SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAMschooldropoutprevention.com/wp-content/...Report_Fiscal_Year_2014.pdfHR Human Resources ICT ... the FCI process and enrichment program ... School

SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAM

Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00

Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010

October 2014

This study was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Creative Associates International.

ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2013 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)

School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program

Summary Annual Progress Report

October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014

Submitted to:

U.S. Agency for International Development/Asia and Middle East Bureau

Chris Capacci-Carneal, COR

AME/ME/TS

Washington, D.C.

Submitted by:

Creative Associates International

5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20015

Under Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00/Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010

October 2014

This report was made possible by the American People through the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Creative

Associates International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States

Government.


DEC Submission Requirements

a. USAID Award Number Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00

Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010

b. USAID Objective Title Investing in People (IIP)

c. USAID Project Title USAID Asia and Middle East Regional School Dropout Prevention

Pilot (SDPP) Program

d. USAID Program Area and

Program Element

Education (program area 3.2)

Basic Education (program element 3.2.1)

e. Descriptive Title Summary Annual Progress Report: October 1, 2013 – September 30,

2014

f. Author Name(s) Karen Tietjen

g. Contractor name

Creative Associates International

5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20015

Telephone: 202 966 5804 Fax: 202 363 4771

Contact: [email protected]

h. Sponsoring USAID

Operating Unit and COTR

AME/ME/TS

Chris Capacci-Carneal, COR

i. Date of Publication October 30, 2014

j. Language of Document English

mailto:[email protected]


Page i

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... ii

Activity Summary .................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

I. Project Overview, Rationale and Strategy ......................................................................... 2

II. Progress toward Results and Requirements and Activities Undertaken ............................ 3

A. Result/CLIN 1: Elements of Successful Student Dropout Prevention Programs

Identified ........................................................................................................................... 3

B. Result/CLIN 2: Risk Factors and Conditions that Increase the Likelihood of Students

Dropping Out of School in the Pilot Countries Identified ................................................ 4

C. Result/CLIN 3: The Effectiveness of Education Interventions in Reducing

School Dropout Rates Determined in Each Pilot Country................................................ 7

III. Project Management and Operations ............................................................................... 34

A. Operations .................................................................................................................. 34

B. Key Meetings with USAID and Partners ................................................................... 36

C. Staff Actions ............................................................................................................... 44

D. Consultants ................................................................................................................. 45

E. Staff and Consultant International Travel .................................................................. 46

F. Procurements .............................................................................................................. 48

IV. Status of Contract Deliverables ....................................................................................... 48

V. Challenges and Actions Taken......................................................................................... 51

VI. Major Activities Planned for Next Quarter ...................................................................... 53

VII. Accrued Expenditures ...................................................................................................... 54


Page ii

Acronyms

ACD Assistant Country Director

AME Asia and Middle East Bureau

BEPC Bihar Education Project Council

BRC/CRC Block/Cluster Resource Center

CARE/TL CARE/Timor Leste

CBO Community-Based Organization

CIES Comparative and International Education Society

CLIN Contract Line Item Number (USAID)

COR/COTR Contracting Officer’s Representative/Technical Representative (USAID)

DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse

DED District Education Director

DOE District Office of Education

DPO District Program Officer

EFA Education for All

EWS Early Warning System

EWRS Early Warning and Response System

FPO Field Program Officer

FY Fiscal Year

HQ Headquarters

HR Human Resources

ICT Information Communication Technology

IDEAL Institute for Development, Education, and Learning

IIP Investing in People

IRL Indochina Research Limited

KAPE Kampuchean Action for Primary Education

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development

MO Monitoring Officer

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MoE Ministry of Education

MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPR Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

NA Not Applicable

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PO Project Officer

POE Provincial Office of Education

PRI Panchayati Raj Institution

PTA Parent-Teacher Association

QUEST Quality Education and Skills Training

RED Regional Education Director

RTE Right to Education

SDPP School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program

SES Selected Educational Statistics

STS School-to-School International

TOR Terms of Reference

U.S. United States

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development


Page iii

Activity Summary

Lead Implementing Partner: Creative Associates International (Creative)

Other Implementing

Partners:

Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica)

School-to-School International (STS)

Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE)

Institute for Development, Education, and Learning (IDEAL)

CARE/Timor Leste (CARE)

Activity Name: USAID Asia and Middle East Regional

School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program

Activity Objective:

The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program’s objective is to

provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and

countries in Asia and the Middle East on student dropout prevention in

primary and secondary school by piloting and testing the effectiveness of

dropout prevention interventions in four target countries: Cambodia,

India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste.

USAID Program Objective: Investing in People (IIP)

Life of Activity: September 27, 2010 – September 29, 2013 (extended to September 29,

2015)

Total Estimated

Contract/Agreement

Amount: $51,504,754

Obligations to date: $51,504,754

Accrued Expenditures 12th

Quarter (July-Sept. 2014): $1,991,169

Activity Cumulative

Accrued Expenditures to

Date (Inception through

September 2014):

$36,537,453

Estimated Expenditures

Next Quarter: $1,994, 910


Page 1

Executive Summary

The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program is a five-year program, funded by the U.S. Agency

for International Development (USAID), aimed at mitigating student dropout from primary and secondary

school. Its objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and

countries in Asia and the Middle East on student dropout prevention by piloting and testing the

effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste.

SDPP’s three-stage applied research approach includes 1) identifying best practices in dropout prevention

in the U.S. and developing countries (Result/CLIN 1); 2) identifying those groups, grades and/or

geographic areas most severely affected by dropout and analyzing the risk factors and conditions affecting

dropout (Result/CLIN 2); and 3) designing, implementing, and evaluating pilot interventions to keep at-

risk students in the most acutely affected areas in school (Result/CLIN 3).

All standards and deliverables under Result/CLIN1 have been achieved. All Result/CLIN2 standards have

been achieved, except a four-country summary and a final presentation in Washington. Under

Result/CLIN 3, pilot dropout prevention interventions have concluded in Cambodia, Tajikistan, and

Timor Leste. School interventions in India will continue through the school year (March 30, 2015). In

all four countries, SDPP interventions reached 84,454 students, of which 39,930 were girls (47 percent)

In Cambodia, interventions in the 215 treatment schools concluded in Quarter 3, having reached 59,271

grade 7-9 students (41,487 at risk). SDPP worked with MOEYS to develop a Sustainability Plan,

approved in Quarter 4. Follow-up 2 impact assessment data were collected, and Fidelity of

Implementation (FOI) and Qualitative Research (QR) conducted. FOI found overall high fidelity with

some weakness in case management, which was addressed by supporting monthly school meetings.

Computer Labs received replacement equipment; schools were trained on repair and maintenance.

In India, SDPP interventions spanned two school years, reaching 10,814 students (8,343 at risk) in 113

treatment schools. SDPP responded to the Bihar Education Project Council request for a simplified

EWS suitable for scale-up. Follow-up 2 and FOI data were collected. SDPP trained teachers and staff on

the FCI process and enrichment program (EP) activities, and conducted leadership training for

headmasters. NEW EP sessions and voice messages were created for program related activities.

In Tajikistan, SDPP concluded its support of 1,753 at-risk students in 82 schools in Quarter 3. SDPP was

authorized to organize one Consultative Group meeting and an International Literacy Day celebration.

Follow-up 2, FOI and QR data were collected. Schools were trained on the revised EWS toolkit and 203

Tutoring Lessons; all SDPP materials were submitted for MOES approval. FOI found high fidelity but

weakness in case management; SDPP staff worked with the schools. SDPP proposed several training

activities to reinforce interventions, but the lack of a signed Letter of Commitment hampered progress.

In Timor Leste, SDPP concluded intervention support, having served 12,616 students (5,467 at-risk) in 97

schools spanning two school years in FY14. Each quarter, a National Coordination Body meetings were

hosted by the MOE. Follow-up 2, FOI and QR data were collected. Based on FOI results, staff

encouraged teachers to hold case management meetings, using the first trimester exam results as a focus;

reactivated ‘Stay in School’ Community Groups; and trained teachers on extracurricular sessions.

SDPP HQ prepared a preliminary analysis of Baseline and Follow-up 1 data, and oversaw the collection

and data cleaning of Follow-up 2 data. It developed FOI tools, supported data collection, and conducted

analysis. It designed a Qualitative Research Study exploring beneficiary-intervention interactions, and

launched data collection in three countries. It completed filming for the SDPP multimedia packages in all

countries. It developed and organized two panels on SDPP research results and community mobilization,

which HQ and country team member presented at for the Comparative International Education Society

2014 Conference in Toronto.


Page 2

I. Project Overview, Rationale and Strategy

For the past two decades, children’s access to basic education has been the major focus of national and

international education development efforts. However, as more children enroll in school, but fail to

complete it, school dropout has become recognized as a major educational challenge both in developed

and developing countries. Although the pattern of dropout varies by country, the result is the same:

increasing numbers of under-educated and unemployable youth. Reducing dropout is key to improving

access to basic education, particularly in countries with relatively high enrollment rates where most

school-age children who do not currently attend school have previously been enrolled in school.

The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program is a five-year multi-country program, funded by

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), aimed at mitigating student dropout from

primary and secondary school. Its objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to

USAID missions and countries in Asia and the Middle East (AME) on student dropout prevention by

piloting and testing the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in four target countries:

Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste. Using multiple channels, including a web-based platform,

SDPP will build a community of practice, sharing information and feedback on intervention design,

research methodologies, and results. It will also produce practical and accessible guidance and models

for designing, implementing and assessing dropout prevention programs in primary and secondary school.

SDPP will advance knowledge on dropout prevention programs through an applied research approach. In

a three-stage process, it will:

1. Identify best practices in dropout prevention in the U.S. and developing countries (Result/CLIN 1).

2. Identify existing policies and programs in each country designed to prevent or reduce student dropout

and analyze dropout trends to identify the groups, grades and geographic areas most severely affected

by dropout. SDPP will conduct a situational analysis in the target area and among the most affected

groups in order to understand the risk factors and conditions affecting dropout (Result/CLIN 2). 3. Design, implement and evaluate interventions to keep at-risk students in schools in the most acutely

affected areas. There are no preconceived interventions to reduce dropout prescribed by the project;

design will be tailored to fit the needs of the target group in each country based on the situational

analysis as well as informed by promising interventions noted in the literature review. However,

SDPP will not fund school construction, subsidies/incentives, general teacher training, vocational

education, or workforce development activities. SDPP will rigorously assess the effectiveness and

replicability of the pilot project interventions to provide state-of-the-art information on which dropout

prevention strategies work (and those that do not) using randomized control trials and/or quasi-

experimental designs and combining quantitative and qualitative methods (Result/CLIN 3).

SDPP is implemented by Creative Associates International with international partners Mathematica

Policy Research (Mathematica, or MPR) and School-to-School International (STS), and local partners

Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE) in Cambodia, Institute for Development, Education,

and Learning (IDEAL) in India, and CARE in Timor Leste. With technical guidance from Creative’s

SDPP headquarters, implementing partners in the target countries implement the SDPP program, working

with the government and key stakeholders to identify the project target group and site, design

interventions, and assess effectiveness.


Page 3

II. Progress toward Results and Requirements and Activities Undertaken

A. Result/CLIN 1: Elements of Successful Student Dropout Prevention Programs Identified

Programs or interventions from around the world which have been evaluated for their effectiveness in

reducing dropout have been identified in order to help determine programming recommendations for the

four pilot countries and to inform the selection and design of interventions in each country. The review of

existing U.S. and international research on dropout prevention also provides critical information regarding

dropout to USAID and its partners in the AME region.

Requirement 1.1: Conduct Identification and Analysis of U.S. and International Evidence-Based

Student Dropout Prevention Programs and Interventions

During FY11, identification and analysis of existing research on dropout prevention programming around

the world was completed. All four standards under Requirement 1.1 have been achieved.

Requirement 1.2: Produce Report on U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout

Prevention Programming

During FY11, the results of the literature review were synthesized into a school dropout prevention and

analysis report, which was approved by USAID. The report has been translated into Khmer, Hindi, Tajik

and Russian, and Portuguese and Tetun (for Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste, respectively).

All six standards under Requirement 1.2 have been achieved.

Requirement 1.3: Distribute Report on U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout

Prevention Programming

English and local language versions of the report have been distributed in all four countries and in the

U.S., including to the AME Bureau of USAID/Washington. In-country distributions were done primarily

in conjunction with the intervention design workshops (year two) and other events including the program

launches this year. The English and six local language versions are available on the SDPP website. The

three standards under Requirement 1.3 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:

Plan for conducting the identification and analysis provided within thirty days after award.

Plan for identification and analysis includes methodology and criteria to identify effective evidence-based

programs and interventions for preventing student dropout.

Identification and analysis includes a review of at least fifteen programs or interventions.

A synthesis of effective interventions that can be adapted to the pilot countries.

Standards Achieved:

Draft report submitted within thirty (30) days after completion of analysis.

Report includes an executive summary, which succinctly profiles specific interventions, combinations of

interventions and or programs that have demonstrated student dropout prevention.

Report includes estimated costs associated with each intervention or program associated with positive

results.

Report includes a conclusion as to which interventions/programs are most convincing and make the greatest

contribution to the understanding of student dropout prevention.

Report is grammatically correct and contains no spelling or punctuation errors.

Minimum of two hundred (200) reports packaged.


Page 4

Requirement 1.4: Present Findings of the Analysis

Key findings from the literature review were presented to USAID missions, host country representatives,

and other stakeholders in the four pilot countries as part of the design consultation workshops held during

the project’s second year. Presentations on the findings of the literature review have been made to USAID

AME Regional Bureau representatives, including the SDPP COR. All three standards under Requirement

1.4 have been achieved.

B. Result/CLIN 2: Risk Factors and Conditions that Increase the Likelihood of Students Dropping

Out of School in the Pilot Countries Identified

In-depth assessments of the risk factors and conditions that influence school dropout have been

completed. In each country, this effort involved three main components, including analyzing national data

on dropout trends; identifying existing policies and programs designed to prevent or reduce student

dropout; and conducting field-based, primary research on dropout in the geographic areas and with the

target populations and grades that pilot project interventions will address.

Requirement 2.1: Identify Assessment Tools

Development of tools used in conducting primary research on dropout in the four pilot countries (data

collection instruments, data entry system, and a variety of guidelines, training materials, and other

supportive tools) was completed during the first year of the project. Both standards under Requirement

2.1 have been achieved.

Requirement 2.2: Conduct an In-depth Assessment of Student Dropout Issues and Trends in each

of the Four Pilot Countries

To ensure that pilot projects address the most critical academic and social pressures that influence dropout

in each of the four pilot countries, SDPP has conducted in-depth assessments in each country. The

assessments served to identify children who are most vulnerable to dropping out of school, to determine

Standards Achieved:

Minimum of two-hundred (200) total hard copy reports distributed to USAID pilot missions, and the AME

Regional Bureau in English.

Minimum of fifty (50) hard copy reports distributed to each of the four (4) USAID pilot missions and the

respective host country representatives and key stakeholders in the official languages of the country.

Report, in English, distributed to intended recipients within thirty (30) days after TO COTR approval.

Standards Achieved:

A minimum of five (5) presentations total on report findings made to USAID AME Regional Bureau,

USAID pilot missions and host country representatives and key stakeholders.

Presentations include all key findings.

Presentations include a power point that summarizes findings.

Standards Achieved:

List of assessment tools for each of the four (4) countries that indicate the subset of core tools for all

countries.

Each proposed assessment tool specifies the factor(s) it assesses.


Page 5

the reasons for dropout in the most affected areas, and to assess the effects of existing policies and/or

programs designed to prevent or reduce student dropout rates, through three major tasks: (1) analysis of

dropout trends, (2) policy and program analysis, and (3) on-site primary research that profiles children at

risk of dropping out and the factors and conditions affecting dropout.

All three tasks in each of the four SDPP countries have been completed, and all four standards under

Requirement 2.2 have been achieved.

Requirement 2.3: Produce Report of In-Depth Pilot Country Assessments

In order to help USAID, host country governments, and other stakeholders in the pilot countries and the

AME region gain a clearer understanding of dropout factors and trends, key findings from the country

assessments have been documented and shared widely. Results are presented in separate reports on each

of the major components of the assessments: the dropout trends analysis, the inventory of policies and

programs, and the situational analysis/primary research.

Analysis of Dropout Trends: Reports on the data trends analysis for all four countries have been

finalized, translated, and submitted to USAID/Washington. The reports frame the magnitude of the

dropout problem in each country and identify the locations, groups and grades that are most acutely

affected by dropout. Copies of the report in English and in local languages have been distributed in all

countries.

Policy and Program Analysis: Inventories of the government policies or institutionalized practices in

each country that may influence dropout, together with information on past or current government or non-

governmental programs with potential for influencing dropout, were compiled for each country,

submitted, and approved by USAID in year one. English and local language translations have been

distributed in all four countries.

On-Site Primary Research: Initial summary reports providing an overview of the primary research

methodologies and results from each country have also been prepared. A more detailed report

summarizing the findings of the research was prepared for the Timor-Leste Ministry of Education. SDPP

completed analyses of data from all four countries and prepared four full country reports. One four-

country summary report is under preparation.

Standards Achieved:

Draft plan for implementing in-depth assessment developed for each of the four (4) pilot

countries within two (2) months after award.

Four (4) individual pilot country assessment plans submitted within fifteen (15) days after approval of

drafts.

In-depth assessments initiated within each of the four (4) pilot countries no later than one (1) month after

Country AM/TO COTR approval.

Inventory of existing government policies and programs of government, NGOs and community-based

organizations (CBOs) that may affect dropout rates and that may be considered as interventions to test in

Result 3 compiled.


Page 6

One Standard under Requirement 2.3 has been achieved, while the others have been partially achieved.

Requirement 2.4: Present Findings of In-Depth Pilot Country Assessments

Findings of the in-depth country assessments, including trend analyses, policies and programs, and

primary research, together with findings from the literature review on dropout prevention programming,

were presented in all four countries at the consultative intervention design workshops held during the first

two quarters of FY2012. In addition, country-specific presentations were made to USAID Mission

personnel in-country in Cambodia, Timor Leste, and India during FY2012, as well as to the incoming

USAID Country Director for Tajikistan and the two USAID/Washington SDPP CORs in Washington.

The findings from all four countries were also presented at the 2012 Comparative and International

Education Society (CIES) conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A presentation to USAID in Washington

covering all four countries will be scheduled in consultation with the AME Bureau.

The seven standards under Requirement 2.4 have been achieved.

Requirement 2.5: Translate and Distribute In-Depth Pilot Country Assessment Report

The dropout trends analysis reports and policy and programs inventory reports have been translated into

Khmer (Cambodia), Hindi (India), Tajik and Russian (Tajikistan), and Tetun and Portuguese (Timor

Leste). In all four countries, the PowerPoint presentations summarizing key results from the primary

research were also translated into local languages. The reports have been widely distributed, primarily but

not exclusively in coordination with the intervention design consultative meetings and launches in each

country. English and local language versions of the reports have also been distributed to the

USAID/Washington AME Regional Bureau.

Standards Achieved:

Four (4) country tailored power point presentations.

Presentations on in-depth country assessments include all risk factors and trends identified for each of the

four (4) countries.

Presentations include at least two (2) recommendations for possible programming to mitigate student

dropout for each of the four (4) pilot countries.

Presentations on in-depth country assessments include a summary of findings for each of the four (4)

country assessments.

A minimum of four (4) workshops held to discuss country findings and possible programming options.

A minimum of five (5) presentations on the in-depth country assessment findings made to pilot country

stakeholders, including USAID mission personnel and Washington personnel.

One (1) power point presentation including all countries.

Standards Achieved:

In-depth country assessment results identify grade-levels and student populations most at risk of dropping

out for each of the four pilot countries

Four (4) in-depth country assessment draft reports written within two (2) months after the completion of the

country assessments.

All four (4) reports adhere to a uniform organizational format.

Written reports are grammatically correct, without spelling or punctuation errors.

Standards Partially Achieved:

One (1) report with country comparisons.


Page 7

The final, primary research component of the assessment report has been completed and will be sent for

translation in FY15. The standards under this requirement have thus been partially achieved.

C. Result/CLIN 3: The Effectiveness of Education Interventions in Reducing School Dropout

Rates Determined in Each Pilot Country

In FY14, SDPP conducted a second (and final) year of school-based dropout prevention interventions in

each of the four pilot countries, reaching 84,454 students in 507 treatment schools. Based on findings

from CLINs 1 and 2, the interventions introduced in the schools address identified academic, economic

and social pressures shown to influence dropout, as well as gender considerations where needed. The

rigorous research designs allow for measurement of intervention effectiveness. By the end of the pilots,

SDPP will have identified achievements and failures, described lessons learned, suggested possible

models for replication in other countries, and made recommendations for dropout prevention

programming in Asia and the Middle East. Guidance and programming guides and toolkits on evidence-

based school dropout prevention programming, including best practices, requisite conditions and

estimated cost, will be prepared and distributed.

Requirement 3.1: Establish Pilot Country Coordination Bodies for the SDPP Program

SDPP coordination bodies or consultative groups, which were formed in each of the four SDPP countries

in FY12 with codified scopes of work, continued to meet throughout FY14. The consultative groups

serve as a means of fostering collaboration, communication and coordination among the SDPP

implementers, USAID pilot country mission personnel, host government representatives and other key

stakeholders.

Cambodia: SDPP continued its close collaboration with the National Coordination Body and with senior

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) officials. In Quarter 1, nine representatives of the

(MoEYS)—including National Coordination Body members—joined the EWS trainings for homeroom

teachers and school directors, encouraging them to collaborate with SDPP for a second school year.

Fifteen officials from the MoEYS ICT Department helped deliver SDPP computer literacy training to

Computer Lab teachers. In Quarter 2, National Coordination Body members and representatives from

the six Provincial Offices of Education (POE) met for two days to review the implementation plan and

discuss the draft SDPP Sustainability Plan, which was endorsed by H.E. Im Koch. In Quarter 3, SDPP

assisted the MoEYS to develop its official instruction letter to the 215 treatment schools to continue

implementation of EWS and Computer Labs in School Year 2014/15, following the end of SDPP support

in June/July 2014. The MoEYS announced it would request additional resources from the Ministry of

Economy and Finance to continue SDPP school intervention.

In Quarter 4, the sustainability plan—“Guidelines for the Implementation of the Early Warning System

and Computer Lab Interventions”—was officially approved by the MoEYS Secretary of State for

Secondary Education H.E. Im Koch on September 19, 2014, including not only the SDPP treatments

schools but those operating computer labs funded by the USAID IBEC project. The national

Standards Partially Achieved:

Each country assessment report translated into the official languages of the pilot countries: Cambodia

(Khmer), English, Tajik, Portuguese and Tetun.

A minimum of four-hundred (400) total in-depth country assessment reports distributed to four (4)

USAID pilot country missions and the respective host government representatives and stakeholders in the

languages required.

A minimum of fifty (50) in-depth country assessment reports distributed to each of the four (4) pilot

country missions and AME Regional Bureau, in English.

Each in-depth country assessment report comprises a print and compact disc (CD).


Page 8

Coordination Body and relevant MoEYS officials met with SDPP to review SDPP progress and approve

activities proposed to strengthen both school and MoEYS capacity to continue to support and expand the

interventions, including two national dissemination workshops planned for October and December 2014.

India: SDPP staff interacted frequently with state, district and block- education officials, responding to

high level interest in replicating and expanding the SDPP interventions. In Quarter 1, SDPP obtained

permission from Samastipur District officials to conduct school personnel training and provided a

progress report to the State Project Director for Education. In Quarter 2, the Consultative Group granted

SDPP permission to continue activities in the 2014/15 school year starting April 2014, and suggested

SDPP work with the state technical team to develop a stream-lined EWS for expansion to statewide. In

Quarter 3, State officials formally requested a scalable EWS model that can be expanded to more blocks

and another district in Bihar State.

In Quarter 4, SDPP shared a revised plan for expansion of the EWS intervention with the State Project

Director’s office. It proposed to train other block, district and state-level education staff who could train

schools on the interventions. The district-level coordination meeting was postponed due to heavy rains,

but permission was obtained for SDPP to capture stories, pictures and video footage from intervention

schools.

Tajikistan: Due to the on-going discussions between USAID and the Ministry of Education and Sport

(MoES) about the Letter of Committment, the SDPP Consultative Group was authorized to meet only

once in FY14, although permission was granted for SDPP to continue school-based activities in school

year 2013/14, starting in October 2013. Nevertheless, meetings took place frequently between individual

Consultative Group members and SDPP staff, particularly at the district level, to update them on program

activities and ensure continued support. In Quarter 3, with MoES authorization, SDPP organized a

Consultative Group meeting in Kulob, chaired by the MoES Supervisor for Pre-Primary and Secondary

Education for Kulob, and attended by district education officers and USAID to review progress, plans to

reinforce school capacity to continue the interventions, and the second reward package of books.

In Quarter 4, the MoES approved the SDPP-organized International Literacy Day Celebration, held in

September, which brought together regional and district education directors preempted the tentatively-

scheduled Consultation Group meeting. Quarterly reports on SDPP activities were regularly submitted to

the MoES.

U.S Ambassador to

Tajikistan Susan Elliot

greets Grade 9 students at

School #4 in Dangara

District at the

International Literacy

Day celebration on

September 23, 2014,

organized by SDPP.


Page 9

Timor Leste: The Country Coordination

Body met four times, once per quarter in

FY14, with meetings chaired by the

National Director for Basic Education or

his representative. In Quarter 1, newly-

appointed District Directors were oriented

to the program activities. In Quarter 2,

members discussed how the interventions

could be continued after SDPP; the

Director General for Basic Education

expressed interest in integrating the Extra-

curricular enrichment activities into regular classes and continuing the EWS intervention. In Quarter 3,

SDPP staff presented sample copies of the “easy-user” EWS Guide for teachers and a draft poster.

In Quarter 4, the Country Coordination Body met in September. SDPP staff updated participants on SDPP

activities of the previous school trimester and presented findings from the Fidelity-of-Implementation

assessment, showing high levels of teacher absenteeism and poor record-keeping at the schools, which

inhibit intervention impact. Participants expressed the desire to continue SDPP activities, and noted the

final results will influence Ministry of Education (MoE) policy.

All five standards under Requirement 3.1 have been achieved.

Requirement 3.2: Design Student Dropout Prevention Pilot Projects

Pilot projects in each of the countries were designed and operationalized in FY 12. In FY14, the school-

based interventions entered a second year of implementation and were concluded in three countries—

Cambodia, Tajikistan and Timor Leste (see Requirement 3.5). Each country has implemented an Early

Warning System (EWS), as one of two interventions. While each country EWS is tailored to the context,

they all aim to: (i) use existing school-level data on attendance, performance, behavior, and other

indicators to identify students at risk of dropping out of school; (ii) enhance the capacity of schools to

address the needs of at-risk students; and (iii) strengthen the partnership between school personnel and the

parents or guardians of at-risk students. In addition to the EWS, other interventions include computer labs

in Cambodia; in-school arts and crafts, sports, and language arts activities in India; after-school tutoring

and recreational activities in Tajikistan; and extra-curricular enrichment activities in Timor Leste.

All three standards under Requirement 3.2 have been achieved.

Timor Leste

“The SDPP program acts as a key for the Ministry of

Education to pay attention to student attendance from

beginning to completion of basic education. We need to

prevent repetition. We need to make extra efforts to ensure that

all students pass the exams. Many students drop out of school

because of repetition. When a student has had to repeat a

grade 2 or 3 times it greatly increases their risk of dropout.” --Cidálio Leite, Director General for Preschool and Basic

Education.

Standards Achieved:

Stakeholders identified in each of the four (4) pilot countries that include, at a minimum, representatives

from the Ministries of Education, the teacher’s union (where applicable), and community representatives,

PTAs or private sector.

Areas of collaboration identified and areas of potential conflict and resolutions identified.

A SDPP project oversight body formed in each of the four (4) pilot countries.

A communication plan developed for each of the four (4) pilot countries.

The Coordination Body convened and a scope of work developed for its engagement in the project.

Standards Achieved

Four (4) tailored draft pilot design plans are completed within six (6) months after award.

Each of the four (4) pilot design plans includes the proposed methodology for selecting intervention sites.

Minimum of four (4)-[one (1) per country] design workshops are conducted that include representatives of

the SDPP project oversight body.


Page 10

Requirement 3.3: Develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

SDPP’s research plan, developed in FY12, details study design, data collection, and analysis for the

impact evaluation. It includes basic elements for country M&E plans, including: proposed outcome

variables and their operational definitions (between-grade and within-grade dropout, attendance,

performance, progression, student attitudes, and teacher attitudes/behaviors), described by country and in

accordance with the target grades and school calendars in each country; data sources needed to measure

these outcomes as well as other student and school characteristics needed for the impact analysis; and data

collection methods and timelines by country. In addition, “Fidelity of Implementation” (FOI) a nd

Qualitative Research tools and procedures have been developed, piloted and implemented in each

country.

All four of the Requirement 3.3 standards have been achieved.

The following presents progress on M&E activities.

Impact Assessment

Due to uncertainties about the SDPP extension, which was received in late August 2013, the SDPP data

analysis plan was revised to eliminate formal baseline reports. Instead, in Quarter 1 of FY14, SDPP

produced a preliminary report on all four countries comparing baseline with selected findings from

Follow-on 1 data, collected during the first year of school-based intervention. Baseline analyses suggest

that random assignment successfully created treatment and control groups that are equivalent on almost

all observed characteristics in all countries. The preliminary analysis comparing baseline data with the

first follow-on impact data on student dropout, student engagement in school (attendance), student

attitudes (emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and behavioral engagement), and teacher

behavior and attitudes indicates that only in a few instances is there a statistically significant, extremely

modest difference in with-in or between grade dropout between treatment and control groups. In

summary:

Dropout and Attendance: There are no statistically significant impacts of the programs on dropout or

attendance in Tajikistan, India, or Timor-Leste; nor are there dropout or attendance impacts for at-risk

students in these three countries yet. In Cambodia however, EWS schools have a statistically-

significant lower within-grade dropout rate than control schools, although no such significant findings

are present in EWS+Computer schools. Also, among at-risk students in Cambodia, EWS schools have

statistically-significant lower dropout than control schools.

At-risk Student Attitudes: There are no significant impacts on attitudes of at-risk students in any of the

four countries.

Teacher Dropout Prevention Practices: Impacts on the teachers’ dropout prevention practices are

mixed: significant positive impacts were found for EWS and EWS+Computer schools in Cambodia

and a marginally significant positive impact for schools in Timor-Leste, although none found in in

Tajikistan or India

Standards Achieved

Target dates established for all activities and outputs of pilot projects.

Operational definitions provided for all variables included in the four (4) country pilots.

At least three (3) outcome indicators established for each of the four (4) country pilots.

Data sources [identified] for each indicator.


Page 11

Table 1: Impact Assessment Data Collection Schedule

Data collected for: Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor Leste Total

Baseline 1 June 2012 July 2012 May 2012 May 2012

Schools 322 220 165 191 898

Student Records 89,040 25,562 8,110 29,477 152,189

Teacher Records 6,339 1,667 3,035 1,881 12922

Student Interviews na na na na na

Teacher Interviews 4,342 661 1,039 1,031 7,073

Baseline 2 December 2012 na November 2012 na

Schools 322 na 165 na 487

Student Records 140,214 na 8,245 na 148,459

Teacher Records na na na na na

Student Interviews 12,515 na 1,995 na 14,510

Teacher Interviews na na na na na

Follow-up 1 June 2013 May 2013 May 2013 May 2013

Schools 322 220 165 191 898

Student Records 140,002 12,812 8,245 29,458 190,517

Teacher Records 7,234 2,014 3,658 2,044 14,950

Student Interviews 12,512 3,300 2,005 5,568 23,385

Teacher Interviews 4,287 647 917 903 6,754

Follow-up 2 June 2014 March 2014 May 2014 April 2014

Schools 322 220 165 190 897

Student Records 190,458 39,625 16,615 31,301 277,999

Teacher Records 8,003 2,280 4,251 na 14,534

Student Interviews 15,949 3,433 2,670 na 22,052

Teacher Interviews 4,345 618 1,062 na 6,025

Follow-up 3 (endline 1) February 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014

Schools 322 220 165 190 897

Student Records 152,081 27,319 8,435 25,610 213,445

Teacher Records na 2,494 na 2,389 4,883

Student Interviews na 3,199 na 5,605 8,804

Teacher Interviews na 606 na 945 1,551

Follow-up 4 (endline 2) na na na February 2015

Schools na na na 190 190

Student Records na na na 25,368* 25,368

Teacher Records na na na na na

Student Interviews na na na na na

Teacher Interviews na na na na na

*This is the expected sample size for Follow-up 4, however data entry is not yet complete.


Page 12

These results are not unexpected at this stage, because: (1) the estimates (in some cases based on

incomplete analysis) are premature, as data was collected earlier than was optimum because of the 2013

contract termination date1; (2) limited intervention exposure time, in some cases only four months2; and

(3) in some cases (i.e. Cambodia) timing required the use of proxy variables for with-in grade dropout,

making a premature estimate even more inexact. Follow-on 2 data collection—planned for Quarters 2

and 3— allowed SDPP to “recoup” some of the missing data from Follow-on 1, as well as allow for a

longer exposure time. In Quarter 2, the SDPP HQ and country team representatives participated in a two-

day review of the preliminary results, discussed its implications, and planned for further analysis and data

collection, specifically determining to conduct qualitative research studies to better understand the

findings.

In Quarter 1, SDPP HQ developed plans, schedules and scopes of work for data collection for Follow-on

2, survey instruments were revised, and the CSPro data program updated. Requests-for-Quotations were

issued to local data collection firms in Cambodia, India and Tajikistan. In Quarters 2-4, SDPP HQ

assisted the country teams with data collections, quality assurance, and data cleaning.

Cambodia: In Quarter 1, Indochina Research Limited (IRL) was contracted to conduct the Follow-Up 2

data collection and data entry. In Quarter 2, the SDPP Cambodia M&E team worked closely with SDPP

HQ and IRL to finalize the tools and other forms required for the data collection, and inform the schools

of the upcoming data collection and its requirements. In Quarter 3, the SDPP HQ, the country team and

IRL conducted training on the instruments and protocols for 167 enumerators, and launched data

collection in the 322 schools.

In Quarter 4, data collection and data entry were completed; data was uploaded to the secure website for

cleaning and analysis. The SDPP country team followed up on data cleaning questions with IRL. In

August, the MoEYS officially delayed the start of the school year to November 2014 due need for 75

percent of Grade 12 students to re-sit the national exam in October, which resulted in postponing the

planned Follow-up 3 data collection. SDPP HQ and country staff reviewed Follow-on 3 instruments and

training materials, and worked with IRL to schedule data collection for FY15 Quarter 1.

India: In Quarter 1, local research firm Sunai was contracted to conduct the Follow-on 2 data collection

and data entry. In Quarter 2, the SDPP team conducted a one-day orientation program for school

personnel in control and intervention schools on data collection needs. Follow-on 2 data collection tools

were finalized and translated in Hindi, and 100 data collection team members were trained in their

application. Data from 220 schools were collected. Training of 15 data entry operators was conducted

and data entry initiated. In Quarter 3, data entry and cleaning was completed.

In Quarter 4, SDPP HQ, the country team and Sunai began planning for Follow-on 3, which is scheduled

for F15 Quarter 1.

Tajikistan: In Quarter 1, local research firm Zerkalo was contracted to assist in data collection and entry.

In Quarter 2, the SDPP country M&E team and field staff visited treatment and control schools to check

all the records required for Follow-on 2. The M&E team worked with SDPP HQ to revise the tools and

other documents, and began translation. In Quarter 3, the SDPP/Tajikistan team—with SDPP HQ

assistance—conducted training for 38 Zerkalo enumerators and 11 SDPP supervisory staff on data

collection. Data collection was carried out in all 165 schools, and data entry concluded at the end of June.

In Quarter 4, the country team began preparations for Follow-on 3—scheduled for FY15 Quarter 1--by

officially requesting the District Education Departments to emphasize the importance of preparing the

documents needed. Data collection was moved up by two weeks at the request of the USAID Activity

1 The SDPP contract extension was issued August 22, 2013, which necessitated that data collection be completed early to allow

for some analysis before the scheduled September 2013 termination date.

2 Exposure time was limited because SDPP interventions had been implemented in the schools for less than six months, school

schedules were disrupted with frequent closings preventing implementation, and typical roll-out issues.


Page 13

Participants practice completing the Proficiency Test during the

Follow-up 3 Data Collection Training Participants and facilitators in a group photo at the end of the

Follow-up 3 Data Collection Training

Manager. The M&E team visited treatment and control schools to determine availability of

documentation. SDPP HQ worked with the country team to develop/revise instruments and training

materials. With Zerkalo, the country team developed a data collection schedule and initiated the data

collector hiring process.

Timor Leste: In Quarter 2, the SDPP country team prepared for and initiated the Follow-on 2 data

collection in the 190 project schools. Data collection instruments and training materials were reviewed

and translated, and SDPP M&E and Research Officers participated in a 5-day training session. Data

collection started at the end of February, but experienced delays due to difficulty in locating students for

interviews; unavailability of records, and heavy rains and flooding. In Quarter 3, SDPP M&E and

Research Officers completed the Follow-up 2 data collection, although availability of school records

continues to be a challenge. The data entry for the Follow-up 2 data collection was concluded.

In Quarter 4, Follow-up 3 Data Collection School Visit Plans were formulated and shared with district

M&E and Research Officers to facilitate coordination with data collection teams. A three-day training

was held to improve SDPP staff interviewing skills. Fifty-three external data collectors, 16 team leaders,

and 11 replacement candidates were recruited and trained for Follow-on 3 data collection. Training was

facilitated by SDPP HQ and the CARE USA Senior Research and Learning Advisor. Follow-on 3 data

collection was initiated, and by the end of the quarter data from 56 control schools had been collected.

Attrition among team leaders and data collectors was the biggest challenge of the initial phase of the

Follow-up 3 Data Collection: nine temporary staff resigned and one was terminated due to her poor

performance. The data entry application was uploaded and the country team started testing the

database system. Data collection and data entry will be completed in FY15 Quarter 1.

Monitoring of SDPP Interventions

Reports from country teams in FY13 indicated that the SDPP Fidelity of Implementation (FOI)

instruments and protocols placed too heavy a burden on program staff. In response, SDPP HQ

streamlined and tested the instruments and protocols. In FY 14, SDPP HQ worked with the country

teams to: re-design FOI tools; develop protocols and guidance on FOI data collection, analysis,

and reporting; and implement two rounds of FOI in treatment and control schools.


Page 14

Table 2: Schedule of Fidelity of Implementation activities by country

Country

Tools

developed,

piloted

Tools

finalized

Round 1 data

collected

Round 1 data

analyzed,

reported

Round 2 data

collected

Round 2 data

analyzed,

reported

Cambodia Jan-March Jan-Mar Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Apr-Jun Jul-Oct

India Jan-Mar Apr-Jun EWS C1 Aug *

Other

interventions:

Sep-Oct

EWS C1:

Sep-Oct

Other

interventions

Nov-Dec

Nov-Dec Jan-Feb 15

Tajikistan Jan-Mar Jan-Mar Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Apr-Jun Jul-Sep

Timor Leste Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct Oct Nov-Dec

Bold=completed, italics=in progress or planned

* Data in India collected for Early Warning System, Component 1: At-risk students identified. Data for EWS

Components 2-4, enrichment activities, and parent involvement to be collected Sep-Oct.

Cambodia: In Quarter 1, the M&E team worked with SDPP HQ to update and revise the fidelity tools to

provide more streamlined but measurable tools for fidelity for EWS, Computer Labs (with a student

computer literacy assessment) and control schools, which were piloted, revised and re-tested. In Quarter

2, the M&E team trained staff and the provincial teams carried out the fidelity check in all 322

schools. In Quarter 3, Round 1 FOI data cleaning and preliminary descriptive analysis were

completed showing relatively high results for both EWS and Computer Labs.

In Quarter 4, the provincial teams completed the 2nd round of Fidelity: 19 schools were re-visited to

check if they had improved their score for the EWS implementation which had not reached the fidelity

threshold and 61 randomly selected schools were assessed. As all schools scored highly on Computer

Labs in round 1, there was no 2nd round fidelity check, although staff continued to monitor computer

labs. The student assessment was conducted for the 2nd time to the same classes in the same 12 schools

and KAPE randomly selected 61 control schools to carry out a fidelity check to ensure there was no

contamination. The KAPE IMS Manager designed a database to enter the data which was submitted to

School-to-School and Creative for final analysis. Initial findings show improvement in fidelity.

India: In Quarter 1, the country team tested existing FOI tools for case management, open house and

Enrichment Program (EP) implementation. In Quarter 2, new fidelity tools were developed on EWS, EP

and Parent activities with assistance from SDPP HQ and pilot tested. In Quarter 3, the three FOI tools--

Early Warning System, Enrichment Activity and Parental Engagement--were finalized and FOI data was

collected for EWS.

In Quarter 4, data was collected for the Enrichment Program and Parental Engagement processed. During

FOI data collection, ghost students and “migrated” students were identified in treatment and control

schools, and data sent to SDPP HQ. This information is important as it must be factored into the impact

assessment calculation of dropout. There were: 776 ghost students in treatment schools and 366 ghost

students in control schools, and 123 migrated students in treatment schools and 105 migrated students in

control schools.

Tajikistan: In Quarter 1, the SDPP country team conducted FOI monitoring visits to treatment schools to

check whether the EWS and Afterschool Tutoring interventions were being implemented as intended. In

Quarter 2, the SDPP HQ, the country program and M&E teams developed, revised and tested two FOI

instruments to simplify and reduce the number of FOI tools to only two. Round 1 FOI data was collected.

In Quarter 3, analysis of Round 1 data revealed some data anomalies, which resulted in the revision of the

EWS tool and retraining of SDPP staff involved in FOI data collection. A second round of data collection

was conducted.


Page 15

In Quarter 4, the FOI database was revised to reflect the changes in the FOI tools, and FOI data was

entered, tabulated and sent for analysis.

Timor Leste: In Quarters 1 and 2, the country team worked with SDPP HQ to review and revise FOI

instruments. In Quarter 3, the M&E team pilot tested the finalized FOI tools, initiated Round 1 data

collection, and develop the FOI database and entered Round 1 data.

In Quarter 4, plans were developed for the second round of FOI data collection in FY15 Quarter 1.

Qualitative Research Study

To augment the data obtained through the impact assessment study, the FOI study, and routine

monitoring, SDPP HQ designed a Qualitative Research Study to (1) better understand why changes in

student and teacher behaviors and attitudes have happened, and (2) how beneficiaries and targets

(students, teachers, school directors, parents and community members) have responded and reacted to the

interventions. This is intended to inform improvements in SDPP intervention design for future use by

government and others, and indicate what is likely to be sustained. The approach is a small-scale data

collection effort using qualitative research methods: focus group interviews with students, teachers,

parents and community members and a one-on-one interview with the school director, using semi-

structured interview guide with open-ended questions for both. The sample includes 10-12 schools (two

per administrative unit), comprising a high SDPP take-up school and low SDPP take-up school with

enough students and teachers to conduct focus group interviews and where both interventions have been

implemented (i.e. Cambodia).

Cambodia: In Quarter 3, initial drafts of the

quantitative research tools were developed and

shared with the country team for feedback.

In Quarter 4, SDPP traveled to Cambodia to train

staff on the instruments and administration

protocols, and piloted them in three schools in Pursat

province. Following tool revision, the country team

provided further training to 18 provincial staff

charged with data collection. Round 1 FOI data were

collected by six teams, each assigned to a province.

Focus group and individual interviews were

conducted with 455 students, dropouts, parents,

teachers, school directors, and community members.

The FOI database was developed and tested.

India: Given the Impact Assessment data collection

preparation for Follow-on 3 and FOI data collection

activities, the Qualitative Research Study activities

were not scheduled until FY15 Quarter 2.

Tajikistan: The Qualitative Research was launched

in Tajikistan with a visit by SDPP HQ. In Quarter 3, instruments were developed, field tested and

finalized. Fifteen SDPP staff members (3-person teams), including Dushanbe staff, were trained in data

collection methods. Qualitative data were collected in 10 schools, two per district. Focus group and

individual interviews were conducted with 333 students, dropouts, parents, teachers, school directors, and

community members.

In Quarter 4, the M&E database officer designed an Excel database and conducted data entry. Following

analysis procedures provided by SDPP HQ, each instrument was analyzed twice by different team

members. Initial analysis will be ready in FY15 Quarter 1.

Qualitative Research Questions

• How did SDPP interventions affect at-risk

students’ decisions to stay in school?

• How did or why didn’t SDPP interventions affect

at-risk student decisions to dropout?

• How did students react to SDPP interventions—

did they notice them, like them, felt helped and

supported, or prefer something else?

• How did teachers, school directors, parents and

community interact with the SDPP interventions—

did they notice them, understand them, use them,

like them or prefer something else?

• What kind of difficulties did SDPP beneficiaries

(students) and targets (teachers, school director,

parents and community) experience with SDPP

interventions?

• What aspects of the SDPP interventions will they

continue to use?


Page 16

Timor Leste: In Quarter 3, SDPP HQ prepared draft instruments and shared with the country team. In

Quarter 4, SDPP HQ travelled to Timor Leste to train the country team. Instruments were trialed and

finalized. Thirteen country team members were trained on their application. Data collection is planned

for FY15 Quarter 1.

Requirement 3.4: Launch SDPP Projects in the Four Pilot Countries

SDPP schoo l -based activities were formally launched in all four countries in FY13, with

participation of senior U.S. and host-country government officials. The events helped to raise public

awareness about dropout and SDPP interventions, and solidify local and national government support for

the program.

Both standards under Requirement 3.4 have been fully achieved.

Requirement 3.5: Conduct Student Dropout Prevention Pilots in the Four Selected Countries

In FY14 Quarter 1, SDPP began a second year of

school-based intervention activities in all four countries,

made possible by the contract extension received in late

FY13 (August 22, 2013). Over the course of the year it

reached 84,454 students, of which 39,930 were girls. In

Cambodia and Tajikistan, SDPP interventions resumed

with the new 2013/14 school year in Quarter 1, and were

concluded in Quarter 3. In India, interventions continued

uninterrupted (except by extended holidays and

inclement weather) through the end of the 2013/14

school year in Quarter 2, and resumed with the new

2014/15 school year in Quarter 3 with completion

planned for FY15 Quarter 1. In Timor Leste, the first

Standards Fully Achieved:

Pilot launchings in the four (4) pilot countries within the first year after award.

One (1) press release for each of the four (4) pilot countries issued.

SDPP Country School Calendars

Cambodia: October – July

India: April - March (break May & June)

Tajikistan: September - June

Timor Leste: January - September

NB: Calendars are subject to change,

frequent breaks/holidays and disruptions

due to inclement weather, national events,

strikes, etc.

SDPP HQ provides feedback to the SDPP

team in Cambodia practicing the FGI tools.

SDPP team practicing through role play as

interviewer, interviewees and note takers. Focus Group Interview in Cambodia

with at risk students.


Page 17

full year of SDPP interventions was concluded in Quarter 1; the second year of interventions began with

the new school year 2015 in Quarter 2 and concluded in Quarter 4.

Varying by school calendar, the following activities were undertaken in each of the SDPP countries: (1)

implementation and conclusion of a second year of school interventions, (2) strengthening and further

operationalization of interventions, including revision of procedures and materials and training, (3)

initiation of activities aimed at building ministry of education capacity to continue, sustain and/or expand

SDPP interventions, and (4) distribution of participation rewards to treatment and control schools

Cambodia:

School Year 2013/14 Intervention Activities (October 2013-June 2014)

School-based intervention activities for the Stay in School Program were scheduled to resume in October

2013 to coincide with the start of the 2013/2014 academic year. For the second year, schools openings

were delayed due to heavy rains. Numerous (56) treatment schools, as well as SDPP’s Battambang office

were closed or adversely affected by flooding, resulting in the postponement of planned activities to later

in the year. Nevertheless, the full work program for school-based activities was implemented, albeit

within a shortened timeframe.

Early Warning System: Implemented in all 215 treatment schools, the Early Warning System

intervention reached 59,925 grade 7-9 students (27,348 girls). In preparations for at-risk student

identification, 39 SDPP staff were retrained on EWS, followed by a 2-day training on EWS for 2,008

school personnel, POE/DOE representatives and MoEYS officials in six provinces. Homeroom teachers

completed at-risk child scoring of entering Grade 7 students and Grade 8 and 9 transfer students and at-

risk student identification at the beginning of Quarter 2. 41,487 students (17,910 girls) were identified as

“at-risk” of dropping out.

Over the course of the year, students received a range of follow-up support from schools, teachers and

communities, including home communication (11,842 letters and 11,383 calls) and 44,072 home visits,

increased in-class attention and case management meetings. The EWS Parent-Teacher Association

Training Guide and PTA/Community toolkit were updated and expanded for use in the training of 931

PTA members in early Quarter 2. To reinforce their skills, SDPP program and provincial teams observed

PTA- and school director-led community meetings in each treatment school and provided feedback. Three

meetings were held during the school year at different sites within the community. Re-published anti-

dropout toolkits, comprising ring-bound posters, wall calendars, diaries and banners, were used to support

discussion of the value of education, issues leading to dropout and ways to prevent dropout. 641 schools

and community meetings brought together members of the Commune Council, village chiefs, local police,

parents, teachers and school principals

Round 1 fidelity-of-implementation results, although high overall (90 percent of schools met or surpassed

the threshold score), showed significant weakness in the implementation of follow-up support (i.e., case

management) by teachers, with an average score of 36 percent. As a consequence, the country team

redoubled its effort with provincial staff meeting regularly with schools to assist them on follow-up.

Discussion of at-risk student was included in the agenda of monthly teacher meetings at the schools and

results were recorded in the school report.

Computer Labs: Implemented in 108 of the 215 treatment schools, computer labs served nearly 40,000

grade 7, 8 and 9 students for twice-weekly (total of two hours) computer literacy classes. Multiple

trainings were conducted over FY14 for computer lab teachers, school director and technicians on their

use and support. In Quarter 1, SDPP staff and MoEYS trainers provided a 5-day training to 535 teachers

and schools directors in the computer lab schools on the computer literacy curriculum, student project

work exercises, and computer lab timetabling and operation. In Quarter 2, 108 selected computer teachers

participated in three-day training on computer lab maintenance and basic repair.


Page 18

The SDPP country monitored the computer labs and equipment to ensure they were functioning and

operated according to guidelines. Repair and replacement of solar panels, batteries and peripheral

equipment (monitors, keyboards, printers, etc.) were effected through the local companies, and completed

in Quarter 4. SDPP also arranged to re-install a computer lab into a new classroom, following relocation

of the school. Encouraging schools to clean debris off solar panels restored power to several computer

labs that had suffered from weak power. SDPP worked with schools to construct simple bamboo ladders

to access roofs. To date, 83 of the 108 schools have fabricated ladders.

Round 1 fidelity-of-implementation results showed the 98 pecent of the labs were functional, 93 percent

followed the computer literacy curriculum, and 94 percent of schools provided the required support.

Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (July 2014- September 2014)

At the end of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support

for the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued. In Quarter 4,

the SDPP team worked to strengthen the capacity of the MoEYS and schools to sustain the interventions.

(See 3.1 for discussion.)

Early Warning System: In Quarter 4, the Asian Development Bank’s Senior Education Advisor, Dr.

Seema Aggarwal, met several times with SDPP HQ and country staff. The ADB is interested in

replicating the EWS in its new program. The SDPP team provided materials and organized school visits

so she and MoEYS colleagues could observe the EWS and Computer Labs in action and get feedback

from school personnel, parents and communities. With USAID COR concurrence, SDPP offered to

provide training on the interventions to central, provincial and district MoEYS staff involved in ADB

project implementation. The ADB has not yet responded.

Computer Labs: In Quarter 4, SDPP organized one-day Computer Lab safety and management meetings

with 471 school directors, local authorities and Community/PTA members and MoEYS, POE and DOE

officials to review the Computer Lab Security and Maintenance Plan, ensure understanding of computer

lab maintenance and support requirements, and to develop school-based plans for safeguarding the

computer labs and sustaining the computer literacy program in the up-coming school year. Overall,

commitment on the part of the participants was high, including suggestions for a provincial support fund

School personnel climbing the locally made step ladder,

carrying water to clean the solar panel on the roof of the SDPP

computer lab.

School personnel cleaning the solar panel

on the roof of the SDPP computer lab.


Page 19

Group work on detailing the

responsibilities to sustain the CL operation.

and inclusion on the agenda of monthly commune meetings. In August, the Bun Rany Hun Sen High

School in Svay Rieng province held a community fund-raiser to renovate the leaking computer lab roof.

The event--attended by the District Deputy Governor, POE and DOE representatives, local police, monks,

school personnel and the PTA/community--raised one-third of the needed funds.

Participation Rewards

Both treatment and control schools are scheduled to receive a modest “reward” for participating in SDPP

in 2013/2014 school year and undertaking the additional work it requires.3 Based on discussions with

schools, the SDPP team determined that metal file cabinets and hole punches would be most appreciated

by school personnel. These will be delivered in FY15 Quarter 1, along with a thank-you letter.

Certificates of appreciation for school personnel, PTA/community members, DOE and POE official who

have provided outstanding support for SDPP will also be presented.

India:

School-based intervention activities for the Anandshala Program in FY14 spanned two school years:

April 2013-March 2014 and April 2014-March 2015. During this period, the school calendar was

interrupted by strikes and inclement weather. Over the two school years, SDPP reached 10,814 Grade 5

students.

School Year 2013/14 Intervention Activities (October 2013-June 2014)

Early Warning System: Implemented in all 113 treatment schools, the Early Warning System

intervention identified approximately 4,213 at-risk students, known as “focus children” to avoid

stigmatization, in school year 2013/14.

During the remainder of the 2013/14 school year, SDPP strengthened student tracking and response

activities. A new child tracking booklet (including child profile, monthly tracking, communication

recording tool and case management) was introduced. The newly-designed attendance tracking register,

which was prefilled with student names and SDPP ID numbers, allowed teachers to record absenteeism,

early departure and tardiness in one place to get an overall picture of how individual at risk students were

doing. In most schools, student class monitors are now taking over recording afternoon attendance. The

Communications Recording Tool was used to record phone calls and home visits for treatment students.

3 While treatment schools already receive varying degrees of equipment, materials and services, in order to maintain

“equivalence” between treatment and control schools, both groups receive the same annual incentive.

Responsibilities for Sustainable Operation of

Computer Labs

The payment for the CL security guard will be

responsibility of the community with daily security

supported by local police posts.

The Commune Council will include the necessary

budget in the Commune Investment Budget Plan,

and mobilize resources for CL operation at the

target schools.

POE and DOE committed to sustain CL operation

by negotiating with MoEYS for an allocation of

national budget for sustainable CL operation, and

support school planning at target schools.

All participants to be active to discuss the plan for

CL safety and management at each CL target

school.


Page 20

School Open Houses were held in Quarters 1 and 2. The Open Houses provided an opportunity for

parents and community members to visit the school and see their children’s work, within a “low-stakes”

context. (Rare parental visits to the school are generally to respond to a problem.) A Parents’

Engagement Kit has been created for the Open Houses, comprising a board game and tracking poster.

Open House attendance has increased over time, in part due to invitations sent through the Voice

Messaging system.

The Voice Messaging System broadcast messaged twice a week, with a month hiatus in January/February

2014 due to the contract renewal process. In Quarter 2, the storyboard and scripts for 20 new messages

was approved by USAID, and recordings were completed in Quarter 3. In addition, messages were

developed to publicize SDPP activities: invitations for Open Houses and SDPP trainings were broadcast.

A review of the Voice Messaging Program showed that 81% of parents of Grade 5 students have phones,

but only 56% received the voices messages. Reasons for not receiving messages included changed phone

numbers, uncharged phones, and no answers.

School capacity to support the EWS was reinforced by several training activities. In Quarter 1, a school

planning exercise was conducted in each school to schedule case management meetings, open houses and

other SDPP activities, and selected head teachers were engaged to participate in a workshop to develop

content for head master training on planning and leadership. Separate trainings took place for

Community Champions and teachers on their role, the process of tracking students, and first “responses.”

Head teachers received training on how to integrate Anandshala activities into existing school processes.

In Quarter 2, teachers participated in a review of the Anandshala program aimed at obtaining suggestions

for strengthening implementation and preparing them to continue activities without the support of

community champions. Head teachers participated in planning session for the upcoming school year.

Enrichment Program: Session plan development for the Enrichment Program continued over the first

two quarters, with the design of 18 session plans in sports, language and arts. Training teachers,

Community Champions and Program Officers on session plans took place each quarter. 5532 students

participated in the Enrichment activities.

School Year 2014/15 Intervention Activities (April 2014 - September 2014)

The 2014/15 school year began in Quarter 3, with 5,282 students in the treatment schools. Although the

school year officially starts April 1, a long break in late May and June contributes to delayed enrollments

and uneven attendance by students and teachers. Resumption of most SDPP school intervention activities

did not take place until July (Quarter 4), when enrollment had stabilized sufficiently to complete

identification of 4,130 at-risk students. The SDPP team used the interval to review and refine the

interventions, materials and training modules. SDPP school-based activities were scheduled to end in

October/November 2014, at which time final data collection would take place. However, SDPP support

for schools was re-scheduled to continue through March 2015, in response to a request from the state and

district educational authorities received in late FY2014. Final data collection took place in November as

originally planned.

Early Warning System: In Quarter 4, the 2014/15 school year resumed in earnest. The Focus Child

Identification list for school year 2014/15 was finalized for each school, which also received a pre-filled

attendance tracking register. A FCI data book (report card), which consolidates data on at-risk children,

was developed and distributed to head teachers and classroom teachers. Phone calls and home visits to at-

risk students resumed. Following the Hindi, Behavior and Enrichment Program assessment, the case

management planning was initiated. The phone number list for the new 2014/15 Grade 5 student cohort

was developed, including 82 percent of households. Voice messages were sent to parents, including

invitations to the first Open House of the year in July. A change has been made in the service provider to

ensure regular broadcasts.


Page 21

The first Open House, held in July at the 113 treatment school, was attended by 70 percent of Grade 5

students’ parents, as well as the village heads and government officials. A revised board game and poster

were distributed. A second Open House was held in September for 70 schools (the remainder will

participate in Open Houses in October 2015). It enjoyed a 75 percent participation rate by students and

families. Completed school activities plans were displayed at the schools, and the development of a Head

Teacher Journal was initiated to facilitate activity planning.

Enrichment Program: In Quarter 3, the country team conducted a formative assessment of the session plan

content. Feedback was positive: teachers like the clear statements of objectives, understood the content

and liked the activities. Based on their comments that the illustrations were too numerous, the team

developed a new template and began revising the session plans. In Quarter 4, 48 session plans had been

revised to make them easier to read.

Enrichment Program activities began in early May and continued until the school break at the end of the

month. During the month, 9-10 sessions had been completed in most schools. Teachers and Head

teachers are taking more responsibility from Community Champions for their implementation. Each

Friday, teachers and Community Champions reflected on the week’s experience.

Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (July 2014- September 2014)

In Quarter 4, 210 Community Champions participated in a refresher training, aimed at redefining the role

of Community Champions beyond the end of SDPP. They suggested ways they could continue to support

the school, engage the community and promote anti-dropout activities. One day trainings were held for

teachers on the EWS, head teachers on their responsibility for supporting Anandshala activities, and

Community Champions on the Enrichment Program.


In Quarter 1, student seating mats were distributed to the 220 treatment and control schools as the reward

for their first year of participation. In Quarter 4, procurement was begun for fabric classroom “attendance

trees,” made locally, for the second year’s participation reward


Page 22

Anandshala Open House and Enrichment Program Views and Voices

“Many students didn’t want to stay in school after midday meal, but now due to EP activity they

enjoy and stay in school till the last period.” --Teacher

“I learnt lot of things from Anandshala EP Program and due to this I got benefit during

enrichment training organized by Department of Education and got A+ grade.” --Teacher

“Whenever I attend the Open House I can see children developing all new things. I am convinces

that my child too can do something worthwhile in near future.” --Parent

“When we mark our SDPP journal, we can see how regular our children are at school. Our

children enjoy the school, they tell us the activities that they do at school.” --Parent

“My children want to attend school regularly because of Anandshala Program.. We feel so

involved in the Open House program.” --Parent

“I can’t really believe that our children can make such beautiful things. This community is really

fond of your activities.” --Parent

“Only the Anandshala Open House lets so many parents get together. My school has been

recognized as the best school of Samastipur. Anandshala is a large reason for this.” --Parent

Now I know why it is important for our children. Now I understand what SDPP is doing and how

it benefits my child.” --Parent


Page 23

Tajikistan:

Intervention Activities (October 2013-May 2014)

The second and final year of school-based intervention activities for the Stay in School Program were

initiated in 82 treatment schools in September 2013 with the start of the 2013/2014 academic year.

Early Warning System: In Quarter 1, identification of 1,753 at-risk students was finalized. The process

compared favorably with the previous year: school personnel played a more active role in scoring the

students.

Teachers tracked the attendance, behavior and course work and used the information for case

management. A revised EWS Toolkit was distributed to each treatment school, containing Monthly Case

Management Meeting form, Behavior Tracking form, Homework Tracking form, Form Letter for Parents,

Home Visit form and Letters, Home Visits and Meetings log. Throughout the year, homeroom teachers

generally completed the EWS records and kept them organized. Some gaps remained that were addressed

by the field monitors—for example, although Case Management Meeting forms listed student names and

course marks, they did not present comments on the problems identified, actions taken or plans for

follow-up, a key weakness substantiated by the Fidelity-of-Implementation research.

At the beginning of the school year, the SDPP country team conducted training workshops for 1,940

parents and community members, including civic and religious leaders, police and local officials, to orient

them to the SDPP activities, enlist their support and participation, and clarify roles and responsibilities.

Participation exceeded expectations, so at several schools, two sessions were conducted.

School-based EWS activities were concluded in Quarter 3, with the end of the school year.

After-School Tutoring and Enrichment Program: By the first week of Quarter 1, SDPP has prepared and

distributed a complete lesson plan packages to all 450 tutor to conduct lessons throughout the 2013/14

school year. The package consisted of: year-long calendars for tutoring lesson plans in all 10 subjects;

203 lesson plans4, organized by 10 core

subjects; questionnaires for field program

staff to gather feedback from parents and

students about the after school program;

lesson observation forms for field program

staff to provide feedback to tutors; and

covers for binders that hold their lesson

plans.

Approximately 1,300 Grade 9 students

participated in the after school program,

93 percent of the at-risk students in the

full treatment group. To ensure a high

participation rate, parents were invited to

observe the Afterschool Tutoring classes,

giving them an opportunity to see the

positive effect on the students’ attitude

and attendance. As an added incentive to

encourage students to sit for the Grade 9

4 SDPP received a total of 444 first-draft lesson plans from the module developers between June, 2012 and May, 2013. From

those, the program team selected the best lesson plans for further development and revision. During revision, other lesson plans

were eliminated from the pool. The final collection consisted of 203 lesson plans, in Tajik and English.

# FINALIZED TUTOR LESSON PLANS

SUBJECT NUMBER

1 English Language 30

2 Russian Language 23

3 Tajik Language and Literature 34

4 Geography 17

5 History 18

6 Law 17

7 Biology 17

8 Physics 17

9 Chemistry 14

10 General Math, Geometry and Algebra 16

Total: 203 Lesson plans


Page 24

leaving exam (SDPP’s proxy measure for completion and transition), tutors and students were given the

option to use part of the tutoring hour to review content for the final exams in Quarter 3.

For the most part, equipment and supplies remained in good shape, but in some cases more storage and

minor repairs to designated Afterschool Tutoring room were required. Sport equipment was procured to

round out the leisure program equipment, and proved popular with both girls and boys.

Based on the previous years’ experience, ineffective tutors had been replaced, but some problems

remained: some tutors continue to use traditional methods of instruction or some schools are unable to

provide the subject teacher (most often in English). To strengthen tutor capacity to sue interactive

teaching methods, SDPP organized demonstration classes in 78 treatment schools in Quarter 2. SDPP

staff and master tutors modelled lessons, and tutors practiced with 1,284 Grade 9 students in practicums,

receiving feedback on their efforts. Tutor participation was high—438 out of 450 tutors took part. Tutors

so much liked the demonstration classes that they organized their own demonstration sessions in 68

schools in Quarter 3, inviting SDPP staff to attend as expert observers. Over 300 tutors participated.

School-based Afterschool Tutoring activities were concluded in Quarter 3, with the end of the school

year.

Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (June 2014- September 2014)

In May of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for

the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued.

In Quarter 4, the SDPP team worked to initiated activities to contribute to the sustainability of the

program interventions. In light of the recently-announced MoES requirement that all program materials

used in schools must undergo MoES and approval for nationwide use, a package of SDPP materials—

already approved for use in the treatment schools—was submitted to MoES point-of-contact for review.

The package included the EWS School Manual with forms, the Afterschool Tutoring and Enrichment

Activities School Manual, all tutoring lesson plans, a booklet for parents, and copies of community

awareness posters. In July, SDPP was instructed to send the materials to the Collegium—group of

representatives from different MoES institutions—for approval. With COR approval, SDPP has engaged

the head of the Academy of Education to review the package and provide suggestions for changes, which

SDPP will make prior to submission.

SDPP participated in a joint MoES-UNICEF working group on out-of-school children, which includes

dropouts. The working group plans to develop an EWS and accelerated learning program for Grade 9.

SDPP shared both its EWS tools and its lesson plans.


The Consultative Group decided in Quarter 3 that the second year’s participation reward for treatment and

control schools should again include a package of reading books, as this had proved very popular with

schools, Districts and the MoES the previous year. In Quarter 4, the books were delivered to the 165

schools. The U.S. Ambassador handed over packages of books to the host school and officials at the

SDPP-organized International Literacy Day celebration, held in Dangara district.


Page 25

International Literacy Day Event Announcement

(from the Tajikistan MoES website)

U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan Susan M. Elliott, together with the Chairman Hukumat of Danghara Mahmadullo Saidaliev, and the head of the pre-school and secondary education of the Ministry of Education Abdujabbor Aliev, participated at the ceremony of 48th anniversary of the International Literacy Day on Tuesday in Danghara district of Khatlon region.

According to the American Embassy in Tajikistan, who informed "Khovar," the U.S. Agency for International Development, in honor of International Literacy Day in 2014, gifted 7,260 books to 165 schools in the Khatlon region. We remind you that in accordance with UNESCO, Literacy Day is celebrated around the world.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Elliot presents books from the SDPP book rewards package to Ministry of Education

and Sport representative Abdujabbor Aliev at the International Literacy Day celebration.


Page 26

Timor Leste:

School Year 2014 Intervention Activities (October 2013-September 2014)

School Year 2013 closed in late September 2013 to accommodate planned MoE teacher training. School

year 2014—the second and final full year of SDPP school-based activities--started in January 2014 and

concluded in September 2014.

Early Warning and Response System: In Quarter 1, SDPP used the hiatus between school years to

mobilized Stay in School community groups to conduct advocacy activities at the final exam results

ceremonies in October.

With the beginning of School Year 2014, the MoE issued a formal letter extending collaboration with

SDPP for another school year, which SDPP staff helped to deliver to regional, district and school level

authorities prior to the start of school-based activities.

In Quarter 2, the at-risk child identification process was conducted and completed over a three-week

period. Data was collected on all incoming Grade 4 students and Grades 5 and 6 transfer students. Of the

7,959 students enrolled in Grades 4, 5 and 6 in the treatment schools, 3,171 were identified as at-risk. To

facilitate the process, refresher training was provided to SDPP field implementation staff and (separately)

to 406 home room teachers, who received a branded binder in which to organize the EWS forms.

While teachers generally track student attendance, schools have been less complaint in organizing regular

case management meetings to allow teachers to review the progress of at-risk students and develop

support strategies. In Quarter 3, only 41 percent of school held these meetings (although a significant

improvement over the 7 percent of the previous year). In Quarter 4, SDPP filed staff supported the

monthly case management meetings, with some qualified success. While most schools held monthly

meeting in June, a few did in July, citing teacher absenteeism, teacher workload, lack of interest, or

absence of the directors. In August, case management meetings were organized around the second

trimester exam results, resulting in all but one school’s participation.

Table 3: Community Activities in FY2014

Activity school personnel

with the community

Number done

July14 – Sept 14

Number done

Jan – Sept 14

Cumulative for

2014

Objective of Activity

Send postcard

notification 253 620

The school sends a postcard notification

to the student's parents through the "Stay

in School" community volunteer,

providing an early warning if the child

has missed 2 days of school or was late or

left school early twice.

Home visits by

community volunteers 226 620

A community member visits the student’s

home to discuss find out why the child

has not been at school

Hold meetings in the

community 32 101

Community group members and the Field

Officers hold meetings in the community

to raise awareness about the importance

of education and the parents'

responsibility to send their children to

school


Page 27

Field staff sought to re-engage the Stay in School Community Groups, first by organizing them to follow-

up on students who had not re-enrolled in school. Several groups decided to replace members who had

not been active the previous year. Field staff provided orientation, often with experienced Community

Group members, to refresh their knowledge of their role and share their experience of the prior year.

Community volunteers continued to undertake home visits and deliver, postcards, which were revised

slightly to enable the village head and school director to be more actively engaged in the process. The

lack of postcards for community volunteers to take to households and time limitations for the volunteers

has led some schools to reorganize the home visit process. In some cases, volunteers will visit a home

only one time per week, which may reduce the speed of response to a student’s absence.

Extracurricular activities: In preparation for the resumption of Extracurricular Activities (ECA) with the

new school year in January 2014, two rounds of training were conducted for master SDPP ECA trainers,

so they were better able to work with field staff and teachers in the new year.

In Quarter 2, teachers were oriented and received refresher training on Extracurricular Activities. In some

cases, MoE personnel took part in the training. ECA sessions began in February for Grade 5 and 6

students and in March for Grade 4 students. All schools had established the annual activity schedule and

received new and revised ECA Activities Plan Manual, ECA Handbook with 40 session plans, and ECA

“Starter Kits’ with stationary and supplies. In Quarter 3, a new poster—promoting courtesy and

respect—was distributed to the schools, accompanied by instructions for its use by teachers and SDPP to

raise awareness about positive classroom environments, free of bullying, harassment, teasing, aggression

and violence.

Table 4: Breakdown of ECA Sessions by District and Month of Implementation

In Quarter 4, delivery of ECA sessions were interrupted in August by the trimester exams and school

break, which many school “unofficially” extended through the end of the month. As part of its on-going

strategy to devolve ECA session leadership to teachers, SDPP staff played supporting roles only to

teachers leading the session. While many teachers are taking responsibility for leading the ECA session

and appreciate the “spillover” effects on their classes, some have not fully participated in the ECA session

or maintain desk-bound or chalk-and-talk approaches to the activities or—worse—try to “grade” children

on the ECA games and songs.

5 Figures may change following review and cleaning of field reports.

District Jan-Mar14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Grand Total

Bobonaro 130 431 317 878

Ermera 182 460 292 934

Liquica 78 230 156 464

Manatuto 152 326 208 686

Viqueque 27 541 326 894

Grand Total 569 1988 1299 3,8565


Page 28

Table 5: Number of Teacher-Led Sessions per District / Per Month (excluding breaks in April and

August)

Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (June 2014- September 2014)

In May of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for

the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued.

Early Warning and Response System and Extracurricular Activities: In Quarter 4, SDPP country teams

completed a series of final Reflection meetings with Community Groups, parents, PTA, community

leaders, school personnel and –at times—MoE officials to assess the progress of EWS in individual

schools. Games and energizers were used to get participants to think about approaches to working

together to continue SDPP activities in the school after the program support ended in September.

A final Field Implementation Team Reflection was held in September with 62 SDPP staff, drawing on

their extensive experience to make practical recommendations to the MoE about the elements of the

SDPP program that could be implemented immediately and future policy directions.

Other activities: SDPP country representatives participated in the newly-instituted Local Education

Working Group meeting for development partners in August, convened by the MoE. Senior MoE staff

presented progress against the objectives of the 2014 Annual Action Plan. Mandatory government teacher

training programs were on-going throughout the 2014 school year, which often took teachers away from

school for weeks at a time and impeded SDPP’s EWS and Extracurricular activities.

SDPP representatives were among the 300 persons who attended the Second Dialogue of the Joint Action

for Education in Timor Leste, held in August. SDPP staff consolidated inputs from the education

development group partners to prepare a short presentation on monitoring at the national and school

levels.


In Quarter 4 procurement was initiated for the reward packages for all schools in the research sample.

Reward packages were one of three types: for schools without adequate storage, schools will receive a

metal filing cabinet, football and hole-punch; for schools with no lockable room, schools will receive a

footlocker; for schools with complete office furniture, schools will receive a complete music package

consisting of a guitar with strings and sports equipment. Rewards will be delivered in FY15 Quarter 1.


Page 29

Timor Leste Stakeholder Reflections

School Coordinator of Central School EBC Bogoro – Sr. Vincente da

Conçeição

“I think the thing that we have learned this year is that we need to pay

attention to two things. The first is that we should work to attract students to

school, so that we do activities where students feel happy, and comfortable in

school, and where they want to attend every day rather than staying at home.

The second thing is that we need to pay attention to students’ attendance, and

check where they are when they are absent for any period of time. I think that

if we can continue to do these two things then we will be able to prevent

dropout.”

Mother – Ana-Paula dos Santos

“It is the responsibility of parents to send their children to school. Parents are the

ones who must take moral responsibility for the education of their children, and it is

their moral obligation to support their children’s education.

I am happy with the activities that have happened in the school over the past year. I

think the best situation is where students are dressed and wanting to leave the house

early every morning because they want to be at school, and don’t want to lose any

opportunity to play and learn with their friends.”

Stay in School Community Group Member - Eduardo da Cruz (right)

“There has been good progress this year. The number of students missing school

has gone down, and students are only absent now if they are sick. Parents

understand now that when children are sick they need to let the school know.

There is more awareness of the importance of education now. Education is the key

to a better future. If you have qualifications then you can get a good salary, so

education is like an investment in the future of our children. We need to make sure

that they get the best opportunity.”

Parents, community members and school personnel engage in games to help form their own strategy for

development of dropout prevention activities in their school.


Page 30

Table 6: Selected SDPP Country Indicators for Quarter 4 (July-September), FY14 and Annual (October 13-September 14)

Indicator Cambodia

SY 2013/14

India

SY 2013/14

Tajikistan

SY 2013/14

Timor Leste

SY 2014

Total SDPP

(to date)

Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14

Number of treatment and control schools

Treatment

Control

Total

215 treatment 107 control 322 Total




0






Number of interventions implemented

2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 6 8

Number of students enrolled in the target grades in treatment schools.

32,726 Grade 7 25,414 Grade 8 19,249 Grade 9 77,389 Total (o/w 37,660 girls)


5282 Grade 5 (o/w 2806 girls)

5,532 Grade 5 (o/w 2,871 girls)

5,532 Grade 5 exited from SY2013 (o/w 2871 girls)

10,814 Total (o/w 5,677 girls)

0 3,746 Grade 9 (o/w 1,739 girls)



2,654 G6 exited from SY 2013 (o/w 1,306 girls)


15,244 Primary (o/w 7,696 girls)

77,389 Lower Secondary (o/w 37,660 girls)

92633 Total (o/w 45,356 girls)



104,565 Total (o/w 51,267 girls)

Number of students benefitting from the program, i.e., receiving some or all of the treatments.




5,532 Grade 5 (o/w 2871 girls)

5,532 Grade 5 exited from SY2013 (o/w 2871 girls)


0 1,753 Grade 9 (o/w 714 girls)







74,515 Total (o/w 35,044 girls)



84,454 Total (o/w 39,930 girls)

Number of at-risk students receiving EWS treatment




4,130 (o/w 2,157 girls)


0 1,753 Grade 9 (o/w 714 girls)

4,263 (o/w 1,939 girls)

4,263 (o/w 1,939 girls)

1,204 G6 exited in SY 2013 (o/w 554 girls)


41,487 Lower


43,240 Lower


Page 31



Secondary (o/w 17,211 girls)

49,880 Total (o/w 21,307 girls)

Secondary (o/w 17,925 girls)

57,050 Total (o/w 24,745 girls)

Number of treatment school teachers and other school personnel trained

0 2,585 (o/w 828 female)

271

(o/w 130 female)

549 teachers, HMs & CCs (o/w 230 female)

0 897 (o/w 448 female)

251 (o/w 60 female)

696 (o/w 198 female)

1,419 (o/w 190 female)

4,727 (o/w 1,704 female)

Number of PTAs or other school support groups trained

0 215 111 113 0 246 3 5 114 579

Number of community members trained

0 931 (o/w 113 female)

5385

(o/w 3600 female)

9979 (o/w 6,432 female)

0 1,940 (o/w 800 female)

29 (o/w 6 female)

46 (o/w 11 female)

5.414 (o/w 3,606 female)

12,896 (o/w 7,356 female)

Number of trainings conducted for teachers, schools, communities

0 84 3 14 0 291

53 105 56 232

Number of contacts (home visits, calls, letters/cards) to follow up at risk students

13,139 67,297 ND 24,646

0 4862

479

1241

13,618 98,046

Number of school and outreach events held

4 641 111 426 1 649 32 135 148 1851

Number of Consultative Group meetings held.

1 2 1 5 0 1 1 4 3 12

Number of manuals developed and/or refined

0 3 0 13 0 4 0 2 0 22

Number of modules/tools developed/refined

0 106 3 7 0 222

0 13

Number of impact assessment data collection rounds conducted

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4


Page 32

i Adjusted totals due to review and correction of under-reporting of previous monitoring data ii Figures are presented for SY 2013/14 and SY 2014/15 as FY14 spans two school years. iii School-based activities were completed in Q3. iv Figures are presented for SY 2013/14 and SY 2014/15 as FY14 spans two school years. v Comprises 210 CCs, 23 HMs, and 38 Teachers vi Participants were estimated at demonstration lessons. Some participants might be double-counted; data being cleaned. vii Some teachers may be counted twice when they receive training for both EWRS and extracurricular activities on separate days; data being cleaned. vii Gender breakdown estimate. Data being processed. ix Comprises 90 parents & community workshops and 201 demo classes. x Data covers June-September 2014 as June data was not available for the previous quarterly report. xi Comprises 1,717 phone calls to parents, 1,070 letters sent to parents after 3-day absence, 186 letters sent to parents after 10-day absence, 10,166 home visits made to parents xii Comprises11,842 phone calls to parents, 9,419 letters sent to parents after 3-day absence, 1,964 letters sent to parents after 10-day absence, 44,072 home visits made to parents xiii Data not yet available. xiv Q4 data not included. Comprises 9373 phone calls and 15273 home visits. xv Comprises 2,351 letters and 2,511 home visits xvi Comprises 253 Notification Cards and 226 Home Visits. xvii Comprises 620 Notification Cards and 621 Home Visits. xviii Data covers June-September 2014 as June data was not available for the previous quarterly report xix 4 community meetings were held to raise awareness of the importance of education to which 176 people attended (of which 63 were female). The number of meetings and participants here does not include the Computer Lab safety and management meetings which were held in the quarter. xx 641 community meetings were held to raise awareness of the importance of education to which 24,735 people attended (of which 12,455 were female). The number of meetings and participants here does not include the Computer Lab safety and management meetings which were held in Quarter 4, 2014. xxi Comprises school posters reprinted. xxii Comprises board game, attendance tracking poster, attendance tracking register and student booklet, and school poster. xxiii Comprises 211 lesson plans, 8 qualitative research tools, and 3 FOI tools.


Page 33

The following requirements will be addressed in FY15. Nevertheless, some activities were undertaken

this year which begin to address the requirements, as described below.

Requirement 3.6: Produce and Distribute Reports of the Student Dropout Prevention

Pilots in the Four Selected Countries

In Quarter 1, a draft report combining baseline results with a preliminary analysis of outcome indicators

from the Follow-up 1 data collection was prepared and shared with the COR. A final version was

completed in Quarter 2. Following discussions with the COR, it was decided not to share the information

beyond core country team members, as the analysis was based on incomplete data after only 4 months of

implementation.

A preliminary report on the analysis of Follow-up 2 data is scheduled for FY15 Quarter 1.

Requirement 3.7: Present Findings of the Student Dropout Prevention Pilots

The SDPP project website (www.schooldropoutprevention.com) is regularly updated and made compliant

with USAID requirements as communicated through the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs (final

approval was received in June 2012). Several documents have been posted on the website as well as

submitted to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).

In Quarter 2, SDPP HQ (Creative, Mathematica, and STS) and 2-person country teams from

Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste participated in the 2014 CIES Conference of the

Comparative International Education Society (CIES) in Toronto, Canada. SDPP presented two panels:

Preventing Dropout: First Follow-Up Impact of the School Drop-Out Prevention Program

Interventions, presented the initial findings from the midline impact assessment of the four-country

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program, comparing baseline and first follow-up data collection

results. The panel examined the extent to which the program has affected student dropout and

engagement in school, student attitudes and behaviors, and teacher knowledge, behaviors and

attitudes, as well as methods and challenges of data collection on dropout. Also presented was the

SDPP research methodology for data collection on dropout and related outcomes, and the Fidelity of

Implementation design and experiences (and challenges) implementing FOI in the four SDPP

countries.

Involving Communities in Dropout Prevention: Experience from Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and

Timor Leste, examined the ways the four countries have engaged communities in dropout prevention

activities, addressing: community attitudes towards dropout and schooling; community engagement

with the school and their child’s schooling; community activities to prevent dropout; outreach efforts

to engage community and parental action; effectiveness of community-supported dropout prevention

activities; considerations and challenges with community-supported implementation.

Also in Quarter 2, SDPP HQ (Mathematica) presented preliminary impact findings at the Society for

Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) 2014 spring conference in Washington, DC.

Requirement 3.8: Student Dropout Prevention Programming Guide Developed and Distributed

Throughout FY14, SDPP country teams revised and updated manuals and materials which will be

incorporated into country toolkits. In Quarter, 4, SDPP met with the COR to identify and define the SDPP

toolkits. It presented the findings of a review it prepared on different programming guide structures and

approaches. With the COR, it was determined that SDPP would prepare two programming guides: (1)

Early Warning System and (2) Enrichment and Afterschool Tutoring Programs. These toolkits will be

generalized for use in any country, but will use SDPP country-specific examples. The toolkits will be

translated into 10 languages; links to the country-specific manuals and materials will be in English and in

the SDPP country language. Although not a deliverable, each country will assemble its materials into

“toolkits,” which will be distributed locally.

http://www.schooldropoutprevention.com/


Page 34

III. Project Management and Operations

A. Operations

Operational support throughout the year focused on facilitating the programmatic and technical activities

described above, including: supporting and monitoring ongoing interventions; multimedia package

development; and data collection for follow-up impact assessments, qualitative assessment, and fidelity of

implementation. Operations focused heavily on finalizing subcontract extensions and extension budgets

for all existing partners, negotiating new subcontracts with research firms in Cambodia, India, and

Tajikistan, shifting SDPP implementing partnership in India, and preparing a realigned project budget for

submission to USAID in May 2014.

During Quarter 4, SDPP project management staff focused on orienting and training new HQ team

members, supporting country teams as in-school activities wound down, and planning for policy

dialogues and other activities to take place during the final year of the project.

Key staff and consultant actions are detailed in sections C. and D., and major procurements are described

in section F. Other important management and operational actions of note include the following:

Country Partnership Agreements: As FY 2013 closed, local Ministries of Education in all four countries

were informed of the project extension and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was renewed in

India and submitted for renewal in Timor Leste. By the second quarter of FY 2014, the MOE in Timor

Leste granted SDPP permission to continue to operate in the target schools for the 2015 school year. In

Quarter 1, the SDPP country teams began the process of renewing the MOUs with the local Ministries of

Education in Cambodia and Tajikistan, updating the ministries on the program extension. In Cambodia,

the draft MOU was submitted to the new MoEYS Minister for endorsement in Quarter 2, and was signed

on April 4, 2014, extending the approval of the SDPP project in Cambodia through September 2015. In

Tajikistan, USAID and SDPP submitted a Letter of Commitment (LOC) to the MoES in November, 2013.

USAID, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the MOES briefly negotiated the terms and language in the

LOC, until the process reached a standstill over a disagreement regarding a clause stating that the LOC

does not legally bind USAID to any activity or funding. Despite the halted LOC process, SDPP was

authorized to continue operations under a new Tajik project name (“The Student Motivation Learning

Program”). In July, USAID decided to stop pursuing the LOC with the MoES, as the in-school pilot

interventions had been completed. In September, however, USAID renewed efforts to locate the LOC and

to complete the process, as the LOC must be submitted to the MoES at the closure of the program. SDPP

currently has no news of its status.

Implementing Partnership Agreements: SDPP sub-contractor agreements and budgets were modified

and approved to accommodate the project extension and revised work plans, and to increase ceiling

amounts. All subcontract extension budgets were finalized at the end of the first quarter for CARE,

KAPE, STS, MPR, and SABRE. SDPP also worked closely with our partners in India to finalize the

smooth transfer of implementation partnership from IDEAL to QUEST Alliance, the originally-proposed

implementing partner for India. All QUEST Alliance staff (formerly IDEAL staff) were approved and

QUEST’s subcontract began in mid-January. New subcontracts with data collection firms IRL, SUNAI

and Zerkalo were prepared and approved by USAID.

Partner Management Support: In the first two quarters, SDPP HQ staff from Creative and STS made site

visits to Cambodia, India, and Tajikistan to provide support for fidelity-of-implementation (FOI)

monitoring and intervention review and general operational oversight during the budget realignment

process. Creative and STS HQ staff also worked remotely with the Timor Leste team to revise and

finalize their FOI tools and processes. Virtual support was provided by HQ staff to all countries on

renewing MOUs with local ministries, developing and revising the data collection schedule to

accommodate for the project extension, and addressing concerns regarding staffing and attrition.

Significant efforts were also spent in preparing and supporting Follow-Up 2 data collection, which began


Page 35

and was completed in India and Timor Leste in Quarter 2, and in Tajikistan and Cambodia in Quarter 3.

Site visits were made by SDPP HQ staff from Creative and STS to Tajikistan in June to finalize and test

Qualitative Research instruments, and train local staff in their use. Creative and STS HQ staff also

continued to work with all countries on FOI checks in Quarters 3 and 4.

Project Budget Realignment: During Quarter 3, the Creative HQ SDPP team worked to finalize the

budget realignment to accommodate the project extension, and submit to USAID for approval. Upon

receiving the extension, we focused our efforts in amending and extending subcontracts and revising the

project work plan to reflect the new end date, in preparation for the budget realignment. Under this

realigned budget, Creative closed all CLIN 1 activities and revised projections for CLINs 2 and 3.

Remaining funds from CLINs 1 and 3 were moved to CLIN 2 to fund the remaining work that is

anticipated to support CLIN 2 requirements. The budget was also revised to include increased

subcontractor values approved during the second quarter. The budget was submitted to USAID for

approval in Quarter 3 and was approved in Quarter 4.

Multi-Media Packages: Filming for the SDPP multimedia packages was completed in Cambodia and

Tajikistan in Quarter 3 and in Timor Leste and India in Quarter 4. The Creative communications team and

SDPP program staff traveled to the four countries to conduct and film stakeholder and beneficiary

interviews and to collect relevant background and program footage. Filming trips served the dual purpose

of collecting positive anecdotal impact data, while also bolstering local support and enthusiasm for

sustaining implementation of interventions beyond the close of the project. Meetings and interviews with

local ministry officials, community leaders, and USAID Mission representatives went particularly well in

all countries, with reiterated expressions of support and visible community and school-level change

resulting from SDPP interventions. With robust guidance from HQ, local project staff provided

preparatory support for the trips, selecting and preparing the schools and interviewees for the visits,

ensuring all permissions forms were translated and completed, and pre-arranging logistics as necessary.

HQ communications and program teams were accompanied by local staff and translators throughout the

trips to ensure the most relevant and impactful material was captured. Post-production of the videos is

now underway, and initial cuts are expected to be available by the end of next quarter.

B. Key Meetings with USAID and Partners

In each of the first three quarterly reports from FY2014, a detailed list was provided of the formal

meetings held in Washington, DC and in the field with USAID, MOE, or other partners at which key

decisions affecting the program were taken or major presentations made. Meetings held during Quarter 4

are as shown in Table 7.


Page 36

Table 7: Key meetings with USAID and partners in Quarter 4

7/7/14 Chea Kosal, Country

Coordinator; Ouk

Sothira, Education

Specialist; Lork Ratha,

IMS Manager; Chea

Tha, Kuoy Pharin,

Chhoeng Sina, Yos

Nara, & Sorn Khemra,

KAPE staff Phnom Penh

Dr. Seema Agarwal-

Harding, Senior

Education Advisor,

ADB’s School-Based

Enrichment Program;

& her Assistant

- Fact-finding about

SDPP, specifically on

the EWS intervention

since ADB was

recommended by

MoEYS to design an

EWS-model project

-Presentation of an

overview of SDPP

(EWS & CL

intervention)

- ADB’s Advisor will

meet again with the

EWS program team to

learn in more detail

about the process of

EWS and visit EWS

target schools

- SDPP shared the list

of SDPP target schools

and contacts for SDPP

provincial staff

7/21/14 Chea Tha & Kuoy

Pharin, EWS Program

Managers

Dr. Seema Agarwal-

Harding, Senior

Education Advisor,

ADB’s School-Based

Enrichment Program;

& her Assistant

Presenting in more detail

on the process of EWS

ADB’s Advisor will

contact CAI’s

Technical Director

Karen Tietjen for

permission to share the

SDPP tools and visit a

few EWS target schools

8/25-

26/14

Chea Kosal, CC; Ouk

Sothira, Education

Specialist

Attended 2-day

Consultative Seminar

of Improved Basic

Education in

Cambodia (IBEC)

project hosted by

World Education at

KAPE-HQ. The

seminar was chaired

by MoEYS’ Minister

(Dr. Hang Chuon

Naron)

Discussion on the Future

Generation Schools and

Best Practices of IBEC

-Presentation &

discussion on a wide

range of relevant

education topics.

-KAPE was encouraged

by MoEYS’ Minister to

submit a proposal to

ADB.

9/1/14 Ouk Sothira Educational

Specialist & Chea Tha,

EWS Program Manager

Mr. Chhim Kumnith,

Director of

Secondary Office

(General Secondary

Education

Department: GSED)

Discussion on the next

draft of the SDPP

Sustainability Plan and

passage on to the

Cabinet Office of

MoEYS’ Secretary of

GSED agreed to submit

the Sustainability Plan

to the Cabinet Office of

MoEYS’ Secretary of

State

Date(s) Key SDPP

representative(s)

Key client and/or

partner

representative(s)

Topic/focus of meeting

Key

decisions/outcomes

(if any)

SDPP Headquarters/Washington

7/30/14 Karen Tietjen, Sakil

Malik, Zuhra Abhar,

Nicholas Hoekstra, Mary

Calomiris (Creative),

Mary Lynd (STS),

Nancy Murray, Kathy

Buek, Owen Schochet,

Mark Strayer, Ali Protik

(MPR), Lotte Renault

(CARE)

Rebecca Adams,

Laura Parrott

Team meeting to discuss

impact assessment data,

qualitative research

processes, instruments

and planning, toolkits,

SDPP video production

updates, and policy

dialogue plans

Revised schedule for

impact data and reports,

options for 4 possible

types of toolkits were

discussed for further

consideration

SDPP/Cambodia


Page 37

State

9/30/14 Chea Kosal, Country

Coordinator; Carole

Williams, Research,

M&E Specialist; Ouk

Sothira, Education

Specialist; Chea Tha,

Kuoy Pharin, Chhoeng

Sina, Yos Nara, Sorn

Khemra & Thol Buntha

Ung Ngor Hok,

GSED Director; Mao

Samrithy, Deputy

Director of Teacher

Training Dept (TTD);

Chhim Kumnith,

Deputy Secondary

Education Office;

Meung Veasna,

Deputy Examination

Office; Pol Sorith,

GSED Inspector;

Nareth Polyvin,

Planning Office

Official; Lim Chan

Soeun, GSED

Official; Sok Tha,

Head ICT Office;

Phel Phearoun,

Information &

ASEAN Affairs

Dept; Chhoeung

Rachana, Official of

Dept of Planning

- Report on the SDPP

progress

-Discuss the planning for

the national

dissemination workshop

on the SDPP

implementation

guideline after approval

by MoEYS and the

Training of Trainers

(ToT) to MoEYS

-GSED and TTD will

send SDPP the list of

trainers from their

departments.

-SDPP/KAPE will

propose to MoEYS to

host the national

dissemination

workshop on October

21-22, 2014 in

Battambang province

and the ToT in Pursat

province in December

2014.

SDPP/India

7/1/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Sanjay Kumar,

DPO-SSA and Nodal

Officer-SDPP

Discussion on Teacher

Training and approval

Approval Letter

submitted to DPO-SSA

office for further action

7/1/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Brajesh Kumar

Ojha, new DEO for

Samastipur and Mr.

J N Srivastava,

Outgoing DEO,

Samastipur

Meeting for updates on

SDPP activities and to

schedule introductions

with SDPP Staff in Samastipur

The new District

Education Officer in

Samastipur was

briefed on SDPP

activities as he has

recently transferred

from another District in

Bihar.

7/17/14

Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Sanjay Kumar,

DPO-SSA and Nodal

Officer-SDPP

A courtesy call to share

SDPP updates and

observations from school

visits with the DPO

The DPO encouraged

greater involvement in

the improvement of

classroom learning

environments and

wanted to be updated

on school-related

matters.


Page 38

8/9/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi

Mr. Dipak Singh,

Alternative &

Innovative Education

(AIE), Innovation –

SC/ST,ECE,

Minority & Urban

Deprived

Follow up discussion on

Training of Master

Trainers proposal in

Samastipur District and

updates on the

forthcoming

Communication Visit by

Creative Associates

Decisions regarding the

training of master

trainers will not be

made until discussions

with Core Team

members at BEPC,

Patna, can occur.

Regarding the

Communications Visit,

it was suggested that

the BEPC State Project

Director’s approval be

obtained.

8/22/14

;

9/01/14

Mr. Sharique Mashhadi

and Mr Nemi Kumar

Mr Barjesh Kumar

Ojha, District

Education Officer

and Mr. Sanjay

Kumar, DPO-SSA

and Nodal Officer-

SDPP

Meetings about

preparations for the

upcoming

Communication Visit

Officials expressed

their excitement to

share their views

during the forthcoming

visit; the DEO

suggested that

headmasters be present

at schools on Sept

17/Sept 18 as schools

are officially closed for

holidays.

9/12/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi

and Mr. Nemi Kumar Mr. Sudhir Kumar,

Sub Divisional

Magistrate (SDO),

Samastipur

meeting with the SDO to

update him regarding

SDPP and its

implementation aspects

The SDO shared his

willingness to visit

schools in October as

he was busy in

September. He will

visit the SDPP Office

and one or two

treatment schools

9/18/14 Mr Sakil Malik and Ms

Zuhra Abhar from

Creative Associates and

Mr Sharique Mashhadi

Mr. Sanjay Kumar,

DPO-SSA and Nodal

Officer-SDPP

A brief meeting with

District officials and

SDPP HQ staff

After the meeting, Mr

Sakil Malik suggested

that the State Head

update him regarding

the point person at

BEPC for SDPP.

9/18/14 Mr Sharique Mashhadi Mr Barjesh Kumar

Ojha, District

Education Officer

and Mr. Sanjay

Kumar, DPO-SSA

and Nodal Officer-

SDPP and Block

Education Officers of

11 Blocks of

Samastipur

The focus of this

meeting was to ensure

government officials

visit treatment schools

along with SDPP Staff

Higher district level

education officials

agreed to share their

school visit schedule

with respective SDPP

Staff and a few

treatment schools to be

visited jointly in the

coming months. The

State Head will also

join District Education

Officer for school visits


Page 39

9/29/14

Mr Sharique Mashhadi Mr Barjesh Kumar

Ojha, District

Education Officer

and Mr. Sanjay

Kumar, DPO-SSA

and Nodal Officer-

SDPP

Meeting to Share

information regarding

the forthcoming Head

Masters Training and

probable dates for final

phase of Data Collection

Approval for these

training will be done

once dates are finalized

SDPP/Tajikistan

7/2/14 Sayora Abdunazarova

(Education Specialist) Irina Kholovna (Head

of Academy of

Education)

To discuss SDPP program

materials to be submitted

and further cooperation

between Academy and

SDPP

Kholovna looked

through the submitted

subject activities and

talked about other

programs working with

at-risk students. She

suggested more follow-

up and team work.

7/15/14 Wendi Carman (Deputy

Country Coordinator)

Katie MacDonald

(USAID country

director), Rebekah

Eubanks (USAID

Regional Legal

Adviser), Mavjuda

Nabieva (USAID

Education

Management

Specialist),

representatives from

USAID

implementing

partners in Tajikistan

To provide each other

with insights and

experiences in the process

of obtaining tax

exemption status

Followed up with the

USAID regional adviser

by email to share further

information on SDPP’s

experience earning tax

exemption.

7/18/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Lyla Andrews-

Bashan (USAID

Team Leader for

Democracy &

Governance, Health

and Education)

To share SDPP program

updates

Soon afterwards, Lyla

completed her

assignment and departed

Tajikistan.

7/18/14 Sayora Abdunazarova

(Education Specialist)

Irina Kholovna

(President of

Academy of

Education), Mavjuda

Nabieva (USAID

Education

Management

Specialist)

Discussed the review of

all program materials,

especially tutoring lesson

plans

Submitted package of

subject activity and

other materials for

revision and conclusion


Page 40

7/22/14 Wendi Carman (DCC),

Sayora Abdunazarova


To provide the working

group with technical

input on the

development of the

curriculum for the

accelerated learning

program

The accelerated learning

program will be

organized by grade

cluster. The participants

were introduced to a

framework for

organizing the curricula,

beginning with Grade 9,

to identify the core

subjects to be included

in the program.

USAID/SDPP handed

over two sets of Grade 9

lesson plans for the

working group

members’ reference.

7/24/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Leigh-Anne Ingram

(UNICEF

international

consultant),

Fayziddin Niyozov

(UNICEF local

consultant)

To share SDPP material

with the working group;

to provide technical input

on the development of the


program

Discussed the planned


program in more detail.

UNICEF consultants

agreed to keep SDPP

apprised of progress in

their program design.

8/5/14 Sakil Malik (HQ),

Gulguncha Naimova

(Country Coordinator)

Irina Kholovna

Karimova (Head of

the Academy of

Education)

To discuss SDPP plans

and the review and

approval of SDPP

program material

(manuals, lesson plans.)

Kholovna explained the

working group with

UNICEF and their

program on out of

school children. SDPP

material can be used as

a support for the

program and she will

try to work with the

three other institutions

to get their feedback

and MOES approval on

the material.


Gulguncha Naimova

(Country Coordinator),

Sayora Abdunazarova


Mavjuda Nabieva

(USAID Education

Management

Specialist)

To share SDPP future

plans, Kulob satellite

office close-out, and

upcoming workshops and

meetings with

stakeholders

Mavjuda suggested

fewer workshops and

participants that we

deliver the reward

packages of books at the


Day celebration, and that

SDPP invite important

stakeholders.


Page 41


Gulguncha Naimova


Qahramon Baqozoda

(Director of Zerkalo),

Soleh Sharipov

(Zerkalo Manager),

Parviz Yusupov

(Zerkalo Finance

Manager)

To discuss how FU2

went, and to plan for FU3

(dates for training and

data collection, hiring

researchers)

Zerkalo team agreed

that the training for

Follow-Up3 should

start earlier – from

October 15 – and they

will plan other

activities accordingly.

They will try to hire the

same researchers who

worked for FU1 and

FU2


Gulguncha Naimova


Parviz Abduvahobov

(UNICEF Education

Specialist)

To provide an overview

of SDPP achievements

and plans for future. To

get an understanding

about UNICEF out of

school children program

Parvis mentioned that

the approaches that

UNICEF is taking to

implement the program

are different from

SDPP’s approaches, and

therefore UNICEF

cannot use the SDPP’s

EWS material.

9/3/14 Gulguncha Naimova


Zarina Bazidova (M&E

RS)

Sharipov Soleh

(Zerkalo Manager),

Olimov Rahimjon

(Zerkalo Project

Coordinator)

To discuss problems

faced during the FU2 and

scheduled activities for

FU3

Zerkalo representatives

assured that the

problems were solved

and they will take a

better care of the data

collectors this time. Also

they asked if it is

possible to hire SDPP

former staff members.

9/5,

9/11,

9/15-

16/14

Gulguncha Naimova


Lutfullo Boziev

(Program manager)

Saidahmad Umarov

(Head of local

authority device,

Danghara district),

Amirshoeva

Mahbuba (Deputy

Governor of

Danghara)

To discuss plans for


Day celebration

Several meetings were

held to discuss the

location of the


Day Celebrations. They

asked us to send them

the agenda and the list of

the participants as soon

as we get approval from

the MOES.

9/15/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Malika Bahovadinova,

(International

Organization for

Migration technical

adviser), Malika

Yarbabaeva (IOM

labor migration

program manager)

To discuss IOM’s

proposed program, to

share ideas for involving

community and working

with government

counterparts

Discussed the IOM

program: Its aim is to

improve education

opportunities for migrant

children in the Gharm

area. Their program will

include policy

development, basic

vocational/ technical

training, community

engagement and

awareness-raising

campaign.


Page 42

9/20/14 Gulguncha Naimova


Lutfullo Boziev

(Program Manager)

Saidahmad Umarov

(Head of local

authority device,

Danghara district),

Amirshoeva

Mahbuba (Deputy

Governor of

Danghara)

To discuss plans for the


Day celebration

Met one last time, prior

to ceremony, to make

sure that everything is

set. Also SDPP team

decided to have the

ceremony at school #4

Danghara district and

lunch for the guests at

Khurramshahr Tea

House.

SDPP/Timor Leste

7/15/14 Nicole Seibel (Country

Coordinator); Adelino

Guterres (Field

Implementation

Coordinator)

Scott Ticknor,

Charge d’Afaires US

Embassy; Kate

Modic, Politics and

Economy Desk, US

Embassy; Pamala

Horugavye,

Development

Outreach and

Communications

Officer USAID/TL;

Emidio Amaral,

Viqueque District

Director for

Education

US Embassy Delegation

visited the SDPP office

in Viqueque to discuss

the program. The District

Director for Education

led the way for a school

visit.

Conducted US

Embassy visit to

Bahalara-Uain school

First field trip visit to

SDPP for new USAID

Development Outreach

and Communications

Officer.

US Embassy reported

that the school visit was

their “favorite part of

the trip”.

Various

7/16/14

Nicole Seibel (Country

Coordinator), Michael

Zamba (HQ director of

communications), Mary

Calomiris (HQ SDPP)

Cidálio Leite,

Director General of

Primary and Basic

Education, Alfredo

de Araujo, National

Director of Basic

Education; Eduardo

Guterres, District

Director, Manatuto

Interviews with

Communications Team

Local education

authorities expressed

continued enthusiasm

for SDPP project

activities and look

forward to using videos

from communications

visits to lobby for

continued support for

at-risk students.

Various:

7/17/14

Nicole Seibel (Country

Coordinator), Michael

Zamba (HQ director of

communications), Mary

Calomiris (HQ SDPP)

John Seong, Mission

Director, USAID in

Timor-Leste; Flavia

da Silva and Milca

Baptista, USAID in

Timor-Leste

Personnel

Interviews with

Communications Team

The Mission Director

as well as the activity

Manager expressed

enthusiasm for project

activities. The

Activities manager

expressed interest in

scheduling visits to

intervention schools,

which took place a few

weeks later.


Page 43

C. Staff Actions

At the end of the 2011 fiscal year, the three core SDPP staff—Country Coordinator, Education Specialist

and M&E Specialist—were in place in all four countries, with the exception of the Education Specialist in

India, who was hired and began work in quarter two of 2012. All of the core in-country staff were in

position throughout the 2012 fiscal year, except for the Country Coordinator in Timor Leste, who

resigned from the project and departed in April 2012. An interim Country Coordinator (Nicole Seibel)

was hired and began work in May. Her contract was extended until August 10, in order to allow for

overlap with the new, permanent replacement (Monzu Morshed), who began work in August, but soon

after resigned for health reasons. CARE re-engaged Ms. Seibel as Country Coordinator for an additional

period (September 17 – December 24, 2012), who was then approved as the permanent Country

Coordinator. In June 2013 Sushant Verma, Country Coordinator for India, resigned from his position.

8/18/14 Simplicio Barbosa,

(Education Program

Manager); Nicole

Seibel, (Country

Coordinator)

Education

Development

Partners meeting

chaired by Takaho

Fukami, Chief of

Education for

UNICEF

Updates from

Development Partners

and presentation on

status of World Bank

Management

Strengthening Project.

Confirmed MoE

meetings on Aug 19

and 22.

NZAID shared

information on

approved assistance in

education including

preschool, children’s

magazine LAFAEK

with CITL and planned

work with PTAs.


(Education Program

Manager); Nicole

Seibel, (Country

Coordinator)

Bendito dos Santos

Freitas, Minister of

Education; Dulce

Araujo Soares, Vice

Minister of Education

for Preschool and

Basic Education

Presented status of

education as per annual

action plan. Open to

questions and dialogue

with development

partners. Confirmed

ACETL dialogue on

Aug. 22nd.

Planned to be held

quarterly as the Local

Education Working

Group (LEG)


(Education Program

Manager); Nicole

Seibel, (Country

Coordinator)

Bendito dos Santos

Freitas, Minister of

Education; Dulce

Araujo Soares, Vice

Minister of Education

for Preschool and

Basic Education

Second Dialogue of the

Joint Action for

Education in Timor-

Leste (ACETL)

Signed agreement

following the dialogue

on the two topics of

discussion: Teacher

performance and a

district-level

mechanism for

monitoring schools

8/25/14 Nicole Seibel, (Country

Coordinator)

Alfredo de Araujo,

National Director of

Basic Education

Briefing on program and

preparation for

Coordination Body

Meeting in September

Signed invitation for

delivery

9/19/14;

9/22/14

Karen Tietjen, Creative;

Lotte Renault, CARE-

USA; Nicole Seibel

(Country Coordinator);

Saad Karim (Assistant

Country Director-

Programs)

Alfredo de Araujo,

National Director of

Basic Education;

Flavia da Silva,

USAID Timor-Leste

Activity Manager

Courtesy visit, sharing

Creative observation

from field trip and

reviewing options for

future activities

Shared information on

data collection

including qualitative

data collection training;

Determined MoE

interest in initial policy

dialogue, possibly for

early December;


Page 44

Creative worked with its subcontractor in India, IDEAL, to identify Mr. Verma’s replacement, during

which time the SDPP India Project Director, Aakash Sethi, served as interim Country Coordinator. In

August 2013 Mr. Sethi was approved as the permanent Country Coordinator.

Table 8 shows the status of the core SDPP positions in each country since the beginning of the project.

Table 8: Field Office Core Staff Actions

Core Staff Position Name and Start Date

(Departure Date)

Name and

Replacement Date

Status

SDPP/Cambodia (KAPE)

Country Coordinator Kosal Chea, 1/1/11 NA Filled

Education Specialist Sothira Ouk, 1/1/11 NA Filled

Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Carole Williams, 11/1/10 NA Filled

SDPP/India (IDEAL)

Country Coordinator Sushant Verma,

(6/24/13)

Aakash Sethi,

8/14/13

Filled

Education Specialist Neha Parti, 1/9/12 NA Filled

Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Vir Narayan, 10/18/11 NA Filled

SDPP/Tajikistan (Creative)

Country Coordinator Gulgunchamo Naimova,

12/6/10

NA Filled

Education Specialist Sayora Andunazarova,

11/15/10

NA Filled

Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Davlatmo Yusufbekova

(2/10/11)

Zarina Bazidova

5/3/11

Filled

SDPP/Timor Leste (CARE)

Country Coordinator Lorina Aquino, 4/19/11

(4/20/12)

Monzu Morshed, 8/3/12

(8/28/12)

Nicole Seibel,

5/18/12 – 8/10/12;

9/10/12 – 12/5/12;

12/5/12

Filled

Education Specialist Martin Canter, 3/12/11 NA Filled

Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Shoaib Danish, 2/14/11 NA Filled

In FY14, a total of 454 full- or part-time SDPP field and HQ staff were approved, including 17 in

Cambodia, 292 in India, 13 in Tajikistan, 116 in Timor Leste, and 12 at HQ (7 at Mathematica, 3 at STS,

and 5 at Creative). Two Creative HQ Program Associate vacancies that were not filled in FY13 due to

uncertainty surrounding the SDPP extension were filled this year, in addition to a Creative HQ Research

Associate position. A substantial number of staff approvals in FY14 were due to the transition from

IDEAL to QUEST in India, which resulted in 269 staff approvals for QUEST, including 224 approvals

for Community Champions.

During Quarter 4, field staff actions include the following:

In Cambodia, Creative granted approval for the replacement of a Guard in Phnom Penh and the IT Field

Officer based in Prey Veng. Recruitment for a cleaner based in Prey Veng, DPO based in Pursat, and

Admin/Finance Officer in Kampong Speu is still in progress.

In India, four staff (Program Facilitation Officer, Database Manager, Program Monitoring Officer, and

Systems Manager) resigned and three new Program Monitoring Officers were hired.

In Tajikistan, the Accountant based in the Kulob office resigned in September. The management and

finance team decided not to fill the vacancy, but rather that the Dushanbe finance team will support the

Program Manager and Program Administrative Officer in Kulob with all finance duties until the closure

of the Kulob office. The Finance & HR Officer in Dushanbe also resigned, effective October 13th. The

finance department and management team determined that this position needs to be filled as soon as

possible and Creative HQ agreed to an accelerated selection process which is underway.


Page 45

In Timor Leste, one Field Officer was replaced and three additional Field Officer positions subsequently

became vacant.

At Creative HQ, a Nicholas Hoekstra joined as a Research Associate and Jenna Frydman began full time

on the project as a Program Associate.

At Mathematica, Deputy Project Director and Survey Director, Kathy Buek, transitioned to part time

status. Her roles as Deputy Project Director and Survey Director were assumed by the Emilie Bagby,

Task Lead for Tajikistan and India, and her role as Task Lead for Timor Leste and Cambodia were

assumed by Ali Protik, who also expanded her role in leading analysis and reporting. Kristine Johnson

was also brought on to help fill some of the void left by Kathy Buek’s departure. Wesley Dunlap filled the

vacant role of Contracts Specialist.

At STS, Jennifer Ho joined as a Research Specialist and Elizabeth Fincham changed roles from Program

Associate to Program Coordinator.

D. Consultants

A total of 237 in-country consultants for SDPP were approved by USAID during the year: 228 in India, 1

in Cambodia, 3 in Tajikistan, 4 in Timor Leste, and 1 at SDPP HQ. These include community volunteers

(“Community Champions”) supporting the intervention in India. Others included those hired to carry out

data collection and entry, temporary drivers, etc.

Table 9 summarizes the higher-level, professional consultancies of the project during the quarter.

Additional longer-term consultancies, such as Community Champions in India are not shown.

Table 9: Consultant Actions in FY14

Consultant Dates of consultancy Activity/Assignment Place

Lorelei Brush July 15-Oct 31, 2014 Research Analysis Consultant Creative HQ

Mr. Gagan Sethi Oct.10 2013 – Sept. 29, 2015 HR Consultant India

Ms. Gauri Sanghi Oct.10 2013 – Sept. 29, 2015 Program Consultant India

Mr. Path Sarwate June 24 - December 31, 2014 Development of leadership manual

and HM Master training

India

Ms. Rochna Pant June 26, 2014 - July 29, 2015

Enrichment Program Activities India

Mr. Nuy Bora Feb-Mar, 2014 (9 days) Coordinate and document the SDPP

Training and Planning meeting in

Sihanoukville

Cambodia

Mr. Isaac Scarborough July 30, 2013 – September

29, 2015 (originally max. 50

days, amended to max 80

days)

Edit English versions of program

manuals and lesson plans

Tajikistan


Page 46

Consultant Dates of consultancy Activity/Assignment Place

Mukim Malaev September 19, 2014 – May 31, 2015

Oral interpretation for U.S.

Ambassador at the celebration of

International Literacy Day, September

23, 2015

Tajikistan

Sarmento Wargas Feb 11-17, 2014 Translation of data collection

training and instruments

Timor Leste

Jose Manuel Sarmento Feb 10 – Mar 4, 2014 Design and layout for EWRS

‘Politeness and Respect’ poster

Timor Leste

Jose Manuel Sarmento July 15-31, 2014 Design of SY 2014 Certificates and

reformat branding

Timor Leste

Sarmento Wargas Sept 29 – Oct 30, 2014 Translation Tetum-English of Film

interviews for Creative

Communication Team

Timor Leste

E. Staff and Consultant International Travel

Visits by staff from the headquarters offices of Creative, Mathematica, STS (and in the case of Timor

Leste, CARE) were made during the year to the four pilot countries, for providing technical and

operational support to the field teams, conducting the follow up, qualitative assessment, and fidelity of

implementation surveys, supporting in-school activities, and providing other technical and/or

management support. Details of the international travel undertaken during the first three quarters to

support SDPP field activities and operations are summarized in Table 10, with additional detail shown for

travel during the fourth quarter.

Table 10: HQ Staff and Consultants International Travel in FY13

Name of Traveler Destination Dates of Travel Purpose of Trip Mary Calomiris Cambodia

11/12/13 –

11/23/13

To work with the SDPP Cambodia team to revise,

pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures for

Cambodia. To provide operational support for the

Cambodia finance and procurement teams in

budget realignment.

Mark Sweikhart;

Mark Lynd

Cambodia 11/12/13 –

11/23/13

To work with the SDPP Cambodia team to revise,

pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures for

Cambodia.

Kathy Buek; Owen

Schochet

India 1/16/14 - 1/29/14 To assist the local SDPP country team with

enumerator training and survey supervision.

Mark Sweikhart;

Mark Lynd;

Amadou Bakayoko

Tajikistan 1/24/14 – 2/5/14 To work with the SDPP Tajikistan team to revise,

pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures.

Mark Sweikhart;

Mark Lynd;

Amadou Bakayoko

India 2/5/14 – 2/19/14 To work with the SDPP India team to revise, pilot-

test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures

Ebow Dawson-

Andoh Timor Leste 2/13/14-2/27/14

To assist the local SDPP country team with

enumerator training and survey supervision.

Karen Tietjen, Sakil

Malik, Mary

Calomiris, Nancy

Murray, Kathy

Canada 3/9/14-3/17/14 CIES Conference and SDPP workshop


Page 47

Name of Traveler Destination Dates of Travel Purpose of Trip Buek, Mark Lynd,

Mark Sweikhart

Zuhra Abhar Canada 3/14/14-3/17/14 CIES Conference and SDPP workshop

Owen Schochet;

Emilie Bagby Tajikistan 4/1/14 – 4/28/14

To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data

collection, support data collection team training,

and monitor data collection processes

Ebow Dawson-

Andoh Cambodia 4/13/14 – 5/7/14




Zuhra Abhar;

Jennifer Brookland;

David Snyder

Tajikistan 5/9/14 – 5/18/14

To film and conduct interviews with program

beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia

packages.

Mary Calomiris;

Michael Zamba;

Christopher

McMorrow

Cambodia 5/14/14 – 5/26/14



packages.

Mark Lynd; Karen

Tietjen Tajikistan 6/8/14 – 6/15/14

To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative

assessment instruments and procedures; to support

training of local staff in qualitative data collection

Karen Tietjen; Mark

Lynd Cambodia 7/12/14 - 7/21/14




Mary Calomiris;

Michael Zamba;

David Snyder

Timor Leste 7/7/14 - 7/18/14



packages.

Mohammad Sakil;

Aibek Allakhunov Tajikistan 8/2/14 - 8/11/14

To provide operational support in preparation for

satellite office closing and close of activities

Ali Protik; Ebow

Dawson-Andoh Timor Leste 8/21/14 - 9/14/14




Zuhra Abhar;

Jennifer Brookland;

David Snyder

India 9/12/14 - 9/28/14



packages.

Mohammad Sakil India 9/12/14 - 9/25/14 To support filming team and to provide operational

and supervisory support to the local SDPP team

Lotte Renault Timor Leste 8/28/14 - 9/26/14 Technical visit to support data collection and close

of activities, as well as qualitative assessment

Karen Tietjen; Mark

Lynd Timor Leste 9/10/14 - 9/25/14




F. Procurements

Creative HQ worked with field offices to procure essential office and program supplies, equipment and

services, in accordance with established procurement regulations and requirements.

Of particular note this year was the procurement of program materials (e.g. extracurricular activity

materials, toolkit materials, printing of activities manuals), as well as rewards and incentive packages for

participating schools. After extensive discussions regarding school needs assessments and consideration

of potential impact of rewards on research results, different rewards packages for each country were

identified for both control and treatment schools. In Cambodia, cabinets, hole punchers, and level arch

files were chosen. In Tajikistan, each school received a package of literature books, selected for a range of

ages, gender and reading level, which were distributed on International Literacy Day. In Timor Leste, all


Page 48

schools received bulletin boards for the previous school year, and packages of guitars, sports equipment,

filing cabinets, and metal storage trunks are being procured for the current school year. In India, the team

is in the process of finalizing the contents of its rewards package and intends to procure and distribute the

rewards packages in February 2015.

In Quarter 4, the rewards/incentives packages were ordered in Cambodia and Timor Leste, and distributed

in Tajikistan as part of the International Literacy Day celebration. In Cambodia and Timor Leste,

certificates of appreciation were printed for all participating schools, thanking them for efforts in records

maintenance and program implementation, and encouraging continued efforts throughout the program

extension. In India, t-shirts and cotton bags were distributed to teachers, headmasters, and Community

Champions for training workshops and to wear and carry on field visits.

Procurements made during Quarter 4 which exceeded $5,000 are as noted in Table 11. Procurement of

services related to training and logistics (venue, printing, stationary, transport of personnel, etc.) are not

included in the table. For detailed lists of procurements made in Quarters 1-3, please see the Quarterly

Reports submitted to USAID.

Table 11: Procurements in Quarter 4 Field Office Description Amount* Status

Cambodia School Reward Packages- Cabinets for 322 schools 30,846 Ordered

India Bags and t-shirts for conference participants and Community

Champions

6,188 Delivered

Timor Leste 3 laptop computers 6,507 Delivered

Timor Leste Extracurricular Activity Materials 13,906 Delivered

Timor Leste Incentive Packages- Guitars, Sports Equipment, Filing

Cabinets

33,351 In process

* $ amounts approximate

IV. Status of Contract Deliverables

Table 12 provides an updated list of the contract deliverables completed and in process since the

beginning of the project, as per section F.2(a) of the SDPP Task Order.

Table 12: Contract Deliverables

Deliverable Requirement Delivery date Approved

by client date

School dropout prevention identification and

analysis plan

1.1 10/12/10 Approved

10/16/10


analysis methodology and criteria

1.1 10/12/10 Approved

10/16/10


analysis of 15 programs or interventions6

1.1 11/22/10 (presentation

and written summary)

Approved

11/22/10


analysis draft report (including executive

summary, cost estimates, and conclusions)

1.2 3/10/11 Approved

3/28/11


analysis report

1.2 5/24/11 (COTR);

5/27/11 (AMs)

Approved draft

version 3/28/11

200 print copies of school dropout prevention7

identification and analysis reports

1.3 6/20/11 NA8

50 reports for each pilot country in required 1.3 August 2011 NA

6 Thirty-four (34) programs were identified and analyzed. 7 Two hundred and fifty (250) reports were printed. 8 NA = client approval is not applicable to the deliverable.


Page 49


by client date

language

200 reports distributed to 4 pilot missions in

English

1.3 November 2011 NA

5 presentations on report findings

(presentation of all key findings)

1.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11,

11/15/11, 1/17/12,

10/28/11, 11/21/11,

1/27/12, 7/20/12,

8/20/12, 4/26/12

NA

Power point summarizing findings of student

dropout prevention identification and analysis

1.4 Complete for each

country as per above

dates; summary

presentation developed

List of assessment tools for each country 2.1 4/13/11 Approved

4/26/11

List of factors each assessment tool measures 2.1 4/13/11 Approved

4/26/11

4 in-depth country assessment plans9 10 2.2 4/19/11 Approved

4/19/11

4 in-depth country assessments 2.2 Completed May –

October 2011

NA

Inventory of existing programs 2.2 5/25/11 (draft);

7/25/11 (final)

Approved

7/28/11

Grade levels and student populations most at

risk of dropout identified in each country

2.3 8/19/11 (Cambodia,

Timor Leste)

8/25/11 (Tajikistan)

12/22/11 (India)

Trend analysis

reports approved

verbally 6/22/12;

written approval:

9/9/13.

4 in-depth country assessment draft reports 2.3 Reports on trend

analyses submitted as

above; report on

policies and programs

submitted 7/25/11;

report on situation

analysis submitted

Policies and

programs report

approved

7/28/11; Trend

analysis reports

approved as

above

1 report with country comparisons 2.3 In process

4 in-depth country assessment reports 2.3 In process

4 power point presentations 2.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11,

11/15/11, 1/17/12

NA

1 power point presentation on all four

countries

2.4 PowerPoint

developed, presented,

and submitted 3/1/12

NA

5 presentations on the in-depth country

assessment findings

2.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11,

11/15/11, 1/17/12,

10/28/11, 11/21/11,

1/27/12, 7/20/12,

8/20/12, 4/26/12

NA

Risk factors and trends for each of the 4 2.4 Risk factors and trends NA

9 One plan was submitted, covering all four countries, rather than four country-specific plans. 10 Draft and final plans submitted and approved as one.


Page 50


by client date

countries identified and

presented as above

8 (2 per country) program recommendations 2.4 Completed as outcome

of workshops (below)

NA

4 (1 per country) in-depth country assessment

findings summary

2.4 In process

4 workshops on findings and

recommendations

2.4 10/18-20/11

(Cambodia)

11/15-17/11

(Tajikistan

11/14-16/11 (Timor

Leste)

1/17-19/12 (India)

NA

4 language translations of in-depth country

assessment reports

2.5 6 local language

translations of trend

analysis reports

(Khmer 10/5/11,

Tetum 9/16/11,

Portuguese 9/13/11,

Tajik 10/6/11, Russian

10/8/11, Hindi

12/28/11) and policies

and programs

inventory completed

(Khmer 8/29/11, Tajik

8/29/11, Russian

9/6/11, Tetum 8/29/11,

Portuguese 9/13/11,

Hindi 1/14/12)

NA

100 (400 total) in-depth country assessment

reports distributed

2.5 September 2011 to

January 2012

NA

250 in-depth country assessment reports

distributed in English

2.5 September 2011 to

January 2012

NA

650 CDs of in-depth country assessment

reports (for each hard copy report)

2.5 In process

4 stakeholder lists 3.1 2/28/12 NA

Areas of collaboration/conflict identified and

resolved in each country

3.1 Included w/ report on

Coordination Bodies,

submitted 7/3/12

(Approval

pending)

4 SDPP project oversight bodies formed 3.1 Completed in all

countries by March

2012, described in

report on Coordination

Bodies, 7/3/12

(Approval

pending)

4 (1 per country) communication plans 3.1 Submitted 9/13/12 (Approval

pending)

1 scope of work for Coordination Body 3.1 Included as part of

report on Coordination

Bodies, submitted

7/3/12

(Approval

pending)

4 (1 per country) tailored draft pilot design 3.2 2/28/12 (Approval


Page 51


by client date

plans pending)

4 (1 per country) site selection methodologies 3.2 Addressed in design

plan, 2/28/12

(Approval

pending)

4 (1 per country) design workshops 3.2 10/18-20/11

(Cambodia)

11/15-17/11

(Tajikistan

11/14-16/11 (Timor

Leste)

1/17-19/12 (India)

NA

Target dates for all activities and outputs of

the 4 pilot projects

3.3 Submitted in annual

work plans

Operational definitions for all variables in the

4 country pilots

3.3 Submitted in research

design report

12 (3 per country) outcome indicators for the

4 country pilots


design report

Data source descriptions for each of the 4

country pilot indicators


design report

4 (1 per country) pilots launched 3.4 NA NA

4 (1 per country) pilot launch press releases 3.4 10/23/12 (Timor)

12/12/12 (Tajikistan)

2/26/13 (India)

3/6/13 (Cambodia)

10/17/12 (Timor)

12/10/12

(Tajikistan)

2/13/13 (India)

3/13/13

(Cambodia)

1 implementation work plan annually 3.511 5/20/1112

6/4/1213

10/13

10/14

5/31/11

Approval

pending

V. Challenges and Actions Taken

Major challenges and actions taken to address them during the year are as highlighted below. The project

continues to work to identify solutions to these challenges, including through school-level consultation

and consultation with district-, province- and national-level MOE representatives and the country

coordination bodies.

Early Project Delays: SDPP projects in all countries experienced delays early in fiscal year 2014 due to

various causes. As a result of SDPP extension through September, 2015, subcontractor scopes-of-work

and budgets required modifications that were not fully realized until the end of the first quarter. This led

to delays in the renewal of staff contracts, hiring of new staff and disbursing of funds for project

activities. Some training activities and meetings were delayed and uncertainty about job security caused

some field staff to quit.

In addition to delays caused by budget modifications, changes in the procedure for personnel approvals

also slowed work early in the year. All personnel approvals now require the additional step of passing

through Creative Contracts before submission to USAID. Delays resulted in some unfilled field positions.

11 Deliverables for Requirements 3.6-3.8 are not due until near end of project and are not included in this table. 12 For Fiscal Year 2011 13 For Fiscal Year 2012


Page 52

Finally, weather played a part in major delays in schools across SDPP project countries. Flooding in

Cambodia as well as winter rain and snow in India and Tajikistan led to delays in the start of the academic

year (in Cambodia), the cancelation or low turn-out in teacher training (in India), and school closure and

low attendance in tutoring/enrichment classes (in Tajikistan).

SDPP staff took a variety of measures to limit the impact delays had on project implementation. Good

communication was crucial on many levels to insure smooth coordination with contract and budget

administration during contract renewals. Whenever possible, materials were prepared ahead of time so

that staff could be deployed as soon as their contracts were approved. In Timor Leste, where delays

caused especially high attrition rates of field staff, the SDPP Timor-Leste team made efforts to assure

field staff that job uncertainty was only temporary and provided career development opportunities for

staff members who remained with SDPP. In several instances, the restructuring of program activities was

also necessary to limit the negative impact of delays caused by weather and the late start of classes. In

India, teacher training was held in smaller sessions at the block level to limit the distance teachers had to

travel to attend. In Timor-Leste, teacher orientation for the extra-curricular activities was broken down

from a two-day training to several smaller modules that could be held after school while classes were in

session. Finally, in Tajikistan, the SDPP team provided additional support to schools and rescheduled

meetings so that project implementation could begin as quickly as possible when weather permitted.

Staff retention/Teacher Motivation: As mentioned above, field staff retention was a concern during the

early part of fiscal year 2014 due to delays in budget modification and contract renewals. Staff retention

continued to be a concern, however, as program and field officers as well as M&E officers began

preparing for SDPP in-country closeout by looking for new positions. SDPP HQ staff has responded to

these concerns by working to streamline the personnel approval process as much as possible so that new

staff may be quickly hired and, in the case of Timor-Leste, additional backup candidates have been

identified and submitted for approval to replace vacancies as soon as they happen.

Teacher and community motivation, especially regarding case management and record maintenance, has

been a challenge across all project countries. In Timor-Leste, some teachers view their participation in

extra-curricular activities as a burden that requires additional hours of work. Furthermore, teachers in

Timor-Leste are resistant to cooperate with data collection schedules, especially at control schools. In

India, teachers were engaged in election activities and school examinations and these activities restricted

the time they would have otherwise spent on case management or focus child identification. SDPP

response to problems of low motivation have focused on non-monetary supports. This consists in holding

meetings with teachers and community representatives to discuss ways in which the community can

support at-risk student identification processes as well as brainstorming about how to use community

resources to prevent dropout. Inactive volunteers have been replaced and certificates of appreciation have

been budgeted which will, hopefully, provide an incentive for ongoing work.

Fidelity of Implementation: Initial fidelity of implementation (FOI) results showed some areas of poor

compliance with project implementation. In Cambodia, for example, the first round of FOI results showed

that in some schools the school personnel and teachers were not completing the EWS monthly case

management forms. Similarly, FOI results in Timor-Leste shows specific areas of insufficient compliance

of the completion and retention of EWS forms on the part of teachers, as mentioned above. These fidelity

checks have allowed SDPP to respond with specific, on the spot, coaching and feedback.

Security/Maintenance: Both security and maintenance have been ongoing concerns with computer labs

in Cambodia. Due to excessive power demands from the use of peripheral computer equipment (printers,

LCD projectors and speakers) solar batteries needed to power the computer labs were damaged in 17

schools. Effected schools were unable to provide adequate computer classes for a period of time. There

have also been issues in other schools involving theft or broken equipment. In August, a school in

Kampong Speu province reported the theft of 1 host computer, two monitors and three fans. In addition to

these concerns in Cambodia, there was one case of fraud reported this year in Timor-Leste in which a


Page 53

routine analysis of field accommodation expenses implicated three M&E staff members. More details can

be found in quarterly reports from the year.

Particular challenges noted in quarter 4 include:

In Cambodia, it was announced in August that the start of the 2014-15 school year will be pushed back

from October 1st to early November. This may be in part due to the fact that over 75% of grade 12

students failed the national exam and are being offered a re-sit. While SDPP activities focus on grade 7-9,

this delay in the start to the school year will impact the collection of Follow-up 3 data.

In Tajikistan, SDPP continues to wait for the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) to sign the

Letter of Commitment (LOC) which is required for submission with other program documents by the end

of the program. The LOC serves to demonstrate that SDPP activities were operating with the full

knowledge and consent of government counterparts. The process of acquiring a signed LOC has been

ongoing in Tajikistan and the USAID Activity Manager in Tajikistan is now working to review the latest

version and revise language wherever possible to appease the MoES and expedite the process.

Saidzoda M., Governor of Dangara, and parents of SDPP students participate in International Literacy Day event.

VI. Major Activities Planned for Next Quarter

Major activities planned for next quarter (October – December 2014) include:

Finalize modified subcontractor agreements and re-align budget.

Second and final round of Fidelity of Implementation checks to be conducted in India and Cambodia.

Complete the first part of the end line data collection in all countries

Compile program material for toolkits

Prepare for satellite office closeout in all countries

Organize policy dialogues for stakeholders to take place in December 2014 and January 2015

Finalize and submit FY14-15 Work Plan

Complete delivery of reward packages.

Hold quarterly Coordinating Body (CB) meetings.

Continue drafting country-specific assessment reports for all four countries, to include primary

research results.


Page 54

VII. Accrued Expenditures

Expenditures accrued during the fourth quarter, by country and by line item, are as shown in Table 13

below. Table 14 shows annual and cumulative expenditures for each country through September 2014.

Table 13: Expenditures July – September 2014 (USD)

Description

Country

TOTAL Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor-Leste

Direct Labor 17,861 22,550 87,783 31,840 160,034

Fringe Benefits 6,430 8,118 26,758 8,402 49,708

Travel and Per Diem 5,971 30 22,485 13,632 42,118

Allowances 0 0 10,900 0 10,900

ODCs 1,566 1,967 84,705 1,778 90,016

Subcontractor 454,899 221,861 61,115 439,028 1,176,903

Project Activities 0 0 28,215 0 28,215

Overhead 7,416 9,363 36,448 9,691 62,917

G&A 84,004 44,861 60,930 85,743 275,538

Fixed Fee 28,907 15,437 20,967 29,506 94,818

TOTAL 607,055 324,186 440,307 619,621 1,991,169


Page 55

Table 14: Cumulative Expenditures Project Inception through September 2014 (USD)

FY2011 FY2012

Description Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor-

Leste

Total

FY2011 Cambodia India Tajikistan

Timor-

Leste

Total

FY2012

Direct Labor 135,092 141,771 262,211 122,692 661,765 192,098 157,985 467,632 123,325 941,040

Fringe Benefits 45,772 43,740 78,718 41,315 209,546 64,575 56,820 144,058 44,400 309,853

Travel and Per Diem 19,722 24,083 82,751 4,804 131,359 79,802 108,225 88,396 43,594 320,016

Allowances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,285 0 7,285

ODCs 8,031 7,762 156,238 5,609 177,640 11,932 10,709 236,506 8,601 267,748

Subcontractor 479,961 169,774 153,424 584,349 1,387,508 990,680 1,136,272 339,038 1,870,616 4,336,606

Project Activities 516 516 15,587 516 17,136 1,886,583 0 295,439 0 2,182,023

Overhead 52,668 50,716 100,233 47,652 251,269 74,477 65,533 192,882 51,206 384,098

G&A 126,099 74,522 144,358 137,179 482,158 561,026 261,042 301,108 364,096 1,487,272

Fixed Fee 43,393 25,644 49,676 47,206 165,920 193,056 89,832 103,618 125,291 511,797

TOTAL 911,255 538,527 1,043,196 991,322 3,484,300 4,054,229 1,886,418 2,175,961 2,631,129 10,747,738

FY2013 FY2014


Leste

Total

FY2013 Cambodia India Tajikistan

Timor-

Leste

Total

FY2014

Direct Labor 104,510 99,703 557,862 99,947 862,022 71,474 71,287 528,061 73,753 744,575

Fringe Benefits 37,625 35,893 164,952 35,980 274,450 25,731 25,663 157,318 23,491 232,203

Travel and Per Diem 28,149 25,830 33,108 9,622 96,708 26,890 7,666 62,953 17,192 114,700

Allowances 0 0 42,339 0 42,339 0 0 57,070 0 57,070

ODCs 101,946 6,099 191,067 5,800 304,912 73,192 6,377 202,961 4,766 287,296

Subcontractor 1,902,898 1,269,281 471,891 3,607,421 7,251,491 1,836,526 1,110,403 285,742 2,193,286 5,425,956

Project Activities 321,145 1808 633,844 1808 958,605 0 0 423,443 0 423,443

Overhead 43,395 41,398 231,361 41,500 357,654 29,676 29,598 218,096 27,093 304,463

G&A 431,743 251,602 395,496 646,355 1,725,198 350,793 212,669 328,265 397,729 1,289,455

Fixed Fee 148,570 86,581 136,095 222,422 593,669 120,714 73,183 112,962 136,865 443,724

TOTAL 3,119,981 1,818,196 2,858,016 4,670,855 12,467,048 2,534,996 1,536,847 2,376,870 2,874,174 9,322,887


Page 56

Cumulative Expenditures Project Inception through September 2014


Leste Total

Direct Labor 503,174 470,746 1,815,766 419,716 3,209,402

Fringe Benefits 173,703 162,117 545,045 145,186 1,026,051

Travel and Per Diem 154,562 165,804 274,462 75,211 670,039

Allowances 0 0 106,694 0 106,694

ODCs 195,192 31,038 786,862 24,867 1,037,959

Subcontractor 5,306,312 3,797,888 1,280,793 8,428,552 18,813,546

Project Activities 2,208,244 2,324 1,368,314 2,324 3,581,206

Overhead 200,216 187,244 742,573 167,451 1,297,484

G&A 1,486,039 818,918 1,175,694 1,574,764 5,055,416

Fixed Fee 511,369 281,806 404,576 541,904 1,739,656

TOTAL 10,738,811 5,917,886 8,500,781 11,379,975 36,537,453

Documents

SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAMschooldropoutprevention.com/wp-content/...Report_Fiscal_Year_2014.pdfHR Human Resources ICT ... the FCI process and enrichment program ... School