: Discipline of learners (%)
Head teacher feedback: Assessment of learners (%)
Head teacher feedback: Attendence records (%)
Head teacher feedback: Schemes of work (%)
Head teacher feedback: Dress code (%)
Head teacher feedback: None (%)
Head teacher feedback: Gender sensitivity (%)
Head teacher feedback: Time management (%)
Head teacher feedback: Other (%)
Head teacher feedback is very useful (%)
Head teacher feedback is useful (%)
Head teacher feedback is not very useful (%)
Agree that head teacher is available/approachable to discuss issues on teaching
542
317
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
543
311
311
311
318
58.5
5.5
48.7
61.3
49.1
17.3
19.2
13.5
28.6
7.9
2.2
1.3
3.8
58.6
74.3
25.1
0.6
96.9
553
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
553
243
243
243
249
45.4
3.8
39.8
48.2
52.6
24.7
20.7
15.9
25.5
4.4
2.8
0.4
0.4
45.4
73.7
25.9
0.4
98.0
376
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
377
198
198
198
199
53.2
4.6
42.0
57.5
51.5
19.5
17.0
11.5
22.0
6.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
53.1
73.7
26.3
0.0
98.0
87
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
87
67
67
67
68
78.2
7.9
50.0
72.1
52.9
22.1
32.4
20.6
36.8
11.8
1.5
1.5
2.9
78.2
77.6
22.4
0.0
100.0
1558
836
837
837
837
837
837
837
837
837
837
837
837
1560
819
819
819
834
53.7
5.0
44.6
57.3
51.0
20.4
20.2
14.3
26.8
6.8
2.3
0.8
1.9
53.7
74.2
25.4
0.4
97.7
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 2/2/2012
40
Table 30 Supervision by community
In past year community representatives (eg PTA/SMC) supervised teaching (%)
Frequency of supervision by community (# per year)
Community feedback: Content of lessons (%)
Community feedback: Teaching method (eg group work, participatory methods) (%)
Community feedback: Use of teaching and learning materials (%)
Community feedback: Discipline of learners (%)
Community feedback: Assessment of learners (%)
Community feedback: Attendence records (%)
Community feedback: Schemes of work (%)
Community feedback: Dress code (%)
Community feedback: None (%)
Community feedback: Gender sensitivity (%)
Community feedback: Time management (%)
Community feedback: Other (%)
Community feedback is very useful (%)
Community feedback is useful (%)
Community feedback is not very useful (%)
Community feedback is useless (%)
543
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
543
8
8
8
8
2.6
2.9
7.1
14.3
0.0
21.4
7.1
0.0
0.0
21.4
42.9
0.0
0.0
2.6
25.0
62.5
0.0
12.5
553
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
553
15
15
15
15
3.3
2.3
11.1
16.7
11.1
38.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
22.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
73.3
13.3
13.3
0.0
377
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
377
15
15
15
15
4.5
2.5
11.8
29.4
23.5
29.4
17.6
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
0.0
0.0
4.5
40.0
60.0
0.0
0.0
87
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
87
11
11
11
11
17.2
3.1
20.0
20.0
13.3
26.7
20.0
0.0
13.3
6.7
26.7
0.0
0.0
17.2
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1560
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
1560
49
49
49
49
4.1
2.7
12.5
20.3
12.5
29.7
12.5
4.7
7.8
10.9
25.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
61.2
32.7
4.1
2.0
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
41
Table 31 Supervision by PEA
Table 32 Supervision by DEM
In past calendar year, Primary Education Advisor (PEA) supervised teaching (%)
Frequency of supervision by PEA (# per year)
PEA feedback: Content of lessons (%)
PEA feedback: Teaching method (eg group work, participatory methods) (%)
PEA feedback: Use of teaching and learning materials (%)
PEA feedback: Discipline of learners (%)
PEA feedback: Assessment of learners (%)
PEA feedback: Attendence records (%)
PEA feedback: Schemes of work (%)
PEA feedback: Dress code (%)
PEA feedback: None (%)
PEA feedback: Gender sensitivity (%)
PEA feedback: Time management (%)
PEA feedback: Other (%)
PEA feedback is very useful (%)
PEA feedback is useful (%)
PEA feedback is not very useful (%)
543
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
543
377
377
377
71.6
2.1
44.7
51.9
53.2
9.8
24.4
19.3
42.7
11.3
3.1
1.5
4.1
71.6
76.4
23.1
0.5
553
399
399
399
399
399
399
399
399
399
399
399
399
553
385
385
385
72.2
2.3
43.9
49.9
51.4
13.3
23.8
25.3
42.6
8.8
3.5
1.3
2.5
72.2
80.0
19.7
0.3
377
327
327
327
327
327
327
327
327
327
327
327
327
377
322
322
322
86.5
2.5
41.6
54.4
52.6
17.4
21.4
22.9
42.5
12.8
1.2
0.6
2.1
86.7
80.7
18.9
0.3
87
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
87
51
51
51
60.9
2.2
50.9
58.5
49.1
13.2
32.1
24.5
47.2
7.5
3.8
1.9
3.8
60.9
78.4
21.6
0.0
1560
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1168
1560
1135
1135
1135
74.8
2.3
43.8
52.2
52.2
13.3
23.7
22.6
42.8
10.7
2.7
1.2
3.0
74.9
78.9
20.7
0.4
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
In past calendar year, District Education Manager's Office (DEM) supervised teac
Frequency of supervision by DEM (# per year)
DEM feedback: Content of lessons (%)
DEM feedback: Teaching method (eg group work, participatory methods) (%)
DEM feedback: Use of teaching and learning materials (%)
DEM feedback: Discipline of learners (%)
DEM feedback: Assessment of learners (%)
DEM feedback: Attendence records (%)
DEM feedback: Schemes of work (%)
DEM feedback: Dress code (%)
DEM feedback: None (%)
DEM feedback: Gender sensitivity (%)
DEM feedback: Time management (%)
DEM feedback: Other (%)
DEM feedback is very useful (%)
DEM feedback is useful (%)
DEM feedback is not very useful (%)
543
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
543
6
6
6
1.1
1.3
33.3
66.7
50.0
16.7
0.0
16.7
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
1.1
66.7
33.3
0.0
553
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
553
11
11
11
2.5
1.1
14.3
42.9
42.9
0.0
21.4
14.3
35.7
7.1
21.4
0.0
7.1
2.5
72.7
27.3
0.0
377
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
377
20
20
20
5.0
1.7
35.0
40.0
40.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
35.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.3
70.0
25.0
5.0
87
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
87
4
4
4
4.6
2.0
50.0
25.0
50.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
75.0
25.0
0.0
1560
45
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
1560
41
41
41
2.8
1.5
29.5
43.2
43.2
11.4
18.2
18.2
31.8
4.5
6.8
0.0
6.8
2.8
70.7
26.8
2.4
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
42
Table 33 Supervision by Inspectorate
In past calendar year, Inspectorate supervised teaching (%)
Frequency of supervision by Inspectorate (# per year)
Inspectorate feedback: Content of lessons (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Teaching method (eg group work, participatory methods) (%
Inspectorate feedback: Use of teaching and learning materials (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Discipline of learners (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Assessment of learners (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Attendence records (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Schemes of work (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Dress code (%)
Inspectorate feedback: None (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Gender sensitivity (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Time management (%)
Inspectorate feedback: Other (%)
Inspectorate feedback is very useful (%)
Inspectorate feedback is useful (%)
Inspectorate feedback is not very useful (%)
Others who supervise teaching (%)
Other supervision provided by deputy head teacher (%)
Other supervision provided by mentor teacher (%)
Other supervision provided by TTC representative (%)
Other supervision provided by other teachers (%)
543
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
543
35
35
35
543
52
52
52
52
6.8
1.2
13.5
51.4
51.4
16.2
21.6
18.9
35.1
5.4
5.4
0.0
8.1
6.8
71.4
25.7
2.9
11.6
13.5
57.7
3.8
25.0
553
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
553
62
62
62
553
29
29
29
29
11.8
1.6
36.9
43.1
47.7
18.5
30.8
33.8
33.8
12.3
4.6
0.0
6.2
11.8
71.0
29.0
0.0
7.1
17.2
10.3
41.4
31.0
377
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
377
60
60
60
377
18
18
18
18
16.7
1.5
30.2
50.8
39.7
17.5
23.8
20.6
39.7
9.5
3.2
1.6
1.6
16.7
66.7
31.7
1.7
8.2
27.8
5.6
5.6
61.1
87
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
87
9
9
9
87
1
1
1
1
10.3
1.3
22.2
55.6
44.4
22.2
11.1
33.3
33.3
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
88.9
11.1
0.0
2.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
1560
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
1560
166
166
166
1560
100
100
100
100
11.2
1.5
28.7
48.3
45.4
17.8
25.3
25.9
36.2
9.8
4.0
0.6
4.6
11.2
70.5
28.3
1.2
8.7
17.0
35.0
15.0
33.0
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
43
Table 34 Mentoring
Receives mentoring by another teacher in school (%)
Mentor selected by: Don't know (%)
Mentor selected by: Other (%)
Mentor selected by: Head Teacher (%)
Mentor selected by: P.E.A. (%)
Mentor selected by: DEM (%)
Mentor selected by: Selected/requested by teacher (%)
Mentor selected by: Other teachers (%)
Opinion of mentoring time: Too much time spent on mentoring (%)
Opinion of mentoring time: Just the right amount of time spent on mentoring (%)
Opinion of mentoring time: Not enough time spent on mentoring (%)
Opinion of mentoring time: No time spent on mentoring (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Very good (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Good (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Average (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Poor (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Very poor (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: More/better materials (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Training programs for mentors (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Payment for mentors (%)
Opinion of mentoring quality: Other (please specify) (%)
543
423
423
423
423
423
423
423
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
527
527
527
527
77.9
5.9
0.2
60.0
26.0
1.4
4.3
2.1
2.4
32.2
46.4
19.0
2.4
32.2
46.4
19.0
0.0
11.8
57.3
4.0
8.3
552
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
552
552
552
552
552
552
552
552
552
537
537
537
537
20.3
7.1
1.8
63.7
11.5
0.0
13.3
2.7
2.2
36.1
38.6
23.2
2.2
36.1
38.6
23.2
0.0
15.1
52.5
3.4
7.6
376
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
376
376
376
376
376
376
376
376
376
374
374
374
374
16.8
3.2
3.2
55.6
11.1
0.0
25.4
1.6
2.9
35.6
41.2
20.2
2.9
35.6
41.2
20.2
0.0
13.6
51.6
5.3
9.1
86
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
83
83
83
83
57.0
4.1
2.0
73.5
16.3
0.0
4.1
0.0
5.8
32.6
40.7
20.9
5.8
32.6
40.7
20.9
0.0
19.3
48.2
3.6
7.2
1557
648
648
648
648
648
648
648
1557
1557
1557
1557
1557
1557
1557
1557
1557
1521
1521
1521
1521
41.6
5.7
0.9
61.3
21.3
0.9
7.9
2.0
2.6
34.4
42.1
20.9
2.6
34.4
42.1
20.9
0.0
13.8
53.7
4.1
8.2
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
44
Table 35 Satisfaction with school assignment
Wanted to work at current school (%)
Reason: school is close to home (%)
Reason: teacher housing provided (%)
Reason: school close to tarmac/trading centre (%)
Reason: school has good reputation (%)
Reason: community has good reputation (%)
Reason: other (%)
Did not want to work at current school (%)
Reason: school is far from home (%)
Reason: teacher housing not provided (%)
Reason: school is far from tarmac/trading center (%)
Reason: school has bad reputation (%)
Reason: community has bad reputation (%)
Reason: didn't have a choice (%)
Reason: wanted to be posted in district other than home district (%)
Reason: the culture is different from my own (%)
Reason: the school is far from the bank (%)
Reason: the school is far from the hospital (%)
543
286
286
286
286
286
286
543
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
52.7
79.7
2.4
9.8
15.0
11.9
14.3
47.3
57.6
13.6
20.6
3.9
6.6
0.8
12.5
0.4
0.0
1.2
553
159
159
159
159
159
159
553
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
28.8
32.1
11.9
23.9
14.5
15.1
27.0
71.2
56.9
18.5
30.2
4.1
6.3
1.3
4.1
0.3
0.0
3.0
377
198
198
198
198
198
198
377
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
52.5
51.5
8.6
18.2
13.1
15.2
22.2
47.5
41.3
17.3
38.0
3.4
7.3
1.1
4.5
0.0
0.0
1.7
87
66
66
66
66
66
66
87
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
75.9
90.9
0.0
1.5
16.7
15.2
12.1
24.1
33.3
9.5
9.5
0.0
14.3
0.0
19.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
1560
709
709
709
709
709
709
1560
851
851
851
851
851
851
851
851
851
851
45.4
62.2
6.1
14.5
14.5
13.8
19.2
54.6
53.2
16.6
28.4
3.8
6.8
1.1
7.1
0.2
0.0
2.2
All No training Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/13/2012
45
Table 36 Teacher satisfaction
46
Teaching was first choice as a profession (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: I like teaching (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: The importance of education for society (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Job security/stability (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Social respect & recognition for profession
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Good pay (attracted by salaries) (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Lack of a better option (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Unable to pursue other study (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Family tradition (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: I was always a good student (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: availability of teaching positions (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: talent for teaching (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: to work with children (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: to influence on next generation (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: teaching is a challenging job (%)
Primary reason for becoming teacher: Other (%)
Primary reason still teaching: I like teaching (%)
Primary reason still teaching: The importance of education for society (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Job security/stability (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Social respect & recognition for profession (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Good pay (attracted by salaries) (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Lack of a better option (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Unable to pursue other study (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Family tradition (%)
Primary reason still teaching: I was always a good student (%)
Primary reason still teaching: availability of teaching positions (%)
Primary reason still teaching: talent for teaching (%)
Primary reason still teaching: to work with children (%)
Primary reason still teaching: to influence on next generation (%)
Primary reason still teaching: teaching is a challenging job (%)
Primary reason still teaching: Other (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Low pay (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Low recognition (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Few opportunities for professional development
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Excessive workload (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Living far away from family (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Living in rural areas (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Poor school infrastructure (%)
Most unsatisfying aspect of job: Other (%)
Overall level of satisfaction with teaching: Very satisfied (%)
Overall level of satisfaction with teaching: Satisfied (%)
Overall level of satisfaction with teaching: Not very satisfied (%)
Overall level of satisfaction with teaching: Very unsatisfied (%)
54.3
29.1
45.7
10.3
1.3
0.4
7.0
3.1
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.7
47.7
28.2
12.0
1.1
0.9
5.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.6
1.5
63.9
8.5
3.7
14.2
0.9
0.6
2.0
4.2
30.1
57.9
11.4
0.6
40.0
21.9
43.0
16.3
2.4
0.7
9.0
2.7
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.2
46.7
21.9
16.5
1.1
0.9
6.9
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.0
1.3
65.5
8.3
4.3
11.4
0.9
2.7
3.1
1.4
19.6
59.6
18.8
1.8
55.4
26.3
48.8
11.4
1.6
0.8
7.7
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.8
55.4
24.9
10.1
1.1
2.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.6
72.9
8.0
6.1
7.4
0.0
0.3
2.7
1.9
22.5
58.6
17.8
1.1
79.3
39.1
44.8
2.3
1.1
3.4
1.1
5.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
50.6
31.0
6.9
3.4
1.1
2.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
54.0
10.3
3.4
11.5
2.3
1.1
10.3
4.6
35.6
49.4
13.8
1.1
50.9
26.4
45.4
12.2
1.7
0.8
7.6
2.6
0.6
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.5
49.4
25.3
12.8
1.2
1.2
5.1
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.3
66.1
8.4
4.5
11.4
0.8
1.3
3.0
2.7
24.8
58.2
15.7
1.2
Mean
All None2 Other1 IPTE ODL Characteristic
1Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
2No training
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
47
Table 37 Determinants of Teacher Satisfaction
Availability of classroom supplies (%)
Level of teacher salary (%)
Opportunities for promotion (%)
Availability of teacher housing (%)
Timely payment of salaries (%)
Opportunities for professional development through study/training (%)
Learning progress of pupils (%)
Additional allowances for double shift, multi-standard & remote location (%)
School management & administration (%)
Quality of teacher housing (%)
Amicable working relationships with staff (%)
Good relationships with local community (%)
Public’s perception of status of teachers (%)
Distance to school (%)
Location of school (urban, rural, remote) (%)
79.0
74.0
74.6
73.1
72.2
69.4
68.9
66.9
68.7
64.1
67.0
64.5
51.4
50.8
38.3
75.9
77.2
76.1
74.9
74.0
73.1
65.8
69.1
65.1
66.0
65.5
63.7
54.2
53.7
38.7
82.2
84.9
82.5
80.4
78.8
74.3
74.0
72.4
68.7
73.2
68.2
67.4
57.6
55.4
43.8
74.7
69.0
64.4
66.7
69.0
62.1
66.7
62.1
67.8
58.6
58.6
55.2
49.4
39.1
39.1
78.5
77.5
76.5
75.1
74.2
71.5
68.9
68.7
67.4
66.7
66.3
64.4
53.8
52.3
39.8
All None2 Other1 IPTE ODL Determinants of workplace satisfaction that are very important to teachers:
1
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs 2
No training Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
48
Table 38 Classroom observations: general characteristics
Official length of class (mins)
Actual length of class (mins)
Actual class time used out of total available (%)
Standard 3 classroom (%)
Standard 4 classroom (%)
Standard 5 classroom (%)
Standard 6 classroom (%)
Subject: Chichewa (%)
Subject: English (%)
Subject: Math (%)
Subject: Agriculture (%)
Subject: Science & environmental sciences (%)
Subject: Arts (%)
Subject: Life skills (%)
Subject: Bible knowledge, religion (%)
Total students in class (#)
Students arriving at least 10 minutes late (%)
Students leaving at least 10 minutes early (%)
Students (both sexes) registered for class today (%)
531
532
531
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
534
533
532
392
35.2
35.0
99.7
30.9
35.8
16.3
17.0
11.6
26.8
46.6
3.6
4.1
3.6
3.9
0.6
71.0
6.1
0.1
77.4
540
539
538
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
541
538
538
393
35.1
35.0
99.9
18.5
23.1
25.5
32.9
11.8
27.5
38.8
9.4
5.4
3.1
3.7
1.3
65.3
5.2
0.0
76.9
370
371
369
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
237
35.0
35.8
102.0
26.1
16.2
36.4
21.3
15.4
22.9
47.2
4.9
5.4
1.6
3.0
1.1
69.9
5.1
0.0
77.9
1519
1520
1516
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1519
1518
1069
35.1
35.3
100.5
25.9
26.0
25.1
23.0
12.9
25.9
44.1
6.3
4.7
2.8
3.5
1.0
68.5
5.6
0.0
77.4
All Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values} 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: clob.dta Date generated: 2/2/2012
49
Table 39 Classroom characteristics: Learner absence and tardiness, use of books and learner motivation
Learners absent on on Monday (#)
Learners absent on on Tuesday (#)
Learners absent on on Wednesday (#)
Learners absent on on Thursday (#)
Learners absent on on Friday (#)
Learners arriving 10 minutes late on on Monday (#)
Learners arriving 10 minutes late on on Tuesday (#)
Learners arriving 10 minutes late on on Wednesday (#)
Learners arriving 10 minutes late on on Thursday (#)
Learners arriving 10 minutes late on on Friday (#)
Learners leaving 10 minutes early on on Monday (#)
Learners leaving 10 minutes early on on Tuesday (#)
Learners leaving 10 minutes early on on Wednesday (#)
Learners leaving 10 minutes early on on Thursday (#)
Learners leaving 10 minutes early on on Friday (#)
Days per week teacher takes attendance (days)
Time taken for attendance (mins)
Teacher alwasys uses learners books in class (%)
Teacher usually uses learners books in class (%)
Teacher seldom uses learners books in class (%)
Teacher never uses learners books in class (%)
Teacher alwasys uses teachers guide in class (%)
Teacher usually uses teachers guide in class (%)
Teacher seldom uses teachers guide in class (%)
Teacher never uses teachers guide in class (%)
Children cannot take texbooks home (%)
Children can take textbooks home for all subjects (%)
Children can take texbooks home only for some subjects (%)
Days homework is assigned per week (days)
Learner's desire to do well in class: High (%)
Learner's desire to do well in class: Medium (%)
Learner's desire to do well in class: Low (%)
Learner's desire to do well in class: Very Low (%)
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
543
542
538
543
543
543
543
97
97
97
97
542
542
542
539
542
542
542
542
17.4
16.7
16.3
15.7
18.2
9.2
8.4
8.4
7.2
7.5
1.5
1.3
2.1
1.4
3.4
4.7
11.0
79.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
17.5
0.8
0.1
1.6
19.7
50.7
29.5
2.3
30.6
64.4
4.2
0.7
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
553
551
538
553
553
553
553
108
108
108
108
553
553
553
552
553
553
553
553
14.3
14.2
14.3
14.5
15.4
8.7
8.1
7.3
7.2
7.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.4
2.9
4.5
10.0
76.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
30.6
0.6
0.0
1.5
20.1
49.5
30.4
2.5
29.3
62.4
7.2
1.1
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
377
372
358
376
376
376
376
61
61
61
61
377
377
377
376
375
375
375
375
13.2
11.9
12.9
11.6
14.5
8.3
7.6
7.2
6.2
6.9
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
2.6
4.4
10.5
80.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
24.6
0.8
0.0
1.4
18.6
51.2
30.2
2.5
28.0
65.3
5.9
0.8
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
84
87
87
87
87
12
12
12
12
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
18.8
15.0
14.8
14.1
16.8
9.7
6.3
6.3
5.6
6.3
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.6
4.5
10.1
82.8
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.7
17.2
44.8
37.9
2.2
40.2
54.0
5.7
0.0
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1560
1552
1518
1559
1559
1559
1559
278
278
278
278
1559
1559
1559
1554
1557
1557
1557
1557
15.4
14.5
14.7
14.2
16.2
8.8
8.0
7.6
6.9
7.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
2.9
4.6
10.5
78.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
23.4
0.8
0.0
1.5
19.4
50.1
30.5
2.4
30.1
63.3
5.8
0.8
All No training 2Other IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tein.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
50
Table 40 Classroom observations: teacher engagement
Teacher present entire class (%)
Minutes teacher out of class (min)
Teacher used teaching and learning resources (%)
Teacher used textbooks in lesson (%)
Teacher asked questions to learners (%)
Main type of questions asked: To be answered individually (%)
Main type of questions asked: To be answered collectively (%)
Gender bias of questions? No bias, given gender ratio (%)
Gender bias of questions? Biased towards boys, given gender ratio (%)
Gender bias of questions? Biased towards girls, given gender ratio (%)
Students asked questions to teacher (%)
Teacher response to student questions: supportive (%)
Teacher response to student questions: not supportive (%)
534
39
533
526
534
521
521
519
519
519
534
32
32
92.3
3.1
34.7
63.9
97.6
79.3
20.7
90.9
7.5
1.5
1.9
93.8
6.3
541
37
541
532
541
533
533
524
524
524
541
14
14
93.0
2.6
29.0
60.9
97.8
77.7
22.3
90.3
6.7
3.1
2.0
100.0
0.0
371
50
371
365
371
366
366
360
360
360
370
18
18
86.5
3.4
22.6
65.2
97.3
78.7
21.3
92.2
4.7
3.1
1.9
100.0
0.0
1524
135
1523
1500
1524
1496
1496
1479
1479
1479
1523
67
67
90.9
3.0
29.2
63.5
97.6
77.9
22.1
91.3
6.2
2.4
2.0
97.0
3.0
All Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1
N = Observations with non-missing values} 2
Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs Dataset: clob.dta Date generated: 2/2/2012
51
Table 41 Classroom observations: teacher actions
Teacher gave positive feedback: never (%)
Teacher gave positive feedback: once (%)
Teacher gave positive feedback: more than once (%)
Teacher feedback to correct a mistake: never (%)
Teacher feedback to correct a mistake: once (%)
Teacher feedback to correct a mistake: more than once (%)
Teacher feedback to scold a mistake: never (%)
Teacher feedback to scold a mistake: once (%)
Teacher feedback to scold a mistake: more than once (%)
Teacher encourages opinions: never (%)
Teacher encourages opinions: once (%)
Teacher encourages opinions: more than once (%)
Teacher asks learners to carry out a task: never (%)
Teacher asks learners to carry out a task: once (%)
Teacher asks learners to carry out a task: more than once (%)
Chalkboard used only by teacher (%)
Chalkboard used only by learners (%)
Chalkboard used by learners & teachers (%)
Chalkboard used by nobody (%)
Teacher copies lessons on chalkboard: never (%)
Teacher copies lessons on chalkboard: once (%)
Teacher copies lessons on chalkboard: more than once (%)
Teacher writes questions on board for learners to copy: never (%)
Teacher writes questions on board for learners to copy: once (%)
Teacher writes questions on board for learners to copy: more than once (%)
Teacher summarizes lessons on board: never (%)
Teacher summarizes lessons on board: once (%)
Teacher summarizes lessons on board: more than once (%)
Teacher provides examples on board: never (%)
Teacher provides examples on board: once (%)
Teacher provides examples on board: more than once (%)
Teacher uses corporal punishment on learners (%)
Teacher assigns class homework (%)
Teacher reviews or collects homework (%)
531
531
531
531
531
531
527
527
527
520
520
520
527
527
527
534
534
534
534
532
532
532
528
528
528
529
529
529
524
524
524
534
534
526
5.1
10.7
84.2
10.2
18.8
71.0
64.7
9.7
25.6
35.6
12.5
51.9
27.5
26.2
46.3
61.2
0.7
37.6
0.4
1.3
29.1
69.5
36.2
30.5
33.3
27.8
45.4
26.8
29.4
25.6
45.0
0.7
6.4
3.8
539
539
539
540
540
540
537
537
537
534
534
534
535
535
535
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
539
539
539
538
538
538
536
536
536
541
541
535
6.1
9.8
84.0
8.1
20.0
71.9
65.0
11.2
23.8
36.1
11.4
52.4
28.8
24.9
46.4
63.1
0.7
36.1
0.0
1.9
28.3
69.8
36.5
30.4
33.0
27.3
46.7
26.0
31.3
25.9
42.7
0.4
5.2
4.1
366
366
366
369
369
369
362
362
362
364
364
364
369
369
369
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
369
369
369
366
366
366
369
369
369
371
371
367
10.1
13.9
76.0
11.9
20.3
67.8
72.4
8.3
19.3
36.0
16.5
47.5
36.9
21.7
41.5
71.9
0.5
27.6
0.0
1.4
30.8
67.8
34.4
38.2
27.4
29.2
43.7
27.0
29.0
26.8
44.2
1.3
3.2
3.5
1513
1513
1513
1518
1518
1518
1504
1504
1504
1495
1495
1495
1508
1508
1508
1522
1522
1522
1522
1520
1520
1520
1514
1514
1514
1511
1511
1511
1506
1506
1506
1524
1523
1505
6.7
11.1
82.2
9.9
19.4
70.8
66.7
9.5
23.8
35.7
13.3
51.0
30.2
25.1
44.6
64.8
0.7
34.4
0.1
1.5
28.8
69.7
35.9
32.2
31.8
27.5
45.5
26.9
30.2
25.9
43.9
0.9
4.9
4.0
All Other2 IPTE ODL
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N1 Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values}
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: clob.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
52
Table 42 Distribution of classroom time, by task
Total class time (min)
Total observation time (min)
Time on: Receiving instructions/demonstration (%)
Time on: Listening to teacher read (%)
Time on: Recitation/Rote Learning/Practice Drill (%)
Time on: Asking or Asnwering questions (%)
Time on: Receiving question(s) or answer(s) (%)
Time on: Receiving assignment (%)
Time on: Reading aloud (%)
Time on: Reading in silence (%)
Time on: Copying (from chalk board) (%)
Time on: Individual / written seatwork (%)
Time on: Discussion (whole class) (%)
Time on: Group work (%)
Time on: Kinesthetic (%)
Time on: Taking exam (%)
Time on: Disrupting class or being disciplined (%)
Time on: No instructional activity (%)
Time on: Break (%)
35.3
34.4
18.9
3.0
4.2
10.4
10.8
0.8
3.9
0.9
2.9
15.5
3.3
13.7
1.0
0.3
0.5
9.9
0.0
(16.0-40.0)
(14.0-40.0)
(0.0-78.4)
(0.0-57.1)
(0.0-73.9)
(0.0-56.5)
(0.0-54.0)
(0.0-31.4)
(0.0-52.1)
(0.0-41.4)
(0.0-49.4)
(0.0-91.0)
(0.0-66.7)
(0.0-77.5)
(0.0-43.3)
(0.0-95.0)
(0.0-13.8)
(0.0-62.0)
(0.0-2.5)
35.4
34.4
18.2
3.0
3.1
10.7
9.9
0.7
4.2
1.4
3.7
15.8
3.6
14.7
1.0
0.2
0.4
9.5
0.1
(20.0-40.0)
(17.0-40.0)
(0.0-80.0)
(0.0-37.5)
(0.0-46.4)
(0.0-88.3)
(0.0-47.1)
(0.0-26.5)
(0.0-64.3)
(0.0-42.1)
(0.0-64.6)
(0.0-84.1)
(0.0-49.4)
(0.0-68.0)
(0.0-34.7)
(0.0-84.8)
(0.0-16.3)
(0.0-62.0)
(0.0-21.7)
36.0
35.1
17.6
2.9
4.6
8.9
9.3
0.6
4.7
1.4
3.9
23.2
2.4
8.9
0.7
0.2
0.4
10.3
0.1
(13.0-40.0)
(12.5-40.0)
(0.0-66.3)
(0.0-67.2)
(0.0-47.1)
(0.0-52.9)
(0.0-68.8)
(0.0-25.7)
(0.0-42.4)
(0.0-37.5)
(0.0-46.8)
(0.0-88.0)
(0.0-52.8)
(0.0-68.9)
(0.0-31.8)
(0.0-55.0)
(0.0-12.5)
(0.0-76.8)
(0.0-6.3)
35.5
34.6
18.1
3.0
3.9
10.1
10.1
0.7
4.2
1.2
3.5
17.7
3.2
12.7
0.9
0.3
0.4
9.9
0.1
(13.0-40.0)
(12.5-40.0)
(0.0-80.0)
(0.0-67.2)
(0.0-73.9)
(0.0-88.3)
(0.0-68.8)
(0.0-31.4)
(0.0-64.3)
(0.0-42.1)
(0.0-64.6)
(0.0-91.0)
(0.0-66.7)
(0.0-77.5)
(0.0-43.3)
(0.0-95.0)
(0.0-16.3)
(0.0-76.8)
(0.0-21.7)
All Other2 IPTE ODL
Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean Characteristic
1N = Observations with non-missing values}
2Other includes MASTEP, MIITEP, 2 year & 1 year programs
Dataset: tita.dta Date generated: 1/31/2012
Table 43 Determinants of English proficiency (z-scores)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable Reference b1 t1 b2 t2 b3 t3 b4 t4
Male student [Female students] 0.161*** -11.69 0.161*** -10.4 0.166*** -10.46 0.168*** -10.79 Student is age appropriate for standard [Overage students] 0.140*** -4.63 0.126*** -3.65 0.138*** -3.97 0.103** -3.22 Number of student siblings (#) -0.011*** (-3.63) -0.013*** (-3.93) -0.011*** (-3.35) -0.012*** (-3.53) Student speaks english at home [Chichewa at home] -0.13 (-1.50) -0.167 (-1.77) -0.149 (-1.59) -0.157 (-1.70) Student speaks other language at home [Chichewa at home] -0.041 (-1.28) -0.041 (-1.18) -0.024 (-0.72) 0.015 -0.46 Student repeating same standard [Student in expected standard] 0.067*** -3.89 0.062** -3.19 0.066*** -3.37 0.055** -2.86 Student fell a standard(s) [Student in expected standard] -0.329*** (-5.48) -0.312*** (-4.87) -0.283*** (-4.49) -0.286*** (-4.31) Student advanced a standard(s) [Student in expected standard] -0.206** (-2.66) -0.214** (-2.59) -0.226** (-2.72) -0.229** (-2.88) Standard 4 [Standard 3] -0.009 (-0.27) -0.033 (-0.90) -0.048 (-1.28) -0.056 (-1.49) Standard 5 [Standard 3] -0.012 (-0.34) -0.036 (-0.92) -0.045 (-1.08) -0.068 (-1.66) Standard 6 [Standard 3] -0.016 (-0.44) -0.059 (-1.46) -0.061 (-1.41) -0.097* (-2.24) Female teacher [Male teacher] 0 0 0.003 -0.09 -0.027 (-0.93) Age (years) -0.003 (-0.84) -0.004 (-0.90) -0.005 (-1.44) Teaching experience in this school (years) 0.002 -0.33 0 -0.06 -0.003 (-0.52) Years of teaching experience overall (years) -0.002 (-0.38) -0.001 (-0.28) -0.001 (-0.11) Education: Upper secondary incomplete [Lower secondary] -0.147 (-1.22) -0.133 (-1.04) -0.09 (-0.63) Education: Upper secondary complete (MSCE/O-level) [Lower secondary] 0.043 -0.68 0.051 -0.78 0.013 -0.2 Education: post-secondary or other [Lower secondary] 0.016 -0.12 0.027 -0.2 -0.002 (-0.02) Training: IPTE [Other training programs] -0.072 (-1.06) -0.073 (-1.05) -0.113 (-1.65) Training: ODL [Other training programs] -0.085 (-1.06) -0.084 (-1.01) -0.124 (-1.50) Years of teacher training completed -0.02 (-0.69) -0.019 (-0.61) -0.035 (-1.15) Total Annual Salary (KW) 0 (-0.31) 0 (-0.68) 0 (-0.83) Days of absence last calendar year -0.005* (-2.34) -0.004* (-2.04) -0.003 (-1.48) Receives mentoring by another teacher in school [No mentoring] -0.072* (-2.12) -0.076* (-2.24) -0.066* (-2.01) Teacher is from the community or zone [born outside community or zone] 0.003 -0.1 -0.011 (-0.32) -0.021 (-0.61) Wanted to work at current school -0.017 (-0.62) -0.018 (-0.64) -0.033 (-1.20) Teachers: English z-score 0.007 -0.48 0.001 -0.07 0.002 -0.12 Teachers: Math z-score 0.019 -1.23 0.012 -0.73 0.011 -0.75 Total students in class (#) -0.001 (-1.50) -0.001** (-3.14) Total class time (min) -0.018* (-2.06) -0.020* (-2.21) Time on: Receiving instructions/demonstration (min) 0.013 -1.59 0.014 -1.64 Time on: Listening to teacher read (min) 0.012 -1.2 0.013 -1.27 Time on: Recitation/Rote Learning/Practice Drill (min) 0.017 -1.8 0.018 -1.85 Time on: Asking or Answering questions (min) 0.011 -1.26 0.012 -1.35 Time on: Receiving question(s) or answer(s) (min) 0.011 -1.33 0.015 -1.78 Time on: Receiving assignment (min) 0.03 -1.54 0.035 -1.86 Time on: Reading aloud (min) 0.025** -2.86 0.026** -2.86 Time on: Reading in silence (min) 0.017 -1.34 0.023 -1.85 Time on: Copying (from chalk board) (min) 0.005 -0.63 0.008 -0.9 Time on: Individual/written seatwork (min) 0.013 -1.7 0.016 -1.89 Time on: Discussion (whole class) (min) 0.016 -1.67 0.018 -1.77 Time on: Group work (min) 0.015 -1.9 0.017* -2.04 Time on: Kinesthetic (min) 0.019 -1.61 0.022 -1.75 Time on: Taking exam (min) -0.007 (-0.86) -0.007 (-0.87) Time on: Disrupting class or being disciplined (min) 0.015 -0.49 0.014 -0.46 Time on: No instructional activity (min) 0.007 -0.93 0.01 -1.18 Time on: Break (min) 0.049* -2.22 0.075** -3.18 Pupil to Teacher ratio -0.002*** (-3.46) Government school [Faith based or private schools] -0.096*** (-3.38) Rural School [Semi-urban schools] -0.092 (-0.79)
54
Access to electricity 0.125 -1.89 Access to water 0.028 -0.64 Total rooms (#) 0.014*** -5.78 Double shift [Single shift schedule] -0.035 (-1.01) Feeding program [No feeding program] -0.05 (-1.53) Constant
-0.012 (-0.39) 0.255 -1.57 0.467* -2.2 0.753** -3.05
Number of observations 26373 21609 20743 20743
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
55
Table 44 Determinants of Math proficiency (z-scores)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable Reference Coef t-score Coef t-score Coef t-score Coef t-score
Male student [Female students] 0.183*** -14.19 0.178*** -12.51 0.180*** -12.34 0.181*** -12.47
Student is age appropriate for standard [Overage students] -0.063* (-2.57) -0.069* (-2.54) -0.066* (-2.43) -0.080** (-2.96)
Number of siblings -0.006* (-2.07) -0.010** (-2.98) -0.009** (-2.80) -0.009** (-3.00)
Student speaks English at home [Chichewa at home] -0.094 (-1.00) -0.15 (-1.69) -0.142 (-1.59) -0.15 (-1.69)
Student speaks other language at home [Chichewa at home] -0.079** (-2.59) -0.061 (-1.84) -0.047 (-1.46) -0.018 (-0.55)
Student repeating same standard [Student in expected standard] 0.105*** -6.16 0.092*** -4.84 0.088*** -4.64 0.083*** -4.42
Student fell a standard(s) [Student in expected standard] -0.278*** (-5.24) -0.265*** (-4.50) -0.233*** (-3.99) -0.229*** (-3.85)
Student advanced a standard(s) [Student in expected standard] -0.11 (-1.45) -0.137 (-1.72) -0.152 (-1.90) -0.144 (-1.84)
Standard 4 [Standard 3] -0.007 (-0.21) -0.02 (-0.55) -0.011 (-0.31) -0.015 (-0.44)
Standard 5 [Standard 3] 0.003 -0.09 -0.01 (-0.28) -0.011 (-0.31) -0.024 (-0.64)
Standard 6 [Standard 3] -0.015 (-0.51) -0.053 (-1.55) -0.056 (-1.57) -0.073* (-2.02)
Female teachers [Male teachers] -0.018 (-0.69) -0.015 (-0.57) -0.029 (-1.10)
Age (years) -0.001 (-0.33) -0.001 (-0.29) -0.002 (-0.59)
Teaching experience in this school (years) 0.005 -1.03 0.004 -0.91 0.002 -0.52
Years of teaching experience overall (years) -0.003 (-0.72) -0.004 (-0.95) -0.004 (-0.89)
Education: Upper secondary incomplete [Lower secondary] -0.14 (-1.02) -0.136 (-0.92) -0.1 (-0.65)
Education: Upper secondary complete (MSCE/O-level) [Lower secondary] 0.068 -1.27 0.063 -1.15 0.044 -0.81
Education: post-secondary or other [Lower secondary] 0.112 -1.31 0.115 -1.25 0.099 -1.2
Training: IPTE [Other training programs] -0.077 (-1.26) -0.086 (-1.42) -0.112 (-1.86)
Training: ODL [Other training programs] -0.03 (-0.40) -0.039 (-0.52) -0.066 (-0.89)
Years of teacher training completed 0.01 -0.4 0.009 -0.34 0.003 -0.1
Total Annual Salary (KW) 0 (-0.02) 0 (-0.31) 0 (-0.54)
Days of absence last calendar year -0.001 (-1.05) -0.001 (-0.75) 0 (-0.17)
Receives mentoring by another teacher in school [No mentoring] -0.002 (-0.05) 0.007 -0.23 0.013 -0.46
Teacher is from the community or zone [born outside community or zone] -0.019 (-0.64) -0.03 (-1.02) -0.035 (-1.21)
Wanted to work at current school -0.009 (-0.38) -0.007 (-0.30) -0.012 (-0.49)
Teachers: English z-score -0.004 (-0.30) -0.007 (-0.55) -0.005 (-0.38)
Teachers: Math z-score 0.042** -3.24 0.040** -3.04 0.040** -3.14
Total students in class (#) -0.001* (-2.47) -0.001** (-3.14)
Total class time (min) -0.003 (-0.44) -0.006 (-0.73)
Time on: Receiving instructions/demonstration (min) 0.002 -0.32 0.004 -0.53
Time on: Listening to teacher read (min) 0.003 -0.36 0.004 -0.49
Time on: Recitation/Rote Learning/Practice Drill (min) 0.007 -0.84 0.008 -0.97
Time on: Asking or Answering questions (min) -0.002 (-0.24) 0 (-0.05)
Time on: Receiving question(s) or answer(s) (min) -0.002 (-0.24) 0.001 -0.18
Time on: Receiving assignment (min) -0.004 (-0.23) 0 -0.01
Time on: Reading aloud (min) 0.014 -1.73 0.016* -1.97
Time on: Reading in silence (min) -0.006 (-0.57) -0.001 (-0.13)
Time on: Copying (from chalk board) (min) -0.004 (-0.49) -0.002 (-0.27)
Time on: Individual/written seatwork (min) 0.002 -0.27 0.004 -0.6
Time on: Discussion (whole class) (min) 0.005 -0.63 0.007 -0.8
Time on: Group work (min) 0.002 -0.3 0.005 -0.65
Time on: Kinesthetic (min) -0.008 (-0.73) -0.005 (-0.49)
Time on: Taking exam (min) -0.001 (-0.11) -0.001 (-0.08)
Time on: Disrupting class or being disciplined (min) 0.002 -0.07 0.003 -0.09
Time on: No instructional activity (min) 0.002 -0.27 0.004 -0.54
56
Time on: Break (min) 0.012 -0.47 0.022 -0.81
Pupil to Teacher ratio -0.001** (-2.76)
Government school [Faith based or private schools] -0.076** (-3.08)
Rural School [Semi-urban schools] -0.161 (-1.69)
Access to electricity -0.028 (-0.63)
Access to water 0.04 -1.02
Total rooms (#) 0.008*** -3.7
Double shift [Single shift schedule] -0.065* (-1.97)
Feeding program [No feeding program] -0.014 (-0.49)
Constant
-0.042 (-1.41) 0.028 -0.21 0.152 -0.82 0.432* -2.03
Number of observations 26372 21608 20742 20742
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Recommended