USAID Tusome Pamoja Field Study on Gender and Learning

July 2020 This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was made possible by the support of the American people through USAID. It was prepared by RTI International for USAID|Tanzania Tusome Pamoja.

ii

USAID Tusome Pamoja Field Study on Gender and Learning Contract Period: January 12, 2016, through January 11, 2021 Contract Number: AID-621-C-16-00003

Prepared for USAID|Tanzania United States Agency for International Development Office of Acquisition and Assistance

Submitted by RTI International 3040 E. Cornwallis Road P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 RTI International is one of the world’s leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 5,000 provides research and technical services to governments and businesses in more than 75 countries in the areas of health and pharmaceuticals, education and training, surveys and statistics, advanced technology, international development, economic and social policy, energy and the environment, and laboratory testing and chemical analysis.

RTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

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

iii

Tusome Pamoja Field Study on

Gender and Learning

Prepared for: RTI International Tusome Pamoja

Prepared by:

Miske Witt & Associates International (MWAI)

May 31, 2020 Revised and re-submitted July 8, 2020

4 | P a g e

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 6

About this report ............................................................................................................................8

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 9

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 11

Field Study questions .................................................................................................................... 11

Study Methods ............................................................................................................................. 11 Description of instruments .................................................................................................................................. 13

Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 14 Survey data entry and cleaning ........................................................................................................................... 15 Description of data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 15

Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 16

Findings............................................................................................................................... 17

1. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions and experiences related to gender, safety, and learning ..... 17 Perceptions and experiences related to gender norms and beliefs .................................................................... 18 Perceptions and experiences of student safety in and around school ................................................................ 22 Gendered learning experiences ........................................................................................................................... 24

2. Practices that support or constrain safe, gender-responsive learning experiences for Tanzanian girls and boys in reading and mathematics .................................................................................... 29

.................................................................................................................................................... 29 Classroom practices ............................................................................................................................................. 30 School environment............................................................................................................................................. 32 Home environment.............................................................................................................................................. 35

3. Learners’ and teachers’ attitudes and preferences about materials and supplementary readers 38 Book use and enjoyment ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Book preferences ................................................................................................................................................. 40

Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 45 Conclusions related to gender norms, beliefs, and safety................................................................................... 45 Conclusions related to gender-responsive practices in classrooms, schools and communities ......................... 46 Conclusions regarding book use and preference ................................................................................................ 46

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 46

Appendix 1: Demographics of the Sample ............................................................................ 49

5 | P a g e

5

List of Figures Figure 1: Teacher and Standard 4 students’ beliefs that only girls should take care of younger siblings .. 18 Figure 2: Teachers' views related to gender norms in textbooks ............................................................... 19 Figure 3: Teacher and Standard 4 student agreement to "Teachers ask girls to sweep more often than boys" ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4: Standard 4 beliefs regarding girls' reading and boys' mathematics abilities by gender .............. 20 Figure 5: Standard 4 students’ agreement that only girls should help with household chores ................... 21 Figure 6: Standard 4 student beliefs about girls' and boys' abilities by location/performance ................... 21 Figure 7: Standard 4 student perceptions of safety on the way to, from, and at school by gender ............ 22 Figure 8: Perceptions of safety by student and teacher ............................................................................. 23 Figure 9: Standard 4 student beliefs related to gender norms by region .................................................... 27 Figure 10: Standard 4 students’ beliefs regarding girls’ and boys’ reading and mathematics abilities, by region .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Standard 4 student perceptions of safety in and around school, by region .............................. 28 Figure 12: Extent teachers agreed that they have an adequate number of books in their classroom by book type ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 13: Percentage of teachers who agree/strongly that teachers at their school support physical and emotional safety .......................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Standard 4 student agreement regarding home support for reading and learning ................... 35 Figure 15: Standard 4 student agreement that they have support for reading and learning at home, by gender ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16: Standard 4 student emotional safety scale score by region ...................................................... 37 Figure 17: Standard 4 student agreement that they have support for reading and learning at home by region .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 18: Student agreement that they like to read Tusome Pamoja readers .......................................... 38 Figure 19: Standard 2 student-reported number of stories read each week at home and school combined, by gender .................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 20: Student agreement that "I like to read for fun (not just for school)" by Standard and sex ......... 39 Figure 21: Student reading preferences for nonfiction and fiction by Standard .......................................... 41 Figure 22: Standard 2 and 4 students' agreement that they like to read stories in the TPP readers, by region .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 23: Standard 4 support for reading at home, by region ................................................................... 43 Figure 24: Standard 4 student reader preferences (fiction versus nonfiction) by region ............................ 44 Figure 25: Standard 2 student reader preferences (fiction versus nonfiction) by region ............................ 44

List of Tables Table 1: Focus group and classroom observation participants by Standard and sex ................................ 13 Table 2: Survey participants........................................................................................................................ 13 Table 3: Practices supporting positive school community for learning ....................................................... 35 Table 4: Standard 2 survey participants by school, region, and gender ..................................................... 49 Table 5: Standard 4 survey participants by school, region, and gender ..................................................... 49 Table 6: Teacher survey participants by region, school, and gender ......................................................... 50 Table 7: Classroom observation details by school (n=89 observations) .................................................... 50 Table 8: Average number of learners enrolled in observed classrooms by gender and location/performance ................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 9: Average # of learners present on day of classroom observation by gender and location ............ 51

6 | P a g e

6

Executive Summary

Background:

The purpose of this study was to document and analyze, through the lens of gender and safety, the practices and conditions that support or constrain learning (especially in reading and mathematics) for girls and boys in schools participating in the Tusome Pamoja program (TPP) in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. A mixed-methods study comprising spoken and written surveys for students and teachers; focus group discussions for students, teachers, and parents; and school and classroom observations was conducted in three program regions: Zanzibar, Iringa, and Mtwara. A total of nine schools, 64 teachers, 1201 students, and 51 parents participated in the study.

Key findings: Gender norms and beliefs, safety, and learning While students and teachers generally affirmed equity with respect to gender roles, data revealed that disparities still exist. Household chores were gendered for many students, with girls having more domestic responsibilities than boys. In regard to schooling, parents and teachers believed that boys struggle more and have less interest in school than girls; conversely, they believed that girls take schooling more seriously, are better behaved at school, and tend to perform better than boys overall. Girls were more likely than boys to state that girls are better at reading, while boys were more likely than girls to claim that boys were better at mathematics. Teachers expressed stronger support for pictures in textbooks showing boys and girls sharing household tasks that have been traditionally understood as “girls’ work,” rather than for pictures that showed men sharing tasks that have been traditionally understood to be “women’s work.” All of this suggests that a gap exists between what students and teachers espouse as their beliefs in gender equality and their experiences and perceptions of gender equality in various areas. With regard to safety, over half of all students reported feeling unsafe or frightened of being hurt at school, and that there were areas in or near their school where it is not safe for a girl or a boy to go alone. Girls were more likely than boys to report that their school was unsafe. Nearly half of Standard 4 students reported that their journey to and from school was unsafe. Girls and boys mentioned different types of safety hazards, which differed depending on location. Violence was common and normalized in schools, and students were significantly more likely than teachers to report that school is unsafe. While girls and boys were willing to help one another learn, girls prefer to help girls, and boys prefer to help boys. Boys were more likely to be absent, especially in the upper primary grades. Teachers and parents attributed boys’ absenteeism to their need to help families with a small business, fishing, or herding; their desire to play rather than study; pressure from their peers to miss school; and their overall dislike for school or not placing a high value on schooling.

Practices that support or constrain boys’ and girls’ learning Classroom observations suggest that teachers’ use of language and group work both helped and hindered student engagement. During classroom observations, teachers consciously engaged in gender-equitable teaching practices such as gender-responsive seating and calling equally on girls and boys.

7 | P a g e

7

In nearly all schools, students felt that their teachers cared for them and that they could talk to their teachers if they had a problem. Teachers and students reported that teachers supported students’ physical and emotional safety. Parent-Teacher Partnerships (PTP) enabled some schools to identify safety concerns and to implement community-wide and school-specific safety measures to help students. School leadership played a critical role at some schools in fostering strong school communities that, in turn, nurtured safe, engaging learning environments for students. Standard 4 students reported strong supports for learning at home, such as having time to attend to their schoolwork, having someone at home who checks their work, and having reading materials at home. When compared to boys, girls were more likely to report home supports for learning, such as having someone at home check their schoolwork and help them practice reading daily. Parents reported that their understanding of home supports and practices had changed because of their involvement in PTPs.

Reading preferences Overall, students in both Standards 2 and 4 agreed that they like to read TPP readers, and they would like to have access to more readers. However, Standard 2 students were more likely to agree that they like to read for fun, compared to Standard 4 students; and Standard 4 students were less likely to enjoy imaginary stories. Teachers identified the importance of both fiction and nonfiction stories for all students, but they emphasized the need for upper primary students to read more informational texts to help their academic performance in classrooms and/or on examinations. Roughly three-fourths of Standard 2 and 4 students reported that they read three or more books each week at home and at school (combined).

Conclusions and Recommendations:

While teachers and students supported gender-equitable norms and beliefs, their practices in classrooms and learning environments were not consistently gender-equitable. The field study team both observed gender disparities and they heard boys and girls talk about them with regard to their experiences and engagement with school. Roughly half of the students perceived their school environment to be a safe space and felt that they could talk to teachers when they have a concern. However, over half of students felt that there are unsafe spaces in or near schools (e.g., on the way to and from school) and students cited fear of excessive corporal punishment as one cause of truancy. Developing a strong school community contributes to a safe, equitable learning environment. School leadership plays an important role in creating school environments that are welcoming, safe, and conducive to learning. PTPs have introduced changes to the ways in which parents think about and value education, including girls’ education. Parents reported changes in their practices at home regarding girls’ and boys’ chores and time for studies. Such changes benefit girls, who are otherwise disproportionately given more at-home tasks than boys. In schools where implementation of the project has been successful, school staff and PTPs have been able to educate parents further about the importance of educating their children, resulting in greater parent involvement in school activities and student learning. While students indicated that they like both fiction and nonfiction books, teachers and students in upper primary grades emphasized the importance of nonfiction books. When discussing the books they liked the most and the least, students’ responses varied. Some students mentioned

8 | P a g e

8

the storyline or types of information in the book; others focused on the characters, pictures, or what they do or do not like in real life, indicating that diversity in reading materials matters. Context also matters. Students from lower-performing (rural) schools were less likely to agree/strongly1 that they enjoyed the Tusome Pamoja readers. At the same time, students from higher performing (urban) schools reported enjoying reading the least, even though they were mastering reading skills at a faster rate than students from lower performing schools.

About this report

This report is organized into the following sections: Introduction Methodology Findings Conclusions and Recommendations The Introduction describes the Tusome Pamoja program and how this study complements and extends existing program data on gender and safety in relation to learning in the early grades. Section 2 details the methodology used for this study, including the specific analyses. Section 3 describes the findings and results of the analyses according to the three key evaluation questions. This report concludes with future recommendations and considerations for Tusome Pamoja, RTI, and USAID.

1 Throughout the report, the term “agree/strongly” includes responses of participants who replied both “agree” and “agree strongly” to a particular item.

9 | P a g e

9

Introduction

This report presents findings from the mixed methods Gender and Learning field study that was conducted to inform the ongoing implementation of the Tusome Pamoja program in Tanzania. Tusome Pamoja is a program funded by the United State Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Research Triangle International (RTI) in support of the Government of Tanzania’s (GoT) educational reforms in the “3 Rs” (reading, writing, and arithmetic) in the early grades of basic education. The Tusome Pamoja program (TPP) is being implemented in four regions in mainland Tanzania and all districts of Zanzibar in collaboration with the education ministries of Zanzibar (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training − MoEVT) and Mainland Tanzania (Ministry of Education, Science & Technology − MoEST), and in coordination with the President’s Office for Regional and Local Government (PO-RALG). With a target audience of 1.4 million pre-primary through Standard 4 students2 and 26,000 teachers, the program aims to improve lifelong learning skills, defined as the 3 Rs, by meeting three objectives: (1) improving the quality of early grade basic skills instruction; (2) strengthening skills delivery systems; and (3) increasing engagement of parents and communities in education. To achieve these objectives, TPP created new Kiswahili language learning materials for pre-primary through Standard 4, including supplementary and decodable readers; trained teachers and school leaders; and established school-based communities of learning to ensure continuity of training. Tusome Pamoja also established Parent-Teacher Partnerships (PTP) to increase parent engagement in the learning environment, in school governance, and in providing home supports for learning. Now in the fifth and final year of the program, TPP seeks to understand better the role of gender in the activities that have taken place. Throughout the project, Tusome Pamoja has recognized the importance of equal access to quality education for all girls and boys, it has supported equity and access for all children through community action processes, and it has gathered some data on gendered aspects of learning to read, such as the interaction of teachers and students in terms of student seating and participation by raising hands and/or answering questions. In the follow-up and monitoring of Feedback Schools in each district it serves, TPP is gathering evidence about teachers’ beliefs concerning boys’ and girls’ learning. The initial data set from the Feedback Schools (February 2019) showed that the majority of teachers believe that it is equally possible to teach boys and girls to read. Only 10% of teachers agreed that “boys are easier to teach to read than girls.” Similarly, when teachers were asked by which Standard they would expect girls or boys to be able to read words and to read sentences, their expectations for boys and girls were the same. Despite these positive measures of beliefs and classroom practices, 2019 assessment data for Tanzania showed that Standard 2 girls had a very slight advantage in learning to read when compared to boys, while boys slightly outperformed girls in mathematics in Standard 2.3 The gap between girls’ and boys’ performance widened in the upper grades, with girls continuing to outperform boys in Kiswahili − though underperforming in all other subjects, and with boys

2 NB: Pre-primary and Standards 3 and 4 were included as a pilot in Zanzibar and one mainland region, Mtwara. The program covered Standards 1 and 2 in all four mainland regions and Zanzibar. 3 USAID 2018 Assistance to Basic Education - All Children Reading Final Findings Report, 2017 Tanzania Early Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA). The same results were also observed in mini-EGRA and mini-EGMA in Tusome Pamoja Feedback Schools, August 2019.

10 | P a g e

10

exceeding girls in dropout rates.4 Gender appeared as a priority area for a significant number of communities in the rapid feedback evaluation of the CENAP process.5 In addition, mixed-method studies in neighboring countries have shown that even when quantitative measures suggest that opportunities for girls and boys to learn are equitable, the actual teaching and learning environment for boys and girls varies widely between and within schools.6 The purpose of this study was to document practices and conditions supporting or constraining learning for girls and boys (especially in reading and mathematics) in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar through the lens of gender and safety. Three research goals were identified for this study:

a) to describe community, classroom, and school cultures and practices for reading and mathematics related to gender and safety in two regions of the mainland and in Zanzibar;

b) to provide insights into school culture and practices that will be able to inform education programming on fostering conducive learning environments in reading (etc.) for Tanzanian students beyond the study; and,

c) to develop a report and products consistent with Tusome Pamoja (e.g., handouts, briefings), which support a comprehensive analytic model of safer, more gender-responsive teaching and learning during the final year of the Tusome Pamoja program.

4 ESDP, August 2018 update, pp. 26-27. 5 Results for Development. (2019). Using Rapid Feedback Evaluation Methods to Increase Teacher and Parent Engagement in Education. CIES Conference presentation, San Francisco, California. 6 USAID. (2019). Second Evaluation of the National Assessment of Safety, Gender, and Inclusion in Malawian Early Grade Reading Environments. RTI International: Research Triangle, NC.

11 | P a g e

11

Methodology

Field Study questions

The overarching questions driving this study were as follows:

• “How do gender, safety, and the teaching and learning of reading and mathematics intersect in schools in Tanzania and Zanzibar?”

• “How do the intersections vary by school location and performance (i.e., urban and high-performing, peri-urban and medium-performing, and rural and low-performing) and by region (Iringa, Mtwara, and Zanzibar)?”

To answer these questions, MWAI developed a mixed-methods approach to understand better the practices and conditions that support or constrain learning for girls and boys in Tanzania and Zanzibar. Three specific questions guided this study: 1) What are the perceptions and experiences of teachers and students in relation to

gender, safety, and learning (i.e., reading and mathematics)? 2) What practices support or constrain a safe, gender-responsive learning experience for

all Tanzanian girls and boys in reading and mathematics? 3) What are learners’ attitudes and preferences about materials and supplementary

readers?

Study Methods

This mixed-methods study provides an in-depth examination of teaching and learning practices, with a focus on reading. Qualitative methods included head teacher interviews; classroom and school observations; and focus group discussions with teachers, students, and parents. The field study team collected observation data using structured paper forms, while interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded. Quantitative methods of data collection included spoken surveys for Standard 1 to 4 teachers, Standard 2 students, and Standard 4 students. All the tools were piloted at a Feedback School in Iringa (see Study sample below for the description of a Feedback School). Data collection teams in each region collected data over a two-week period at three schools, spending three days at each school. Teams were comprised of one international, bilingual (Kiswahili and English) team member and two Tanzanian team members, all of whom have extensive experience with qualitative and quantitative research methods.7 MWAI conducted a two-day training for all team members prior to data collection to orient all team members to the study’s purpose and the overarching evaluation questions. Specifically, the team discussed the study’s approach to gender responsiveness, practiced protocols and procedures, and reviewed best practices for qualitative and quantitative methods in school settings. Following data collection, MWAI trained two team members on data entry and cleaning.

Study sample The study was conducted in two regions in Mainland Tanzania − Iringa and Mtwara −and in Zanzibar. Zanzibar and Mtwara were selected because they are the only regions of TPP in

7 Zanzibar’s data collection team had one additional team member to ensure that all communication and translations were accurate.

12 | P a g e

12

which Standards 3 and 4 were included. It was important to include Standard 4, since one objective of this study was to assess fiction or nonfiction preferences, and TPP nonfiction books are introduced in Standards 3 and 4. Also, by Standard 4, pupils are better able to participate in focus groups and to respond to surveys on safety and gender issues than are their younger peers in Standards 1 and 2. Although Standard 4 students and teachers in Iringa do not currently have access to the Standard 4 readers, they were still included in the study. Tusome Pamoja has Feedback Schools (10 per region), which are frequently visited for program monitoring and evaluation. For this study, three Feedback Schools in each region were selected. Each region’s sample included a low-performing, a “mid-level”-performing, and a high-performing school, based on their August 2019 mini-EGRA and mini-EGMA scores. School performance and location generally aligned and as such, location was also factored into school selection: the low-performing schools were rural, the mid-level-performing schools were peri-urban, and the high-performing schools were urban. Since most, but not all, schools followed this pattern, the MWAI team ensured that selected schools followed the performance and location pattern. Thus, results are reported using performance and location. While differences between groups are noted, it was not possible to attribute correlation or causation to either performance or location. Focus group discussions were conducted with teachers, parents, and students at each of the nine schools. The teacher focus group discussions included all Standard 1 and 2 teachers, and all Kiswahili and mathematics teachers from Standards 3 and 4. These teachers were also given the teacher survey (see table 1). The head teacher was interviewed separately at each school. To recruit participants for parent focus group discussions, the head teacher contacted members of the PTP. All members who were available participated (parent focus group size ranged from two to 11 members). For student focus groups, a Standard 4 teacher was asked to select two girls and two boys to participate. Each of the selected students invited three friends of the same sex to join them, giving a total of eight boys and eight girls. Boys’ and girls’ focus groups were conducted separately with a data collector of the same sex as the students. For classroom observations, in schools where there was more than one stream at each grade level, the head teacher selected one stream and that stream was observed every day during mathematics and Kiswahili literacy lessons (i.e., the same group of students with the same teacher). Standard 1 and Standard 2 teachers at all schools except one were women. The exception was a school with only five teachers (one woman and four men teachers), where a man taught both Standards 1 and 2. (For full demographic information, see Appendix 1.)

13 | P a g e

13

Table 1: Focus group and classroom observation participants by Standard and sex

Focus group/interview participants Observations

Head Teachers

Std. 1-4 mathematics and Kiswahili

teachers

Std. 4 Students

Parents Std. 1

Std. 2 Std. 4

Men 5 13 72 22 1 2 4

Women 4 59 72 29 8 7 14

Total 9 72 144 51 9 9 18

Table 2: Survey participants

Region Name of school Std. 4 girls

Std. 4 boys

Std. 2 girls

Std. 2 boys

Woman teacher

Men teachers

Total

Iringa

Isimani (peri-urban) 36 27 25 22 5 1 116

Ngome (urban) 75 62 25 26 9 0 197

Nyakavangala (rural)

13 23 12 13 1 4 66

Mtwara

Nachitulo (peri-urban)

50 44 31 30 5 0 160

Tandika (urban) 20 19 25 25 4 1 94

Mbemba (rural) 42 34 25 29 3 1 134

Zanzibar

Mwera Msingi (peri-urban)

69 39 28 20 9 0 165

Mtoni Msingi (urban) 46 55 26 22 13 0 162

Mfurumatonga (rural)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 3 8

Total 351 303 197 187 54 10 1102

Description of instruments Surveys Three surveys were developed and administered for this study. All three were written and administered in Kiswahili. (1) The Standard 2 survey, consisting of 15 questions, was used to gather students’ perceptions of and experiences with the supplemental readers and to understand better how boys and girls approach reading outside of the classroom. (2) The Standard 4 survey, consisting of 40 questions, was used to collect data on student perceptions and experiences related to gender, safety, and learning (i.e., reading and mathematics), and to gather data on practices supporting or constraining safe, gender-responsive learning experiences for girls and boys in reading and mathematics. A teacher survey, consisting of 29 questions, was used to gather teachers’ perceptions and experiences in relation to gender, safety, and learning (i.e., reading and mathematics), and to gather data on practices supporting or constraining safe, gender-responsive learning experiences for Tanzanian girls and boys in reading and mathematics. (For all surveys, see Appendix 2.) Focus group and Observation protocols Focus Group protocols for students, parents, and teachers included questions about perceptions of girls’ and boys’ study habits, chores, academic performance, and challenges facing children in the community. The protocols also asked questions about interactions in school, reading preferences, and mathematics.

14 | P a g e

14

Standardized forms for collecting observational data were developed to guide data collection. School observations included quantitative elements (e.g., noting how many boys or girls were actively participating in particular activities) and more qualitative elements, such as the nature of observed interactions between teachers and students and peer-to-peer interactions. The classroom observations focused mainly on boys’ and girls’ observable actions during the lesson, and on the teachers’ comments and actions. Classroom layout, organization, and seating was also mapped, with notes on who used different parts of the classroom, when, and for what purposes. (See Appendix 2 for Focus group and Observation protocols.) Data triangulation The instruments were designed to collect data that articulated student, teacher, parent, and community member voices and opinions, as well as to observe school and classroom practices that support and/or constrain safety and learning. Since unequal power dynamics in schools often lead to different experiences for different groups, data were collected directly from key stakeholders to understand how different relations and daily practices promote and/or constrain gender-responsive and safe learning spaces for girls and boys.

Data Collection and Analysis The Standard 2 and 4 surveys were administered during the school day to all students in the classes (where classroom observations were conducted). When a Standard 2 class had more than 50 students, 25 boys and 25 girls were randomly selected to complete the survey. When there were slightly more than 50 students, all students completed the survey. All Standard 4 students, regardless of the number of students, were given a survey due to their greater level of independence when compared to Standard 2 students. Prior to starting the survey, the concept of the answer choices [“NO!” “no” “yes” “YES!”] was introduced through a game. Students were asked a No/Yes question (not related to reading or mathematics; topics such as food or sports). Answer choices were posted in each corner of the room, and students physically moved to the corner with their answer, and then discussed their answer choices. Once students understood the concept of selecting the answer based on individual opinions or preferences, students returned to their seats to take the survey. Paper copies of the student surveys were administered in Kiswahili. To administer the survey, one data collector read each question and corresponding response options aloud to the entire class, while the other data collector(s) walked around the classroom to assist students and answer any questions. At most schools, the Standard 4 survey (40 questions) took approximately 45 to 70 minutes to administer, while the Standard 2 survey (15 questions) took approximately 30 to 40 minutes, including the introductory game. The teacher survey was given to individual teachers, who were asked to complete the survey themselves. Data collectors remained at school in case of any questions. School observations, lasting approximately 15 to 20 minutes, were conducted at break times, before school, after school, or at lunchtime. Before-school observations often took up to 60 minutes, so that data collectors could observe the morning assembly as well as the students working on chores. A total of six observations over three days were completed for each school. Classroom observations were conducted for the entire lesson period in both Kiswahili literacy lessons and mathematics lessons in Standard 1, Standard 2, and Standard 4 at each school These lessons ranged from 35 to 90 minutes. When possible, each class (i.e., the same group of students and teacher) was observed three times over the three-day data collection period.

Focus group discussions were held during the school day and during lunch breaks, according to the participants’ availability and preference. All focus group discussions were conducted in

15 | P a g e

15

Kiswahili and were audio-recorded so that the recordings could be referenced at a later time during data synthesis and analysis.

Survey data entry and cleaning

All survey data were collected using paper forms. Each survey form was given an individual identification number. All survey data were entered in Excel by three MWAI team members immediately after completing the data collection. For the quantitative data, MWAI ran descriptive statistics and communicated with the research leaders on any cleaning issues. MWAI made a number of data corrections, including coding all Standard 1 and 2 teachers as teaching Kiswahili and mathematics, adding missing values in the SPSS files, and writing syntax to analyze the data across instruments (i.e., teacher versus student responses to the same questions).

Description of data analysis The following section describes the results of the different analyses run and related interpretations. Qualitative Data Initial stages of qualitative data analysis began while the data collection teams were in the field. At the end of each day, data collectors met to write detailed memoranda (“memos”) for each form of data collection (i.e., teacher focus group discussions, classroom observations, and school observations). For each memo, the research team documented key findings and themes emerging from the data. At the end of the data collection period, each team completed memos highlighting emergent themes and overarching findings evident in their region, including common themes across the schools as well as differences among the schools. Finally, select team members met in Dar es Salaam and used these memos to extend their initial data analysis across and between regions. The researchers subsequently coded memos, field notes, and transcripts thematically, inductively, and deductively, to align with the research questions. Quantitative data Descriptive statistics were run on all quantitative data (survey items, quantitative observation items) to explore the data (i.e., frequencies, means, standard deviation, range, etc.). Because there were large differences in group sample sizes, to assess differences between groups (i.e., girls compared to boys, urban and high-performing compared to peri-urban and mid-level-performing compared to rural and lower-performing8), MWAI ran non-parametric tests for these differences (i.e., Mann-Whitney [MW] tests, the non-parametric equivalent of the t-test, for differences between two groups such as gender; Kruskal-Wallis [KW] tests for differences between three or more groups, such as by region). All survey items were analyzed combining the schools as a group overall;9 and by comparing girls to boys; location and performance (i.e., rural and lower-performing, peri-urban and medium-performing, and urban and high-performing); and by region (Iringa, Mtwara, and Zanzibar; detailed statistics can be found in Appendix 4). Statistically significant differences by sex are described and presented in graphs and/or figures. This report only includes graphs and figures for some statistically significant

8 Between-group tests were only run if sample sizes for the groups were 30 or greater. 9 Note that students in one school did not have adequate literacy skills to complete the surveys; thus, the student survey data from this school is not included in the main body of this report. Data from teacher surveys, focus groups, classroom observations, and school observations from all nine schools are reported throughout.

16 | P a g e

16

results; the report does not include graphs and figures of non-statistically significant results. In the interest of readability, statistically significant findings that were not meaningful to the larger themes or patterns addressing the research questions of interest to Tusome Pamoja, were not included in this report. However, detailed statistics for all groups (significant or not) are included in the appendices (see Appendix 3). The results of the analyses are shown here according to the following general pattern: Findings in red and orange highlight areas for improvement, such as where stakeholders’ views about women and men and/or girls and boys are not equitable. Findings in blue and green highlight areas where schools are meeting best practices or goals, such as where stakeholders have more equitable or safer views.

Limitations The study provided insight into students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of safety, gender norms, and learning. This study design is intended to provide illustrative results rather than findings that can be generalized to all schools. A limitation in the design of the instruments was the differing availability of TPP readers by region (e.g., Zanzibar over against the Mainland, and Standards 1 and 2 over against Standards 1 to 4). As such, it was not possible to preview the TPP readers ahead of data collection to choose pairs of fiction and nonfiction books that were about the same subjects. Since the books were not consistently available, color photocopies of some nonfiction book covers were used during the survey administration and student focus group discussions. Student literacy levels also limited the administration of the survey data at two schools. At one school, the majority of Standard 2 students could not complete the written survey by themselves while it was being read aloud to the whole class (i.e., students were copying peers, circling the same answer for multiple questions, or skipping multiple lines). However, when we asked them questions individually, they were able to answer. In this case, the Standard 2 surveys were administered orally and individually, and these surveys are included in this report. At another school, the same problems were encountered when administering the Standard 2 and Standard 4 surveys. At this school, large class sizes precluded the possibility of administering the surveys individually. As a result, this school is not included in the survey data. However, this school is represented through the qualitative findings (i.e., focus group discussions and observations) as well as with the teacher surveys.

Most inequitable/unsafe (red) --- Inequitable (orange) ---------- Equitable (blue) -------- Most equitable/safe (green) Areas that need work/attention --------------------------------- Areas where schools are equitable and safe

17 | P a g e

17

Findings

1. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions and experiences related to gender, safety, and learning

Key findings

Gender Norms and Beliefs:

• While students and teachers generally expressed equitable beliefs related to gender roles in the family on surveys, focus group data revealed that household chores were still gendered for many students, with girls doing more cleaning and/or cooking.

o Most teachers expressed strong support for textbook pictures showing girls and boys sharing non-traditional, gendered household tasks, but teachers expressed less support for textbook pictures of adults sharing non-traditional, gendered household tasks (i.e., men caring for children and men cooking).

• Parents and teachers believed that boys struggle more and have less interest in school than girls, and that girls take schooling more seriously, are better behaved at school, and tend to perform better than boys overall.

• About one-fourth of all Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that boys are better at mathematics than girls; about one-third agreed/strongly that girls are better at reading than boys. (Boys were more likely to assert that boys are better at mathematics, and girls were more likely to assert that girls are better at reading).

Safety:

• Over half of all students felt that spaces in and around school were unsafe. Girls felt these spaces were more unsafe than boys.

• Nearly half of all Standard 4 students reported that the journey to and from school was unsafe, but safety hazards differed for girls and boys and depended on school location.

• Violence is common and normalized at school. Students were significantly more likely than teachers to report that the school is unsafe.

Gendered Learning Experiences:

• Girls and boys were willing to help one another learn, and their preference was for boys to help boys and girls to help girls.

• Boys are more likely to be absent, especially in the older grades. Teachers and parents attribute this to boys’ need to help families with a small business, fishing, or herding; a desire to play rather than study; peer pressure; and an overall dislike for school or lack of caring about education.

18 | P a g e

18

Perceptions and experiences related to gender norms and beliefs Social and gender norms and beliefs shape how individuals and groups understand structural issues related to power, gender, and authority in the home, at school, in the community. These norms and beliefs also influence how stakeholders operate schools as social institutions, and how other stakeholders experience schooling. This study examined gendered norms and beliefs to understand better the gendered nature of schooling and schooling experiences by analyzing teachers’ and students’ beliefs about girls’ and boys’ roles in the home and school, and students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of student performance. Findings in this section demonstrate that gendered norms and beliefs both support and undermine girls’ and boys’ learning in different ways. Gender norms and roles. In general, teachers and students, reported holding beliefs that affirm equity in relation to gender roles in the family. For instance, data from focus groups indicated that most Standard 4 girls and boys had time to play and study after school, while survey data show that teachers (98%) and Standard 4 students (92%) agreed/strongly that, at home, both girls and boys should ask permission to go and play with friends. Yet, students were slightly less affirming of equity as it related to household chores and caring for siblings. For instance, almost one-fourth of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that only girls should help with household chores. In addition, when asked about the specific chores that

girls and boys undertake, almost all teachers (96%) disagreed/strongly that only girls should take care of younger siblings, compared to 83% of Standard 4 students (a significant difference, see Figure 1). Qualitative data underscored how students’ experiences with chores and household expectations aligned more with traditional gendered expectations. For example, girls described how they had more household chores after school than boys. In discussions about the activities girls and boys engage in before and after

school, parents said these expectations varied by household. Parents often attributed their involvement in the PTP groups as contributing to greater gender equity in their own homes, and to an overall reduction in both girls’ and boys’ chores so that children could focus on their schoolwork. Parents also recognized that this was not true for all families within their communities; and they agreed that when more household work was expected of students, this often disproportionately affected girls.

Teachers were also asked their opinions of two textbook pictures to gauge gender attitudes related to gender images portrayed in school resources such as textbooks. Overall, teachers responded equitably to both images (see Figure 2). When shown a picture of a sister and brother doing housework, with the brother washing the dishes and the sister sweeping the floor, almost all teachers (97%) agreed/strongly that they would support this picture in their school’s textbook. They said it was an example of gender equity they would promote (98%). However, when teachers were shown a picture of a father cooking and looking after his baby, almost 20% of teachers disagreed/strongly that they would support such a picture in their school’s textbook. This suggests that teacher views and beliefs related to traditional gender roles in the family for adults differ from and may be harder to change than their views related to traditional gender roles for children.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Teacher (n=62)

Student (n=655)

Least equitable − Most equitable

Figure 1: Teacher and Standard 4 students’ beliefs that only girls should take care of younger siblings

19 | P a g e

19

Figure 2: Teachers' views related to gender norms in textbooks

In most schools, Standard 4 students and teachers agreed that girls and boys were equally expected to contribute to the schools’ upkeep. Despite support for gender-equitable beliefs at school as expressed by teachers, focus group and survey data indicated that teachers’ and school staff’s practices often did not reflect these beliefs. For instance, in focus groups, students and teachers indicated that both boys and girls were asked to sweep and contribute to similar tasks at school. However, survey data indicated that while only 17% of teachers agreed/strongly that girls are asked to sweep more often than boys, about one-third (35%) of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly (see Figure 3). Girls also reported and were observed cleaning classrooms and teachers’ offices more often than boys, while boys reported and were observed

slashing grass and burning trash more often than girls, which are all tasks that align with gendered expectations of work. Furthermore, at nearly all the schools, girl students were observed preparing tea for teachers and/or visitors, working in the kitchen before school or during break time, and serving visitors. Girls and boys reported that these were tasks assigned solely to

girls. These activities took away from the time these girl students spent in class. Student perceptions of these tasks varied. Several students thought this indicated that teachers liked girls more, or that these particular girls were performing better in class since they were being given responsibilities not assigned to other students. Regardless, these data suggest that while teachers and students intend to be gender- responsive, practices related to student responsibilities at school may not be as gender-equitable as desired. Expectations of girls and boys related to academic performance (by students, teachers, parents). Teachers’ and parents’ overwhelmingly favored girl students in their perceptions of positive academic student performance. At all schools, teachers and parents described how girl students performed better in school overall than boy students. They primarily attributed this to girls having more interest in school than boys, whereas boys did not take schooling seriously, and preferred to play. Boys’ apparent disinterest manifested itself through perceived poor performance in school, high

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Would you support such a picture? (n=63)

Example of gender equity you wouldpromote (n=56)

Is his wife treating him badly? (n=62)

Would you support such a picture? (n=62)

Example of gender equity you wouldpromote (n=61)

Should the boy feel ashamed? (n=58)

Inequitable------Equitable

“Girls like to learn more than boys. Boys like to play.” - Iringa teacher

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Std 4 (n=655)

Teachers (n=64)

YES! yes no NO!

Figure 3: Teacher and Standard 4 student agreement to "Teachers ask girls to sweep more often than boys"

Brother doing dishes

Father cooking and looking after baby

20 | P a g e

20

rates of absenteeism, tardiness, and failure to complete their work. Teachers and parents in Iringa expressed a more nuanced description of student performance. They indicated that even if boys struggle more than girls, girls’ and boys’ overall academic performance varies from year to year. One year, boys may perform better than girls, and the following year it may be the opposite. Parents and teachers noted that girls have more supervision and less freedom than boys. As a result, boys spend more time playing football or other games with their friends and less time studying at home than girls. Despite a general belief that girls perform better at school than boys, there were differences in how parents felt about girls’ and boys’ performance, subject preferences, and ability in reading and mathematics. During focus groups, some parents indicated that boys prefer and do better in mathematics than girls. They attributed this to boys’ more general interest in mathematics and to boys’ innate ability for the subject. One parent noted that boys are “just good at it”; and, because they do better, it makes them “feel prestigious.” Survey data revealed that 23% of Standard 4 students held a similar belief, and that boys were significantly more likely (34%) to agree/strongly that boys are better at mathematics than girls (12%) (See Figure 4). However, a teacher at one school pointed out that this perception is not always the reality. He provided an example from his school where a boy had taken the top spot in mathematics for his school in the national exams. This boy’s achievement contributed significantly to the perception that boys were better in mathematics than girls, even though girls at the school had performed better overall on the exams. Reading was seen by parents and teachers as something that both girls and boys were good at, even if girls had a slight advantage. Parents attributed girls’ advantage to their love of learning, obedience or willingness to follow instructions, and their natural predisposition to reading. For instance, one teacher said that, “girls show more interest in reading because the nature of girls is to prefer reading.” Another teacher indicated that girls are “more patient and attentive” in the classroom, which leads to better performance in reading compared to boys. Parents at several schools believed that girls perform better than boys in reading and Kiswahili because these are easier subjects. Standard 4 student survey responses indicated that 31% of students agreed that girls are better at reading, with girls more likely to agree/strongly (44%) than boys (14%). (See Figure 4.) According to these findings, some parents, students, and teachers believe that girls are naturally better at reading than boys, and that boys are naturally better at mathematics than girls − beliefs based on their sex. Some also believed that reading skills are easier to master than mathematical skills. These beliefs were expressed at all schools, though individual parents sometimes disputed the generalized belief by speaking about their own children’s experiences. Teachers also provided more contextual information about performance (such as absenteeism, lack of interest, etc.) to explain why boys or girls might do better than the other sex.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Girls(n=347)

Boys(n=299)

Girls(n=349)

Boys(n=300)

Boys are better at maththan girls

Girls are better atreading than boys

NO!

no

yes

YES!

Figure 4: Standard 4 beliefs regarding girls' reading and boys' mathematics abilities by gender

21 | P a g e

21

Differences by location and performance. There were some differences in the gendered norms, beliefs, and experiences of students and teachers by location and performance level. (These will be discussed in this section according to location.) The noteworthy differences were with regard to students’ tasks at home, and to perceptions of how girls and boys performed in mathematics and reading. Students in urban schools were significantly more likely than students in rural and peri-urban schools to disagree/strongly that only girls should both help with household chores (see Figure 5). Students from rural schools reported having more responsibilities at home than students from peri-urban and urban schools, and girls at two of the rural schools reported that they did not have time to play after school. This difference was reflected in survey data: Students from rural schools were significantly more likely to agree/strongly that they have many chores to do at home and often do not have time to study when compared to students at urban and peri-urban schools. This may indicate that students tend to have more inequitable experiences and hold less gender-equitable views; and that urban students tend to hold the most gender- equitable views and experiences.

Students from rural schools were also significantly more likely than students from both peri-urban and urban schools to agree/strongly that boys are better at mathematics than girls (see Figure 6). Students from urban schools were also significantly less likely to agree that girls are better than boys at reading than students from rural and peri-urban schools. Again, students from rural schools seem to hold gender-inequitable beliefs, particularly about boys’ ability in mathematics, and students from urban schools

appear to hold the most gender-equitable beliefs, particularly about girls’ reading abilities.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Rural / low (n=76)

Peri-urban / medium (n=247)

Urban / high (n=331)

YES! yes no NO!

Figure 5: Standard 4 students’ agreement that only girls should help with household chores

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Rural / low(n=73)

Peri-urban/ medium(n=248)

Urban /high

(n=327)

Rural / low(n=73)

Peri-urban/ medium(n=248)

Urban /high

(n=327)

Boys are better at math thangirls

Girls are better at reading thanboys

YES! yes no NO!

Figure 6: Standard 4 student beliefs about girls' and boys' abilities by location/performance

22 | P a g e

22

Perceptions and experiences of student safety in and around school

Students felt that spaces in and around school were unsafe, and more girls than boys felt that there were unsafe spaces for them. Standard 4 students, parents, and teachers were asked about student safety in and around school. Survey data showed that students felt that the school was unsafe for some students; 51% of students agreed/strongly that they sometimes feel unsafe or frightened of being hurt at school. In addition, the majority of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that there are places in or

near school where it is not safe for a girl to go alone (71% agreed/strongly) or for a boy to go alone (57% agreed/strongly). Traveling to and from school was also unsafe for many students, as 41% of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that they often felt unsafe on the journey to and from school. Safety perceptions also differed by sex, as girls were more likely than boys to report that both girls and boys were unsafe at school and on the journey to and from school (see Figure 7).

Student safety concerns regarding the journey to and from school were context specific. Focus group data revealed different safety issues by location for students traveling to and from school. What students feared varied by school, with rural students primarily afraid of environment-related factors, and students from urban or peri-urban schools afraid of encounters with certain people. For instance, of all the students participating in the study, rural students tended to feel most safe travelling to and from school. Students from rural schools talked about fearing snakes or wild animals that they might meet on the road, being hit by cars or motorbikes, scary places on the way to and from school (such as a forest or abandoned building), or general teasing and harassment by peers. While students, teachers, and parents at the other, primarily urban or peri-urban schools also mentioned some of these concerns, their fears were related more directly to violence, including theft, kidnapping, assault, or rape of students. Parents, teachers, and girls at two schools expressed fears that girls were targets for rape. At one school, girls reported fearing harassment and propositioning by a group of young men who were often near the school. At two other schools, boys were most at risk and reported feeling the greatest safety concerns. Parents, teachers, and students from those schools reported increased incidences of boys being raped in the community, which had a direct impact on the students in their schools. Parents and students at three school discussed strategies that the PTP or school adopted to help students address safety concerns on the journey to and from school. These are discussed in the section on school environment practices to create gender-responsive schools below.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Girls(n=350)

Boys(n=303)

Girls(n=350)

Boys(n=303)

Girls(n=351)

Boys(n=297)

There are places in ornear this school whereit is not safe for a girl

to go alone

There are places in ornear this school whereit is not safe for a boy

to go alone

I often feel unsafe onmy journey to or from

school

NO!

no

yes

YES!

Figure 7: Standard 4 student perceptions of safety on the way to, from, and at school by gender

23 | P a g e

23

Students felt school was more unsafe than teachers. When focusing on perceptions of safety at school, there were significant differences by stakeholder groups. Students were more likely than teachers to report that school is an unsafe place (see Figure 8). Over 70% of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that there are places where it is not safe for a girl to go alone, compared to 59% of teachers. Nearly all Standard 4 students (93%) agreed/strongly that a teacher had beaten a student at their school since the beginning of the year, compared to 52% of teachers. Also, 63% of Standard 4 students (compared to 47% of teachers) agreed/strongly that teachers should cane pupils because it helps them to learn better. Related to this, roughly half (55%) of Standard 4 students did not think (disagreed/strongly) that there should be a law forbidding teachers to hit their students. Considered together, all these data indicate that violence is normalized, expected, and a common practice, with students much more likely than teachers to support the practice of teachers caning students.

When asked about safety within their school, students expressed a variety of concerns. Focus group data corroborated survey data, as about half of students in focus groups reported that they had no fears when asked what they were afraid of at school. These included communities where rape of boys had been reported in the community, indicating that the school may be a safe space for students who are concerned for their safety in the community. Yet, at schools where students indicated that they were fearful, the primary reasons given were related to corporal punishment. Students’, parents’, and teachers’ views of corporal punishment were mixed. While student survey data indicated that students supported corporal punishment (i.e., to help them learn better), data from student and parent focus groups indicated that students sometimes did not want to come to school because they feared corporal punishment, or the fear of it hindered their learning. Parents at one school said that boys would skip school because they feared being punished, but that this led to their not knowing what was taught in class −which, in turn, led to further punishment. This was especially true when parents and students could identify specific teachers whom they deemed especially harsh (mkali in Kiswahili). Students at three schools spoke of teachers who frightened them or would beat them without any provocation. Parents at two schools stated that through the PTP they had served as advocates to reduce beatings. They had spoken directly to teachers about not being so harsh. In addition, parents at one school reported that they coached their own children to speak up and not be afraid of their teachers. According to these parents, this approach helped, and they saw their own children gain confidence to talk to their teachers and get help with their work.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Teachers(n=64)

Student(n=655)

Teachers(n=64)

Student(n=654)

Teachers(n=64)

Student(n=656)

Teachers(n=60)

Student(n=656)

There are places in or nearthis school where it is notsafe for a girl to go alone

Since the beginning of theyear, has any student been

beaten by a teacher atyour school?

Teachers should canepupils because it helps

them learn better

There should be a lawforbidding teachers to hit

their students

Un

safe

----

--Sa

fe

Figure 8: Perceptions of safety by student and teacher

24 | P a g e

24

While some students indicated that they were afraid of being beaten by teachers for making a mistake or doing something wrong, others felt that being beaten when they made a mistake was a sign that teachers cared for them. When asked to give an example of how teachers care for students, one Standard 4 girl said, “when [teachers] hit us they are teaching us to correct our mistakes or behavior.” However, boys in a few schools shared the perception that boys were beaten in school more often than girls. Girls were more likely than boys to express views supporting or normalizing corporal punishment, both by agreeing/strongly that teachers should cane pupils to help them learn better and by disagreeing/strongly that there should be a law forbidding teachers to hit their students. This indicates that there is a gendered dynamic to corporal punishment in schools. Student-to-student harassment and assault was a concern brought up at two schools. Students talked about verbal and written harassment (in the form of pictures and graffiti) of girls and boys perpetrated by the other sex. Students at one of these schools mentioned their physical safety. Standard 4 girls reported boys touching their breasts or rubbing on their inner thighs, while boys talked of girls grabbing their crotch. This led girls and boys to try to distance themselves from each other as much as possible. Girls at this school did not feel that teachers supported them in addressing the situation. Overall, students did not feel good about being at this school, and they reported a high incidence of beatings and harassment by students and teachers. The findings indicate that this level of school violence has detrimental effects on student engagement and learning. Despite expressing feelings of fear at or near school, almost all students (88%) agreed/strongly that, if they feel scared or unsafe, there is someone at their school whom they can tell. This bolstered students’ overall positive feelings about being at school. In eight of the nine schools, girls and boys reported during focus groups that they felt good or happy about being at school. One girl responded, “we feel good since teachers love us, and they are very caring.” A boy reported that while at school he was “always with teachers or peers, so I feel safe.” These findings suggest that while fostering a caring learning environment does not mitigate all the students’ fears or safety concerns, it can help students feel safe and support them to learn.

Gendered learning experiences

Boys and girls on working together and supporting each other. Students had multiple opportunities within the focus groups to reflect on their experiences and feelings in working with and supporting other students in their school. When asked whether they liked working with

students of the opposite sex (i.e. boys with girls and girls with boys), students’ responses were mixed. At most schools, students were ready to work with students of the opposite sex in class or when asked to; but they preferred to work with students of the same sex. Teachers explained that this may be due, in part, to the community cultural expectations of boys and

girls. In public gatherings within many communities (in all three regions), the interaction of men and women is not modeled, so students may feel shy or uncomfortable to be in the presence of students of the opposite sex. Teachers also report that students may be worried about what their peers and parents would think if they were seen interacting with one another. Parents may be concerned that there are boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, and peers may tease them for playing with or working with students of the opposite sex. This is true, even for students in

“I can’t refuse to sit with a boy because a boy is a human being, and also I didn’t contribute to buy the desks.” - Standard 4 girl student

25 | P a g e

25

grades as young as Standard 4. In schools where students worked well with one another, both girls and boys gave examples of how working in mixed-sex groups allowed them to learn more and to help one another. For example, students at one school interacted easily with students of the opposite sex in the classroom as well as during assembly, break times, and lunch times. These students mentioned the benefits they had found of girls and boys working together. In contrast, students at two other schools expressed a distinct dislike for working or interacting with students of the opposite sex due to bullying and physical harassment taking place between the sexes. This discord was apparent in the school compound and classroom observations, where students showed discomfort interacting with one another, avoided each other, or were rough with each other. Classroom and school observations suggest that school leadership and teachers’ practices have a significant influence on the nature of the interactions between and among girls and boys. Absenteeism. Teachers and parents in all regions identified chronic absenteeism as a major challenge to student learning. Findings indicate that girls and boys were often absent from school for different reasons, and that these reasons change as students get older and progress through school. Lower primary grade teachers said that the main factors causing absenteeism were related to poverty, food insecurity, and long distances to school. As a result, several schools had implemented food programs for students in lower grades to ensure that they received porridge either before school or during the first break. The food programs in some schools were extended into the lunch period to serve a greater number of students and to minimize the number of students who would go home for lunch and fail to return for afternoon lessons. Food programs were established either through the PTP or by the schools themselves, and they frequently relied on family contributions to the program. Parents at several schools spoke of families who were unable or failed to contribute on a regular basis. The success of the feeding programs depended on the extent to which families supported the program. For the lower grades, teachers and parents did not perceive a difference in the reasons for girls’ and boys’ absenteeism.

As students get older, poverty and distance to school continue to constrain regular school attendance, and they have a negative impact on student performance. Teachers and parents in the schools that faced the greatest problem with absenteeism stated that this was largely due to a lack of cooperation between parents and teachers. In some instances, teachers felt that parents either did not care about school or they encouraged their children to work in a small business or to take care of households or family livestock. These concerns were raised at multiple schools in relation to absenteeism and student performance. Parents frequently mentioned the need to engage additional parents through the PTP, to build parent interest in and commitment to their children’s schooling. These parents pointed to their own experiences with and attitudes toward school as evidence of how educating parents can improve parents’ attitudes towards their children’s education and, as a result, increase student attendance. In eight of the nine schools, teachers, parents, and head teachers reported that in the upper primary grades, boys were more likely to be absent than girls. The research teams were unable to confirm this through attendance rosters, but stakeholders identified a number of reasons why boys and girls missed school. They said that girls missed school most frequently due to menstruation issues −either because of pain, lack of access to hygiene products, or being shy. Teachers at a few schools reported that they have implemented health programs whereby selected women teachers instruct girls about taking care of their bodies and girls are provided access to hygiene products. Feminine hygiene products, including pads and/or kitenge cloths, were available at all three schools in Iringa region. . (The kitenge cloth is given to girls to cover their uniforms while at school.) Other teachers talked about a desire to create a separate

26 | P a g e

26

bathroom area for girls to be able to take care of themselves during menstruation, though only two schools in Iringa had so far implemented this. In addition to menstruation-related issues, teachers and parents in at least two schools noted how, as girls get older, they sometimes are required to stay home to look after the house and/or their younger siblings, especially if a girl’s mother is away from home. Teachers and parents overwhelmingly perceived boys to be absent more often than girls. The reasons they gave can be categorized as related to (1) family poverty; (2) boys’ lack of desire to attend school; and (3) peer pressure. In terms of family poverty, parents and teachers reported that boys miss classes to help their families in some capacity, such as herding cattle, farming, or engaging in small businesses. For example, parents at one school described how boys arrive at school and then jump over the wall to fish and sell what they catch in the market. In terms of boys’ lack of desire to attend school and peer pressure, teachers and parents frequently reported that boys value school less than girls do, which they linked to boys’ poorer performance and higher absenteeism rates when compared to girls. According to parents and teachers, boys like “to play too much,” and they become distracted on the way to school. Parents and teachers in two of the urban schools said that many boys prefer to go to the video game shop to play PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. In other schools, parents and teachers talked about boys wanting to hunt birds or go fishing and swimming for fun. Boys at several schools were influenced by other groups of boys who would encourage them to skip school. Teachers stated that this type of peer pressure happened more frequently once boys hit puberty. The perception that boys prefer to play and do not take school seriously may indicate that some boys do not value schooling for themselves.

Parents from schools that had active PTPs reported that improved school-parent relationships provided an avenue to address absenteeism related to peer pressure. Although peer pressure was more frequently noted for boys, it also happened with some girls. Parents worked with teachers to identify students who were frequently absent, and they then approached the absent students’ parents to find out the reasons for the absences. In some instances, this was an opportunity to teach parents about the importance of education and encourage them to engage more directly in their children’s education. At other times, parents were unaware that their children were missing school because they observed them leaving from home and did not realize that they had not arrived at school. Through the intervention of the PTP, teachers and parents could follow up more regularly with one another to ensure that students were attending classes.

27 | P a g e

27

Regional Differences: Gender norms, safety, and learning

The data related to gender norms demonstrated that differences existed among regions with regard to attitudes and beliefs, as well as to girls’ and boys’ experiences (see Figure 9).

• Play and Study. Standard 4 students in Iringa were significantly more likely than students in Mtwara and Zanzibar to agree/strongly that both boys and girls should ask permission to go and play with friends at home.

• Chores. Standard 4 students in Zanzibar were significantly more likely to agree/strongly that only girls should help with household chores. They were also significantly more likely to agree/strongly that only girls should take care of younger siblings. Data from focus groups also revealed a greater stratification in the number and kind of chores done by girls and boys in Zanzibar.

Figure 9: Standard 4 student beliefs related to gender norms by region

• Academic Performance. Students in Zanzibar were significantly more likely than students in Iringa and Mtwara to agree/strongly that boys are better at mathematics than girls, and that girls are better at reading than boys (see Figure 10). Students in Iringa were also significantly more likely to agree/strongly that girls are better at reading than boys, when compared to students in Mtwara. In short, students in Zanzibar were most likely to express gender-inequitable views about boys’ and girls’ reading and mathematics abilities when compared to students in Iringa and Mtwara, while Mtwara students expressed the most gender-equitable views, particularly related to reading abilities.

Figure 10: Standard 4 students’ beliefs regarding girls’ and boys’ reading and mathematics abilities, by region

0%25%50%75%

100%

Irin

ga

(n

=2

38

)

Mtw

ara

(n=

20

6)

Za

nzib

ar

(n=

20

8)

Irin

ga

(n

=2

37

)

Mtw

ara

(n=

20

9)

Za

nzib

ar

(n=

20

9)

Irin

ga

(n

=2

37

)

Mtw

ara

(n=

20

9)

Za

nzib

ar

(n=

20

9)

At home, both boysand girls should askpermission to go and

play with friends

Only girls should helpwith household chores

Only girls should takecare of younger

siblings

Most equitable

Equitable

Inequitable

Leastequitable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Iringa(n=236)

Mtwara(n=207)

Zanzibar(n=205)

Iringa(n=236)

Mtwara(n=208)

Zanzibar(n=207)

Boys are better at math thangirls

Girls are better at reading thanboys

NO!

no

yes

YES!

28 | P a g e

28

Regional Differences: Gender norms, safety, learning Zanzibar. Students in Zanzibar expressed fewer fears about their safety at school or on the journey to and from school. Students in Zanzibar were the least likely to report that a student had been beaten by a teacher. This was a significant difference when compared to student responses in Iringa. However, they were more likely to agree that teachers should cane pupils to help them learn better, and they were more likely to disagree that there should be a law forbidding teachers from hitting students. While parents and teachers at two schools reported concerns about girls’ safety on the journey to school, proactive measures such as community patrols and escorts had been put in place to improve students’ safety. This was reflected in Standard 4 survey data where students in Zanzibar were significantly less likely than those in Iringa and Mtwara to agree/strongly that they felt unsafe or frightened of being hurt at their school (see Figure 11). However, students in Zanzibar were significantly more likely than those in Iringa to agree/strongly that there are places in or near their school where it is not safe for a girl to go alone. This was not mirrored in students’ perceptions of safety for boys, since students in Zanzibar were significantly more likely to disagree/strongly than students in Iringa and Mtwara that there are places in or near their school where it is not safe for a boy to go alone. This indicates that in Zanzibar, safety is a greater concern for girls than for boys. Although students in Zanzibar expressed fewer fears than those in Iringa and Mtwara, they were significantly more likely to disagree that, if they feel unsafe, there is someone at school to whom they can talk, when compared to students in Iringa and Mtwara.

Iringa. Students, parents, and teachers expressed concern over the safety of students, particularly boys in urban areas, within their communities. Stakeholders reported how increased incidences of the rape of boys had negatively impacted their schools. While proactive measures had been put in place to address this situation, students in Iringa were still more likely to agree/strongly than students in Mtwara that there are places in or near school where it is not safe for a boy to go alone. Students in Iringa were also more likely than students from other regions to indicate that they often felt unsafe on their journey to and from school. These data indicate that boys in Iringa may be at particular risk.

Mtwara. Students in Mtwara expressed a mix of fears and safety concerns in and around school, depending on whether the school was rural, peri-urban, or urban. The journey to and from school for Mtwara students seems to be relatively safe, since they were significantly more likely to disagree/strongly than students in Iringa and Zanzibar that they often feel unsafe on their journey to or from school. However, Mtwara students still felt that there were places in and around school that were unsafe for both girls and boys. On the surveys, students agreed/strongly that there were people at their school they could talk to if they felt scared or unsafe, but the qualitative data showed that this was not the same for all schools. Students at some schools reported having no, or very few teachers with whom they could speak if they felt afraid or unsafe. Further, Mtwara students were most likely of all students in the study to report that teachers hit a student. This may relate to Mtwara students being more likely than students in Iringa and Zanzibar to support passage of a law forbidding teachers from hitting students and to disagree/strongly with teachers hitting students to help them learn. Figure 11: Standard 4 student perceptions of safety in and around school, by region

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Irin

ga

Mtw

ara

Za

nzib

ar

Irin

ga

Mtw

ara

Za

nzib

ar

Irin

ga

Mtw

ara

Za

nzib

ar

Irin

ga

Mtw

ara

Za

nzib

ar

Irin

ga

Mtw

ara

Za

nzib

ar

Do you ever feelunsafe or

frightened ofbeing hurt atyour school?

If you feelscared or

unsafe, is theresomeone at

your school youcan tell?

I often feelunsafe on myjourney to orfrom school

There areplaces in or

near this schoolwhere it is not

safe for a girl togo alone

There areplaces in or

near this schoolwhere it is not

safe for a boy togo alone

Unsafe

---

Safe

29 | P a g e

29

2. Practices that support or constrain safe, gender-responsive learning experiences for Tanzanian girls and boys in reading and mathematics

Key Findings

Classroom Environment:

• Teachers’ use of group work and of supportive or degrading language affected student engagement.

• Teachers consciously engaged in gender-equitable teaching practices such as calling equally on girls and boys and gender-responsive seating.

• Parents, teachers, and students at all schools indicated that they need additional materials to use in the classroom and at home.

School Environment:

• In nearly all schools, students felt cared for by their teachers and thought that they could talk to their teachers if there was a problem. Teachers and students reported that teachers supported students’ physical and emotional safety.

• School-community partnerships and Parent-Teacher Partnerships helped to identify safety concerns and helped to implement community-wide and school-specific safety measures that helped students.

• School leadership played a critical role in fostering strong school communities, which, in turn, nurtured a safe and engaging learning environment for students.

Home Environment:

• Standard 4 students reported strong supports for learning at home, such as having time to do their schoolwork, having someone at home who would check their schoolwork, and having reading materials at home.

• Girls were more likely to report stronger home supports for learning than boys (i.e., having someone at home who checks their schoolwork and someone who helps them practice reading almost every day).

Figure 12: Extent teachers agreed that they have an adequate number of

books in their classroom by book type

Key Findings

Classroom Environment:

• Teachers’ use of group work and of supportive or degrading language affected student engagement.

• Teachers consciously engaged in gender-equitable teaching practices such as calling equally on girls and boys and gender-responsive seating..

• Parents, teachers, and students at all schools indicated that

30 | P a g e

30

Classroom practices Teachers both had knowledge of and worked to include teaching practices that promoted gender equity within their classrooms, as observations and focus groups with teachers and students revealed. This was evident in the physical classroom setting, through teachers’ interaction with pupils, and in teachers’ pedagogy (e.g., group work strategies). Research teams conducted observations in 27 different classrooms in the study, and they noted that each school faced constraints with regard to classroom space and how it was used. Some schools had enough rooms for each class, but the rooms were overcrowded or showed signs of age and wear. Since not all rooms had electricity, some classes were dark, especially on rainy days. At several of the schools, parent groups and school personnel had initiated work on new classroom buildings either to upgrade classrooms or to ensure that there was enough space for all students and/or grades. The ways in which teachers set up their rooms varied. In many classrooms, students were seated in rows with two to three children per desk. At four schools, desks were arranged to form groups, with six to nine students in each group. While the arrangement of girls and boys varied by school, desks were often occupied by either girls or boys (girls and boys typically did not sit together in desks). In Zanzibar, girls commonly sat on one side of the room and boys on the other. In all but two classrooms across all the regions, girls and boys were seated in similar numbers near the front and the back, indicating gender- equitable seating. In the two classrooms without this arrangement, more girls sat near the front in one, and more boys sat near the front in the other. In nearly all classrooms, data collectors also observed teachers moving throughout the classroom and interacting with boys and girls equally as they taught their lessons. In focus group discussions, students and teachers reported that both girls and boys actively engage in classroom activities, raise their hands, and ask questions. Teachers said that they did not use specific approaches to teach girls or boys differently; rather, they treated all students the same since both girls and boys were there to learn. This was confirmed during classroom observations, where data show that in most classrooms, teachers made efforts to ensure that both girls and boys were actively engaged in lessons. In most classes, girls and boys in all grade levels were eager to participate in classroom activities by raising their hands to answer questions or to be involved in other learning activities. Even when more boys or girls raised their hands, teachers were careful to call on both girls and boys equitably. In some classrooms, engaging girls and boys came with ease, while in other classrooms, teachers made conscious efforts to ensure equal representation.10 For instance, one teacher called on boys to answer several questions and then shifted abruptly to ask girls the questions. There was a demonstrable difference in the way that teachers interacted with girls and boys in five classrooms, despite those classrooms having roughly equal numbers of boys and girls. In four of these classrooms, teachers favored girls by calling on them more frequently or positioning themselves closer to girls, where they were able to teach them more directly. In the fifth classroom, boys raised their hands more frequently and were also called upon more frequently. While these findings suggest that most teachers are aware of the need to engage both girls and boys equally in the classroom, observations and reflection may help teachers to be more consistent with these practices. Students also participated in classroom learning by asking questions. During the focus groups, one Standard 4 student stated, “asking questions helps us study hard.” Most students said that girls and boys ask questions equally in class. However, a few students noted that there are

10 It is difficult to determine how much of this observed behavior and effort at inclusion was due to the presence of visitors in the classroom.

31 | P a g e

31

differences in who is asking questions in which class. Girls at one school said that they asked more questions in English class, and that boys asked more questions in science. At another school, boys and girls reported that few students asked questions in English because it was perceived as a difficult subject. There was no discernible pattern as to how girls and boys reported asking questions. However, in classroom observations, children most often answered questions posed by the teacher, and they rarely asked questions themselves. Also, students were also only rarely asked to express their opinions or their original ideas, since most interactions required students to read from a word card or a letter card, a book, or notes, or to recall information and procedures previously explained by the teacher. These question-and- answer patterns largely target students’ declarative knowledge, and they offer students fewer opportunities to engage in higher-level thinking or analysis. Teachers reported increasing use of group work in their teaching strategies. Group work was facilitated in some schools by having the desks pre-arranged into groups. At other schools, students turned around in their desks to work with other students. In mainland schools, groups often were mixed and were not single-sex; and this was often done intentionally, despite minor student resistance in some Standard 4 classes. Teachers said that they often used group work in one of two ways: they either intentionally created mixed-ability groups so that some students could help others, or they grouped students by ability and tailored work accordingly. The instructional use of group work varied. For instance, in some classes, teachers would plan a task for groups to complete that took almost the whole lesson period, and student engagement during the tasks varied. In some cases, a few boys or girls did the work while others were uninvolved; or sometimes the task itself required one group to wait for another to finish so that they could share limited resources. In a few cases, the task involved students sitting in a group sharing one book, but not collaboratively working together. In other classes, teachers used group work in ways that engaged all boys and girls. For example, a Standard 2 teacher used groups spontaneously, particularly when she noticed that some students had not mastered a task. After giving students a few minutes to brainstorm individually their own lists of words with a target letter or sound, the teacher then told them to read their lists to each other within their desk groups to ensure everyone had at least 10 words. The variation in the use of group work suggests the importance of ongoing sharing and reflection on the group work in teacher communities of learning. Most teacher-pupil interactions observed during lessons supported student learning in that teachers maintained the class’s focus and discipline; they did not allow students to make fun of each other; and they sometimes used positive reinforcement such as encouraging comments or class claps for good work. However, a few teachers exhibited behaviors that hindered a safe and conducive learning environment. One example of this is the practice of ridiculing or shaming a student with harsh or sarcastic comments in front of the class. While this practice often appeared to be well-intended − that is, the teacher wanted to change a student’s bad habit or behavior −the effect of this was to discourage the shamed student from participating in the lesson. In some cases, it also encouraged other students to tease a student when the teacher was not present. In the classrooms observed, teachers directed this type of shaming at boys more often than at girls.

32 | P a g e

32

Although most teacher behaviors supported learning and reading, multiple stakeholders cited a lack of resources as a major constraint to learning. While 90% of surveyed reading teachers11

indicated that students in their classroom are allowed to take books home to read for pleasure, 41% said that they do not have an adequate number of reading books, and 50% said that they do not have an adequate number of Kiswahili books in their classroom (see Figure 12). Similarly, 61% of mathematics teachers disagreed/strongly that they have an adequate number of mathematics books in their classroom. Also, 60% of surveyed reading teachers (21 out of 35) reported

they do not assist students in choosing stories to read from the supplementary readers when students are reading for pleasure. Observation data revealed variation among schools in the number of materials available. Classrooms in some schools had a sufficient number of reading books, so that each student could have their own copy during lessons (particularly in Standards 1 and 2), while in other classrooms, students had to share books in groups of three to five children. In three schools in this study, TPP books were kept on shelves in the relevant classroom or in a central school “library” of textbooks. In other schools, TPP readers were held in the teacher’s or the head teacher’s office for safe-keeping and were only available during lessons. The books were not readily visible or available to students in only one school, and students reported they had not seen the readers prior to participating in focus groups. This school also had observably lower literacy levels than the other schools in the study.

School environment Beyond the classroom, teachers and administrators engaged in practices that fostered gender-responsiveness and safety at school. Students talked positively about their classroom and school experiences. At eight of nine schools, students discussed that they believe teachers care for them and that this contributes positively to their school experiences. In focus groups, girls and boys reported a variety of ways that their teachers care for them, including the good education they were receiving, their access to first aid and other health assistance, the types of work teachers give them, and how teachers direct their behavior. At five schools, girls and boys did not see a difference in how teachers cared for girls and boys. However, students at four schools thought that teachers treated girls better than boys, and teachers frequently believed girls more than boys. In one instance, the

11 This represents a sub-set of 50 teachers, including all Standard 1 and 2 teachers and Standard 3 and 4 teachers who teach Kiswahili.

How students know teachers care -- Student Focus Group Findings Teachers …

• teach them well and help them pass exams

• take care of students’ health needs

• are available to talk to if there are problems with peers

• do not give students tough jobs

• teach them to have discipline and help to have good behaviors

• tell them to study

• buy exercise books for students

• provide extra evening and weekend classes,

• give gifts when students pass exams

Figure 13: Percentage of teachers who agree/strongly that teachers at their school support physical and emotional safetyHow students know teachers care -- Student Focus Group Findings Teachers …

• teach them well and help them pass exams

• take care of students’ health needs

• are available to talk to if there are problems with peers

• don’t give students tough jobs

• teach them to have discipline and help to have good behaviors

• tell them to study

• buy exercise books for students

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Kiswahili books

Reading books

Math books

NO! no yes YES!

Figure 12: Extent teachers agreed that they have an adequate number of books in their classroom by book type

33 | P a g e

33

boys said that they could be beaten more frequently than girls, but that girls could ask for forgiveness. At two other schools, girls noticed this difference, and they opined that teachers might have a preference for girls because they come to school early and are clean and presentable. Teachers and students also agreed that teachers were quick to support students’ physical and emotional safety. For instance, teachers and Standard 4 students were asked, “If a student is bullying another student, will a teacher intervene quickly to stop this behavior?” Overall, 97% of surveyed teachers and 95% of students agreed/strongly that a teacher would intervene quickly,

indicating that peer violence is generally not tolerated at school. Nearly all teachers (98%) agreed/strongly that teachers would intervene if a student has problems that are affecting their learning and 91% of teachers agreed/strongly that they knew how to help a student who had been molested, thus suggesting that

teachers felt they have knowledge to help student victims (See Figure 13). While this was corroborated through focus groups at most schools, students at one school did not feel this way. Rather, these students felt that teachers did not respond to complaints of harassment or bullying, were not supportive, and caused them not to feel good about coming to school. The study also explored the extent to which teachers supported student emotional safety. Using a six-survey question construct, Standard 4 students were asked about their perceptions regarding the emotional safety of students at school (see Appendix 4 for details on the construct, including individual items). Overall, Standard 4 students strongly agreed that teachers provided emotional safety, and that they did so for both girls and boys. In addition, 89% (54 out of 62) of teachers agreed/strongly that, if students have a personal problem, they often tell teachers at their school. These data corroborate the Standard 4 student data, in which 88% of students say that there is someone at the school to whom they can speak if they feel scared or unsafe. Schools have also taken proactive measures to improve learning environments and promote student safety and well-being. Schools leveraged community-school partnerships to address situations in the community that hindered student safety and learning. One school, through the PTP group, worked with parents, the school, and local police to provide students with escorts through dangerous sections of roads and forests where students had previously been assaulted and raped. Developing community partnerships can be an effective mechanism for ensuring that students feel safe and secure on their way to and from school or when learning at home. Schools also demonstrated that combining parent collaboration with in-school activities can be another effective way to address safety challenges. This was done at one school to address increased incidences of the rape of boys in their community, which was impacting their students. After identifying underlying factors contributing to the increased incidence of boy rape, the school collaborated with social welfare officials to provide counseling services to boys who had been harmed. These services were combined with an information campaign that included school assemblies, where students were provided with useful information about protecting

Intervene if problems affect student learning

Intervene if student is bullying

Have knowledge to help molested students

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Figure 13: Percentage of teachers who agree/strongly that teachers at their school support physical and emotional safety

34 | P a g e

34

themselves. Parents and teachers reported that this counseling significantly helped the affected students. Other schools provided students with information about staying safe in school assemblies. Students reported that they had made changes in their behavior based on information they had received at school assemblies to keep them safe from wild animals, thieves, or individuals trying to lure them with candy. School administrators should consider increased use of messaging in school assemblies. School leadership is important to foster safe, effective learning environments for students. Leadership plays an important role in establishing a school community where students, teachers, and parents work collaboratively and responsively to meet student needs. Researchers identified four key elements from the multiple data sources that schools with a strong school community displayed. The first was a strong partnership with parents and communities, especially through the involvement of PTPs. Schools with active and engaged parent groups were able to identify concerns and opportunities at the school and in the community and work together to address them. For example, parents at one school identified community ceremonies that were appealing to students, but took place during the school day, thus contributing to absenteeism. Parents and school leaders worked together and approached the local council to request a time change for these ceremonies so as not to interfere with students’ learning. At other schools, parents and teachers expressed a desire to begin to engage with local councils to change ordinances or community activities, such as the hours that video shops are open, to better support the schools. Parent groups also worked to educate other parents and community members about the importance of schooling, provided food programs to help counter food insecurity and the disruption caused by long distances to school, built new buildings and latrines, and lobbied the local community to create an environment conducive to schooling. The PTP was a key element for fostering community partnerships. However, at most schools, parents reported that they had either never received training about the PTP or desired additional training or refresher courses to know how best to serve the schools. Another key element for fostering community partnerships was the instilling of school and/or class pride. Schools with a strong school community were able to foster school or class pride through school activities that encouraged girls and boys to enjoy working and celebrating together, such as whole-school exercises, assemblies, and student workdays. Observational data also showed how students looked out for one another. This was evident in the ways that students helped one another with chores before school began. In schools with a strong sense of community, girls and boys helped one another and worked together to complete tasks. In contrast, some schools reflected tensions within the school community, such as when student arguments occasionally broke out or large groups of students (often boys) did not participate in cleaning activities. In the classroom, this strong school community was evident in how students helped one another to learn, including sharing materials. This was demonstrated in the ways students responded to their peers when their answers were correct. In one school, Standard 1 and 2 students clapped and cheered when a classmate got an answer correct, and they supported their peers through pats on the back when they got an answer wrong. Students at this school did not laugh at each other over an incorrect answer, and teachers did not use shaming to correct the student, as was observed at other schools. Finally, teachers supported and understood the vision of a school community. This was evident through interactions between teachers and students outside of the formal lesson time. Teachers continued to interact with students inside the classroom when lessons ended; they greeted and talked with students in the schoolyard before school, and they participated in school assemblies along with the students. In contrast, at some schools it was evident that there were fewer

35 | P a g e

35

opportunities for teachers to be part of a vision for greater school cohesion. At one particular school, school leaders had not provided opportunities for teachers to invest in and contribute to developing a stronger school community. As a result, teachers at this school were not able to incorporate or promote new learning practices or even use materials such as the TPP readers. This highlights the critical role of school administration buy-in and support in ensuring a project is implemented as designed. Table 3: Practices supporting positive school community for learning

Elements of a strong sense of school community

Examples of implementation

Partnerships with parents and communities

Parents and teachers worked with community leaders to change the days and times that certain ceremonies were held so that they would not interfere with school and so that students could attend.

Instilling school and/or class pride

Before the school assembly at one school, students worked together in their class to complete activities. Students also sang the following song as they went to class: “I’m going to my class, I’m in my school full of peace in this community.”

Students looked out for one another

In one classroom, a girl was struggling to answer a question using the “word tree.” The teacher called on a boy to help her find the correct answer. He found the answer and presented it to the girl, who appeared happy as she submitted it as her own answer.

Teachers support the school community

Teachers interact positively outside of appointed lesson times and give students guidance on the before-school activities.

Home environment Students, parents, and teachers indicated that students’ home experiences were both supportive and unsupportive of girls’ and boys’ learning. Qualitative and quantitative data about home environment supports for learning were mixed, which may reflect changes that have taken place in schools and communities since the implementation of the TPP. Student survey data

revealed high levels of support for students. For instance, while 84% of Standard 2 students agreed/strongly that they have time to read at home, almost all (96%) of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that they have time to read at home (a statistically significant difference). Standard 4 students were also asked a few questions about support at home for reading and studying. Almost all (94%) Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that someone at home usually checks their schoolwork; and 91% agreed/strongly that there are books, newspapers, or other materials in their house that they can read for fun (see Figure 14). Additionally, three-fourths of

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Someone at home usually checks my schoolwork(n=651)

There are books, newspapers, and other materials inmy house that I can read for fun (not just for school)

(n=652)

Someone at home helps me practice reading everyday (n=655)

NO! no yes YES!

Figure 14: Standard 4 student agreement regarding home support for reading and learning

36 | P a g e

36

Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that someone at home helps them practice reading almost every day. However, parent and teacher focus group data revealed that these supports may not be as strong as the quantitative data suggest. Teachers at five of the nine schools stated that parents do not support their children’s education. Parents also frequently supported this notion, especially in differentiating between the attitudes of parents who were involved in PTP and those who were not. Parents and teachers agreed that many parents do not value education for their children and/or do not recognize the importance of providing home supports to enhance children’s education. These parents need more information about the importance of education for their children. On a positive note, parents at five schools also agreed that parent engagement has changed since the introduction of the PTP. Parents often credited their own interest in their children’s education to the knowledge they gained as a result of participating in the PTP. Two significant differences between boys and girls emerged in their reported home supports. Girls were more likely than boys to agree/strongly both that someone at home helps them practice reading every day (80% of girls agreed/ strongly, compared to 70% of boys) and that someone at home usually checks their schoolwork (96% of girls agreed/strongly, compared to 92% of boys; see Figure 15). Parents in Iringa corroborated this, explaining that girls were supervised more closely than boys. As a result, boys were often allowed to play more frequently and freely with friends, while girls attended to schoolwork and chores.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Girls(n=351)

Boys(n=302)

Girls(n=351)

Boys(n=298)

Someone at homehelps me practicereading every day

Someone at homeusually checks my

schoolwork

YES!

yes

no

NO!

Figure 15: Standard 4 student agreement that they have support for reading and learning at home, by gender

37 | P a g e

37

Regional Differences Classroom, School, and Home Practices Zanzibar. Observational data indicated that girls and boys in Zanzibar were separated more regularly than students in other regions. In all classrooms of Zanzibari schools, desks were organized in rows rather than in groups; and rows were arranged by sex. The first row was for girls, the third row for boys, and in the middle girls sat in the front half and boys in the back half. Despite this separation by sex, teachers interacted with students in gender-responsive ways by calling on and interacting with girls and boys equally. Students in Zanzibar were significantly less likely to agree/strongly that teachers provided emotional safety than those in Iringa and Mtwara (see Figure 16). This confirmed findings from Standard 4 students that they did not think there was someone at school they could talk to if they felt unsafe. Figure 16: Standard 4 student emotional safety scale score by region

Students in Zanzibar were also significantly less likely than students in Iringa and Mtwara to agree/strongly that there are books, newspapers, or other materials at home that they can read for fun. Mtwara. Students in Mtwara were more likely to agree/strongly that someone at home usually checks their schoolwork compared to students in Iringa and Zanzibar (see Figure 17). Figure 17: Standard 4 student agreement that they have support for reading and learning at home by region

0 4.5 9 13.5 18

Iringa (n=238)

Mtwara (n=209)

Zanzibar (n=209)

(0) Strongly disagree ---- Strongly agree (18)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Iringa(n=237)

Mtwara(n=206)

Zanzibar(n=208)

Iringa(n=238)

Mtwara(n=207)

Zanzibar(n=207)

Someone at home usually checksmy schoolwork

There are books, newspapers, orother materials in my house that I

can read for fun

NO! no yes YES!

38 | P a g e

38

3. Learners’ and teachers’ attitudes and preferences about materials and supplementary readers

Book use and enjoyment Students in Standard 2 and Standard 4 expressed an appreciation of books as well as a desire for more books to read. During surveys, students were excited by the presence of books, and they were eager to see the TPP books as they were shown the book samples. Standard 2 (84%) and Standard 4 (98%) girls and boys agreed/strongly that they like to read the stories in the TPP readers (a significant difference by standard, see Figure 18). For Standard 2, urban students were significantly more likely than students from peri-urban and rural schools to agree/strongly that they like to read the stories in the TPP readers. Similarly, rural students in Standard 4 were significantly more likely than the other student groups to disagree/strongly that they like to

Key Findings

Book use and enjoyment

• Over three-fourths of Standard 2 and 4 students reported using the TPP supplementary readers this year or last. Overall, students in Standard 2 and 4 agreed that they like to read these TPP readers and would like to have access to more books.

• While 85% of Standard 2 students like to read for fun (i.e., they agreed/strongly), only 50% of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly with this. Standard 4 girls were significantly more likely to agree/strongly that they like to read for fun compared to Standard 4 boys.

• About three-fourths of Standard 2 and 4 students reported they read three or more books each week at home and at school (combined). Standard 2 boys reported reading significantly more books than Standard 2 girls.

Book preferences

• Standard 2 and 4 students enjoy reading all four of the genres that were included in the survey: stories about real people, stories about real facts, traditional stories, and imaginary stories. Standard 4 students were less likely to enjoy imaginary stories than Standard 2 students.

• Teachers saw the importance of both fiction and nonfiction stories and they also emphasized the need for older students to read more informational texts to help students in the classroom and on examinations.

Figure 18: Student agreement that they like to read Tusome Pamoja readers Key Findings

Book use and enjoyment

• Over three-fourths of Standard 2 and 4 students reported using the TPP supplementary readers this year or last. Overall, students in Standard 2 and 4 agreed that they like to read these TPP readers and would like to have access to more books.

• While 85% of Standard 2 students like to read for fun (i.,e., they agreed/strongly), only 50% of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly with this. Standard 4 girls were significantly more likely to agree/strongly that they like to read for fun compared to Standard 4 boys.

• About three-fourths of Standard 2 and 4 students reported they read three or more books each week at home and at school (combined). Standard 2 boys reported reading significantly more books than Standard 2 girls.

Book Preferences

• Standard 2 and 4 students enjoy reading all four of the genres shown to them by the data collectors: stories about real people, stories about real facts, traditional stories, and imaginary stories. Standard 4 students were

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Standard 2 (n=383)

Standard 4 (n=653)

NO no yes YES!

Figure 18: Student agreement that they like to read Tusome Pamoja readers

39 | P a g e

39

read stories from the TPP readers. During focus groups, however, students across all schools – rural, urban, peri-urban – had a hard time choosing a book that they liked the least. The study team worked hard to keep them on task, as students often wanted to spend time reading the books rather than answering questions. At the end of the sessions, several students asked for more books. Or, if they saw a book they particularly liked but had not seen in school, they asked the study team to make sure that their schools received copies. All of this suggests that the students highly value the TPP readers, and they would like to have greater access to them. The amount of reading students did and their opportunity to access TPP readers varied. Overall, 74% of Standard 2 students and 72% of Standard 4 students reported that they read three or

more stories each week at home and at school combined. There was a difference by sex for Standard 2 students, as boys reported reading significantly more stories each week than girls (see Figure 19). There was no difference by sex among the Standard 4 students. However, there was a difference by location and performance (reported here by location). Students at peri-urban schools reported reading less than students at rural and urban schools.

TPP readers were available for students to access both at school and at home. Teachers were observed using readers for whole class instruction in six of nine schools, and more than 80% of Standard 2 and Standard 4 students surveyed said that they used one or more of the TPP readers in 2019 or 2020.12 At two schools where children had free access to readers in the classroom, they were observed using the readers either before school or during break times. In addition, over 90% of Kiswahili reading teachers surveyed indicated that students in their classroom are allowed to take books home to read for pleasure. Some schools allowed students to take readers home with them by having students or their parents request a book at the school library, or directly from the student’s teacher. Despite their expressed desire for more books and their apparent enjoyment of the TPP readers, only 50% of Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that they like to read for fun,

compared to 85% of Standard 2 students (this difference by Standard was significant; see Figure 20). In Standard 4, significant gender differences also emerged. Girls were significantly more likely to agree/strongly that they like to read for fun when compared to boys. This decrease in student enjoyment of reading from Standard 2 to 4 may reflect increasing pressures to perform well on national exams as students get older, marking a shift to more instrumental purposes of reading,

12 In Iringa region, where Standard 4 is not part of the TPP, Standard 4 students were asked whether they recalled using one or more of the TPP readers when they were in Standard 1 or 2.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Girls (n=194)

Boys (n=186)

0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 or more

Figure 19: Standard 2 student-reported number of stories read each week at home and school combined, by gender

*note that there was not a significant difference by sex for Standard 2 students

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Standard 4 Boys (n=301)

Standard 4 Girls (n=349)

Standard 4 Overall (n=652)

Standard 2 (n=383)

NO! no yes YES!

Figure 20: Student agreement that "I like to read for fun (not just for school)" by Standard and sex

40 | P a g e

40

rather than reading for enjoyment. The differences by gender may also mirror parents’ and teachers’ reported beliefs (discussed above) that beginning around Standard 4, boys show less interest in schooling and give in more quickly to peer pressure to skip school or play with friends instead of attending to school work. Interestingly, students at rural schools, which were also the lowest performing schools, were more likely to agree/strongly that they like to read for fun compared to those at urban (high performing) and peri-urban (medium performing) schools, yet they were also more likely to disagree/strongly about liking TPP readers.

Book preferences To understand better students’ reading habits and preferences, students were asked, in both focus groups and on surveys, questions about the types of books they like to read. Research in the Global North has shown that boys tend to prefer nonfiction reading materials, while girls prefer fiction and nonfiction.13 However, the terms “fiction” and “nonfiction” do not translate well into Kiswahili and finding equivalent Kiswahili terms was challenging. This, coupled with more recent research that highlights differences in preference by genre rather than fiction or nonfiction,14 led us to ask questions that go beyond the fiction and nonfiction binary to explore student preferences for informational texts, imaginary stories, traditional stories, and stories about real people and places. Overall, there was no distinct pattern regarding book preference; students appeared interested in reading any available books. Students liked to read about real facts and real lives, as well as traditional stories, as shown by survey and focus group data. For instance, 75% or more of Standard 2 and Standard 4 students agreed/strongly that they liked to read about the lives of real people and about real facts, along with traditional stories (see Figure 21). However, over 80% of Standard 2 students agreed/strongly that they like to read imaginary stories compared to only 46% of Standard 4 students (agreed/strongly). This suggests that some Standard 4 students do not like imaginary stories. There were significant differences by Standard on all four questions. Standard 4 students were significantly more likely than Standard 2 students to agree/strongly that they like to read stories about the lives of real people, about real facts, and traditional stories, but Standard 4 students disagreed/strongly that they liked to read imaginary stories.

13

41 | P a g e

41

While some gender differences in student responses did emerge, differences were not consistent. Similarly, differences by location were mixed, with students at high- performing (urban) schools showing the most interest in reading about the lives of real people and real facts, and the least interest in reading imaginary stories. Details about student responses to these questions are available in Appendix 3. Students’ responses to questions about book preferences also varied within focus group discussions. When asked in a focus group whether they would prefer to read informational texts or made-up stories, students who preferred informational texts noted that the information from those stories would benefit them in the classroom and beyond. Teachers also felt that nonfiction stories were important for students, over 75% agreed/strongly that it is more important to read informational texts than “made-up” stories. In focus groups, some teachers noted that, beginning in Standard 3, students should read more nonfiction or informational texts because “[these books give] them information they can use in real life.” Teachers believed that nonfiction books also helped with class activities, “because [students] read true information and it can help in their studies.” Although most teachers said that they do not help students select stories to read in their free time, this functionalist approach to reading and to books means that teachers may be directly or indirectly encouraging students to read nonfiction books, especially in the upper grades or at schools that are higher performing. Survey data, as noted above, indicated that as students progressed from Standard 2 to Standard 4, they were less likely to say that they like to read imaginary stories. Despite this shift, students were interested in the fiction stories offered by Tusome Pamoja. Students who said that they would rather read fiction talked about how the stories engaged them or explained things to them about life. Some teachers echoed this sentiment and highlighted the importance of fictional stories, especially for younger readers. One teacher said, “fiction and nonfiction are

Students like nonfiction books because they…

• Give “knowledge on content or subject matter”

• “Teach us about real things”

• “Increase my knowledge”

• Give “real life skills such as how to take care of plants and forests”

Students like fiction books because they…

• “Make people, especially kids, happy”

• “Teach us a lesson”

• “Can have more than one meaning”

• “Have interesting stories”

• Are “entertaining” and “make you happy”

Students like nonfiction books because they…

• Give “knowledge on content or subject matter”

• “Teach us about real things”

• “Increase my knowledge”

• Give “real life skills such as how to take care of plants and forests”

Students like fiction books because they…

• “Make people, especially kids, happy”

• “Teach us a lesson”

• “Can have more than one meaning”

• “Have interesting stories”

• Are “entertaining” and “make you happy”

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Standard 2(n=383)

Standard 4(n=652)

Standard 2(n=381)

Standard 4(n=653)

Standard 2 Standard 4 Standard 2 Standard 4

I like to read stories aboutthe lives of real people

I like to read about realfacts, such as how

airplanes fly or to learnabout plants or animals

I like to read traditionalstories (n=1042)

I like to read imaginarystories (n=1035)

NO! no yes YES!

Figure 21: Student reading preferences for nonfiction and fiction by Standard

42 | P a g e

42

both important, but fiction – creative stories – is more important for early grades. It makes them interested to come to class and learn.” One school provided a rather surprising counterpoint to those who liked fiction. At this school, students said that they disliked fiction books because the books, “don’t teach us anything” and “are lies.” One girl went so far as to say that she does not like fiction books because “we will be liars.” Beyond asking students about their general reading preferences, students were also asked about their specific book choice preferences. During the administration of the surveys, students were shown three pairs of books. Each pair included an informational text (nonfiction) and an imaginary story (fiction), and students were asked to identify the book they preferred. As with the findings related to their general reading preferences, students’ preferences were mixed. Standard 2 students selected nonfiction stories over fiction stories in two cases, and fiction stories over nonfiction in the third. There was greater consistency among Standard 4 students, as a greater percentage chose nonfiction books over fiction books in all three cases. While some differences emerged by sex, location, and region, there was no discernible pattern. Similar results were evident in focus group discussions with Standard 4 students. Students were shown a selection of TPP readers and asked to identify which of the books was the most and least interesting to them and why. In choosing a favorite or a least favorite book, students provided an array of reasons. Some students based their choices on story lines, whether they liked the pictures, or their (dis)like of a subject (e.g., cats). Other students gave reasons related to the purpose of the book or to the knowledge it provided. Students’ responses to Chiriku na Panzi (The Canary and the Grasshopper), which was included on both the Standard 4 survey and in focus groups, illustrate the ways in which their responses varied. When asked in the survey to choose between this book and a nonfiction book, 61% of Iringa students selected it, compared to only 34% of students in Zanzibar and 37% of students in Mtwara. During focus group discussions, students frequently mentioned it as either their favorite or their least favorite book, and their responses were often contradictory. For example, one boy said that he liked the story because it taught him not to be stingy. Another boy in the same group said that he did not like the book specifically because Chiriku was very stingy. Similarly, a girl in one group opined she liked the book because “birds eat grasshoppers,” while others in the same group chose that story as their least favorite because they “don’t like grasshoppers.” These contrasting responses to the same books demonstrate the value of having a range of books available so that students can explore reading and begin to articulate reasons for their own preferences. Overall, students demonstrated a great desire for additional reading material. Although older students did not express as much desire to read for fun, they did indicate that they like to read a variety of genres. As noted above, students, parents, and teachers expressed a desire for additional materials to enhance learning opportunities.

43 | P a g e

43

Regional Differences - Book use and preferences

Use of and appreciation for Tusome Pamoja readers. In general, students agreed that they used or had access to Tusome Pamoja readers and other reading materials. However, Standard 2 students in Mtwara were significantly less likely to agree/strongly than Standard 2 students in Iringa and Zanzibar that they had used the readers this year or last year. Similarly, Standard 4 students in Iringa were significantly more likely than Standard 4 students in Mtwara and Zanzibar to agree that they had used the readers this year or last. However, during the study, data collectors observed TPP readers being used at each of the Mtwara schools, but only at one of the Iringa schools and two of the Zanzibar schools. Despite reporting less access to readers than students in other regions, Standard 4 students in Mtwara were more likely than Standard 4 Zanzibari students to agree strongly that they like to read the stories in the TPP readers. Additionally, Standard 2 students in Iringa were significantly more likely than those in Zanzibar and Mtwara to agree strongly that they like to read the stories in the TPP readers (see Figure 22). Figure 22: Standard 2 and 4 students' agreement that they like to read stories in the TPP readers, by region

Reading at school and home. Standard 2 students in Iringa were significantly more likely than Standard 2 students in Mtwara and Zanzibar to agree/strongly that they have time to read at home. In addition, Standard 4 students in Zanzibar were more likely than students in Iringa and Mtwara to disagree/strongly that they have time to read at home (see Figure 23). Standard 4 students in Zanzibar were significantly less likely to agree/strongly that someone at home usually checks their schoolwork compared to both Mtwara students and Iringa students. In addition, Mtwara students were more likely than Iringa students to agree/strongly that someone at home usually checks their schoolwork. Finally, students in Zanzibar were significantly less likely than students in Iringa and Mtwara to agree/strongly that there are books, newspapers, or other materials at home that they can read for fun. Taken together, these data suggest that students in Zanzibar have less home support for reading and studying, while Iringa students have more time to read at home, and Mtwara students have someone at home who checks their schoolwork.

Figure 23: Standard 4 support for reading at home, by region

0%25%50%75%

100%

Iringa(n=126)

Mtwara(n=161)

Zanzibar(n=96)

Iringa(n=238)

Mtwara(n=209)

Zanzibar(n=206)

Standard 2 Standard 4

NO! no yes YES!

0%25%50%75%

100%

Iringa(n=238)

Mtwara(n=208)

Zanzibar(n=208)

Iringa(n=237)

Mtwara(n=206)

Zanzibar(n=208)

Iringa(n=238)

Mtwara(n=207)

Zanzibar(n=207)

I have time to read at home Someone at home usually checksmy schoolwork

There are books, newspapers, orother materials at home I can read

for fun

NO! no yes YES!

44 | P a g e

44

Regional Differences - Book Use and Preference (continued)

Book Preference. While no clear patterns emerged when Standard 2 and 4 students were shown pairs of books and asked their preferences, there were some regional differences (see Figures 24 and 25). For the first pair of readers (fiction Chiriku na Panzi and nonfiction Elimu ya Hali ya Hewa), students in Iringa were significantly more likely than students in Mtwara and Zanzibar to choose fiction. For the second pair of readers (fiction Safari ya Mjini, nonfiction Rasilimali Zetu), Standard 4 students in Mtwara were significantly more likely than students in Iringa and Zanzibar to choose nonfiction. For the second pair of readers, Standard 4 students in Zanzibar were more likely to choose fiction than students in Iringa. For the third pair of readers (fiction Tatu na Paka Wake, or nonfiction Chakula Bora), students in Mtwara were significantly more likely than those in Iringa or Zanzibar to choose nonfiction. Figure 24: Standard 4 student reader preferences (fiction versus nonfiction) by region

Figure 25: Standard 2 student reader preferences (fiction versus nonfiction) by region

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Iringa (n=236)

Mtwara (n=205)

Zanzibar (n=208)

Iringa (n=238)

Mtwara (n=207)

Zanzibar (n=208)

Iringa (n=238)

Mtwara (n=206)

Zanzibar (n=208)

Pa

ir 3

Pa

ir 2

Pa

ir 1

Fiction Nonfiction

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Iringa (n=126)

Mtwara (n=163)

Zanzibar (n=95)

Fiction Nonfiction

45 | P a g e

45

Conclusions and Recommendations The study provided considerable insights into the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents regarding gender norms, safety, gender-responsive practices, and reading preferences. These insights can inform the future implementation of the program as well as general professional development for teachers and community engagement. This section provides the overarching conclusions and recommendations from the study.

Conclusions related to gender norms, beliefs, and safety

• While teachers and students expressed support for gender-equitable norms and beliefs, gender-equitable practices in the classroom and learning environments were not implemented consistently. Teachers and students expressed gender-equitable beliefs about girls’ and boys’ roles at home and school, though some teachers’ beliefs shifted as they considered adults’ roles (i.e., men as infant caregivers). Classroom and school practices did not always reflect gender-equitable convictions. It will be important to begin or to continue to reflect upon and discuss basic concepts of gender and on gendered norms, beliefs and practices at home and at school, and the ways in which these influence student learning, academic performance, and success.

• Disparity in boys’ and girls’ performance and engagement with school was observed and expressed. Teachers and parents believe that girls succeed in school overall because they value school, have patience, are obedient, and pay attention in school. As adults (and girls themselves) label these as “characteristics of girls,” this appears to position girls as more likely to succeed academically. Conversely, this communicates to boys that these are characteristics they may want to avoid as they grow older and begin to assert their perceptions of masculinity. These problematic perceptions need to be challenged and discussed with stakeholders in a variety of settings, in single-sex and in mixed-sex groups, such as in teacher meetings, classroom learning, after-school clubs, etc.

• As they get older, boys appear to value school less. Teachers and parents asserted that as boys get older, they are more likely to be absent from school, spend less time on schoolwork outside of class, and pay less attention when they are in the classroom. This may reflect increased value for peer approval, a need to “show off” an accepted, dominant masculinity, a lack of motivation for schooling, or a reduced appreciation for the relevance of schooling.

• Students feel that there are unsafe spaces in or near schools. Students – girls and boys – expressed fears about the journey to and from school, and about certain spaces in and around their school. The kinds of fears differed by location (urban or peri-urban and rural). Students also expressed fear of excessive corporal punishment in school, and this was cited as one cause of truancy.

• Students in most schools perceive the school environment as an emotionally safe space and feel that they can talk to teachers when they have a concern. Despite the fears in and around school that students expressed, caring teachers provide an environment that supports student learning.

46 | P a g e

46

Conclusions related to gender-responsive practices in classrooms, schools and communities

• The Parent-Teacher Partnership has introduced changes in the ways parents think about and value education, including girls’ education. Parents report changes in their practices at home with regard to girls’ and boys’ chores and time for studies, which benefit girls who are otherwise disproportionately tasked with more household responsibilities than boys. In schools where implementation of the TPP has been successful, schools have been able to educate parents further about the importance of educating their children, resulting in greater parent involvement in school activities and student learning.

• Teachers engage in gender-equitable activities in the classroom, but not consistently within schools. Teachers demonstrated gender-responsiveness through class seating arrangements, calling on boys and girls in the classroom, and the use of mixed-sex groups. However, the practices were not consistently used across classrooms. Classrooms where less gender equity was practiced tended to favor girl students.

• Developing a strong school community contributes to a safe, equitable learning environment. School leadership plays an important role in creating school environments that are welcoming, safe, and conducive to learning.

Conclusions regarding book use and preference

• Students like both fiction and nonfiction books; however, teachers and students in upper primary grades emphasized the importance of nonfiction books. While nonfiction books are valued and valuable for helping older children to learn information, it is important for teachers and students to experience and appreciate both kinds of books as diverse learning tools to increase reading fluency, grammar and comprehension skills and to promote a love of reading – as well to create ongoing opportunities to discuss values such as gender equity and gender equality.

• Diversity in reading materials matters. Student responses to the books they liked the most and liked the least varied. During focus groups, some students talked about the storyline or types of information in the book, while others focused on the characters, pictures, or what they do or do not like in real life.

• Context Matters. Students from lower-performing (rural) schools were less likely to agree/strongly that they enjoyed the TPP readers. At the same time, students from higher-performing (urban and peri-urban) schools reported enjoying reading the least, even though they were mastering reading skills at a faster rate. Exploring this further will be important, as it may show that students feel less of a connection to the stories included in the readers; or they may need greater differentiation in the leveling of the readers; or more options for storylines, characters, and subjects to maintain their enjoyment of reading and to increase their skills.

Recommendations

• Initiate and/or promote continued sharing, reflection, and action on gender-responsive practices that support girls’ and boys’ equitable participation in classroom learning; and challenge all stakeholders’ gender-discriminatory ideas that negatively influence attitudes and student performance, such as unfounded biases about “natural” abilities in

47 | P a g e

47

mathematics for boys and “natural” reading abilities for girls. Additional focus on gender equity in professional development for teachers and administrators through communities of learning, PTP activities, and other interventions may solidify and reinforce gender-responsive practices in classrooms and schools.

• Provide on-going support and teacher development for practices that foster learner centered approaches, such as group work and positive reinforcement.

o Group Work: Some teachers and schools are using group work as a new pedagogical tool, but its conceptualization and implementation has not been consistent. Additional on-going training and reflection would help ensure that teachers understand the pedagogical purposes so that implementation is meaningful and supports learning.

o Positive Reinforcement: Positive classroom engagement tools were evident in most classrooms, including clapping rhymes for children who answered questions correctly and positive re-direction when answers were not correct. However, the use of shaming and belittling students when wrong answers were given or disruptive behaviors occurred, was observed in some classrooms. On-going teacher and administrator trainings should foster positive, learning-conducive environments.

• Schools should co-design positive, gender-responsive interventions with boys, girls, PTPs and communities to ensure that boys are motivated to stay in school and engage with reading and/or their studies in general. These may include activities that give students a sense of belonging and purpose at school, including interest-based clubs or gender affinity groups. In addition, activities such as small business or gardening clubs, which reinforce the relevance of schooling to broader lived realities, may also provide increased motivation for both boys and girls.

• Strong and supportive school communities can be fostered through best practices such as the following: (1) partnership with parents and communities to identify and address challenges; (2) instilling school and/or class pride through whole-school exercises, assemblies that involve girls and boys equally in leadership and performance roles, and through student work days that do not segregate activities by traditional gender roles; (3) fostering relationships so that students watch out for one another; and 4) involving teachers in leadership so that they support and understand the vision of a school community, a community that values the right of all children, girls and boys, to learn and to succeed.

• Incorporating positive approaches to school discipline can improve students’ academic performance, make students feel safer and more secure in school, and reduce the normalization of violence within the schools. Leadership that is committed to creating strong and supportive school communities (as discussed in the bullet point above) can lead schools and teachers in reducing punitive punishments such as corporal punishment and shaming.

• School assemblies can be effective avenues for proactive measures toward self-protection and awareness for students and teachers. Messaging needs to encourage students, providing concrete steps students can take to ensure their safety, particularly

48 | P a g e

48

in relation to gender-based violence, rather than instilling undue levels of fear that have negative impacts on students’ schoolwork or on their overall well-being.

• To address safety near and on the way to/from schools, Parent-Teacher Partnerships can identify safety concerns, and head teachers can collaborate with other social services (e.g., village or neighborhood [mtaa] government officials, social welfare and community development officers) as well as engage other community groups to implement community-wide and school-specific safety measures to help students, paying attention to the needs of girls and boys.

• Increase teacher and student awareness and valuing of both fiction and nonfiction genres and of storylines that include strong girls and women and compassionate, caring boys and men. When planning workshops, foster discussions regarding the benefits of reading fiction to promote creativity, empathy, an understanding and appreciation of gender equity at home and in society, reading fluency, emotional intelligence, etc., in addition to discussing the benefits of reading nonfiction.

• Have a range of books (fiction and nonfiction) available so that students can explore reading and meet their functional, social, and aesthetic literacy needs.

• Increase the quantity of books in classrooms and for students to borrow. While students in general reported support (e.g., books and other materials) at home for reading, they also showed a great depth and variety in their reading preferences, and they stated that they wanted additional books to read, both in and out of school. Parents and teachers also wanted this for the children.

49 | P a g e

49

Appendix 1: Demographics of the Sample Standard 2 survey Overall, 384 Standard 2 students (197 girls, 187 boys) completed the survey regarding reading books from eight schools (see Table 4 below). Table 4: Standard 2 survey participants by school, region, and gender

Region Name of school Girls Boys Total

Iringa

Isimani (peri-urban) 25 22 47

Ngome (urban) 25 26 51

Nyakavangala (rural) 12 13 25

Mtwara

Nachitulo (peri-urban) 31 30 1

Tandika (urban) 25 25 50

Mbemba (rural) 25 29 54

Zanzibar Mwera Msingi (peri-urban) 28 20 48

Mtoni Msingi (urban) 26 22 48

Total 197 187 384

Standard 4 survey In addition, 656 total Standard 4 students participated in the survey at eight schools (see Table 5 below; two did not indicate their gender). Table 5: Standard 4 survey participants by school, region, and gender

Region Name of school Girls Boys

Total # of Std 4 students

Iringa

Isimani (peri-urban) 36 27 63

Ngome (urban) 75 62 137

Nyakavangala (rural) 13 23 36

Mtwara

Nachitulo (peri-urban) 50 44 94

Tandika (urban) 20 19 39

Mbemba (rural) 42 34 76

Zanzibar Mwera Msingi (peri-urban) 69 39 108 Mtoni Msingi (urban) 46 55 101

Total 351 303 654

Teacher survey A total of 64 teachers participated in the teacher survey (19 taught Standard 1, 17 taught Standard 2, 18 taught Standard 3, and 21 taught Standard 4). Of these, 50 teachers taught Kiswahili, and 51 taught mathematics (37 taught both). The majority of teachers were women (54 women and 10 men, see Table 6 below).

50 | P a g e

50

Table 6: Teacher survey participants by region, school, and gender

Region Name of school Women Men

Iringa

Isimani (peri-urban) 5 1

Ngome (urban) 9 0

Nyakavangala (rural) 1 4

Mtwara

Nachitulo (peri-urban) 5 0

Tandika (urban) 4 1

Mbemba (rural) 3 1

Zanzibar

Mwera Msingi (peri-urban) 5 3

Mtoni Msingi (urban) 9 0

Mfurumatonga (rural) 13 0

Total 54 10

Classroom observation MWAI researchers conducted 89 classroom observations to examine pedagogy, learner participation, and safety in the classroom (see Table 7 below). A total of 73 classroom observations with women teachers and 16 classrooms with men teachers were conducted. A total of 45 Kiswahili and 45 mathematics lessons were observed (one classroom had both subjects being taught at the same time). MWAI researchers conducted 31 Standard 1 observations, 32 Standard 2 observations, and 26 Standard 4 observations in total. Table 7: Classroom observation details by school (n=89 observations)

Sex of teacher observed Subject observed

Standard observed

Region Name of school Woman Man Kiswahili maths Both 1 2 4

Iringa

Isimani (peri-urban) 14 0 6 8 0 5 5 4

Ngome (urban) 16 0 8 8 0 6 7 3

Nyakavangala (rural) 0 10 6 4 0 4 1 5

Mtwara

Nachitulo (peri-urban) 7 1 4 3 1 2 4 2

Tandika (urban) 9 0 5 4 0 3 3 3

Mbemba (rural) 8 0 4 4 0 3 3 2

Zanzibar

Mwera Msingi (peri-urban) 7 0 4 3 0 2 3 2

Mtoni Msingi (urban) 8 1 4 5 0 3 3 3

Mfurumatonga (rural) 4 4 3 5 0 3 3 2

Total 73 16 44 44 1 31 32 26

Class sizes varied widely from one school to another (see Table 8 below). A range of 22 to 108 students were enrolled in each observed classroom (9 to 58 girls and 13 to 53 boys), with an average of 66.83 students (32.18 boys and 34.34 girls).

51 | P a g e

51

Table 8: Average number of learners enrolled in observed classrooms by gender and location/performance

Overall Urban / High-performing

Peri-urban / Mid-level-performing

Rural / Low-performing

N Mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd

# of girls enrolled 67 34.24 11.38 27 43.00 7.16 22 34.14 4.07 18 21.22 10.14 # of boys enrolled 67 32.18 10.54 27 41.44 5.04 22 28.09 8.48 18 23.28 7.88

Total # of learners enrolled 70 66.83 20.57 30 83.80 10.63 22 62.23 11.48 18 44.17 16.79

The number of students present on the day of classroom observations15 ranged from 21 to 95 students (nine to 55 girls and 11 to 45 boys), with an average of 58.89 learners (see Table 9 below). Table 9: Average # of learners present on day of classroom observation by gender and location

Overall Urban Peri-urban Rural

n Mean sd n mean sd N mean sd n mean sd

# of girls present 76 30.76 10.55 29 38.97 7.18 28 29.11 5.81 19 20.68 10.6

# of boys present 76 28.3 9.71 29 37.21 4.19 28 24.64 8.37 19 20.11 6.39

Total # of learners present 80 58.89 18.38 29 76.17 9.53 28 54 11.95 19 43.04 15.36

15 Data collectors were able to take attendance in 80 classrooms (some classrooms had so many learners that it was impossible to take attendance by gender).