Evaluation Study of Malawi’s Open Distance Learning ... · World Bank is undertaking an impact evaluation of a distance training program in Malawi – the focus of this report

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




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




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 (%)








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


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




(***)=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


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 (%)










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




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: IPTE cohort 1 (%)

Training: IPTE cohort 2 (%)

Training: IPTE Cohort 3 (%)



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




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




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



2Test of difference in means, significance levels:(***)=99%, (**)=95%, (*)=90%, (n)=no difference


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





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





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





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


1


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





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 (%)




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



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


1


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



(***)=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




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






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 (%)




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






35

Table 25 Teacher training: content, relevance and perception of quality

Training: None (%)

Training: MASTEP (%)

Training: MIITEP (%)



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



1


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


2


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



2


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



1



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



1



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



1



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






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






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






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





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



1



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


2No training


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 (%)





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






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


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




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



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

Documents

Evaluation Study of Malawi’s Open Distance Learning ... · World Bank is undertaking an impact evaluation of a distance training program in Malawi – the focus of this report