ZIMBABWE

MINISTRY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

ZIMBABWE
EARLY
LEARNING
ASSESSMENT
ZIMBABWE EARLY
LEARNINGYYSMENT
ZIMBABWE EARLY LEARNING ASSESSMENT (ZELA)
2022 EVALUATION REPORT
AN EVALUATION REPORT OF THE 2022 ZIMBABWE EARLY LEARNING
ASSESSMENT (ZELA) CYCLE

Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE)

in partnership with

The Zimbabwe School Examinations Council (ZIMSEC)

Funded by
Table of Contents
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................13
Acronyms and abbreviations ................................................................................................................14
Chapter 1: Introduction and background to the study .................................................................. 15
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 15
1.2 Historical background to ZELA .....................................................................................................15
Chapter 2: Methods......................................................................................................................................17
2.1 Statement of the problem ..............................................................................................................17
2.2 Aims and objectives of the research .......................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................17
2.2.2 Research questions ................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Theoretical framework .....................................................................................................................18
2.4. Sampling and data collection approach ..................................................................................18
2.5 Data analysis techniques .................................................................................................................19
2.6 Sample characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 19
2.7 Proficiency levels and proficiency standards.......................................................................... 22
2.7.1 Creating the proficiency levels ..............................................................................................22
2.7.2 Proficiency level cut-points ....................................................................................................23
2.7.3 Setting the proficiency standards........................................................................................23
2.7.4 Describing proficiency levels ................................................................................................. 23
2.7.5 Indicative standards for three levels of achievement for mathematics ................23
2.8 Limitations of the study ...................................................................................................................25
Chapter 3: Findings from the 2022 ZELA study .................................................................................26
3.1 National and provincial performance in ZELA 2022 ............................................................ 26
3.1.1. National and provincial performance in English ...........................................................28
3.1.2. National and provincial performance in mathematics ............................................... 30
3.1.3 Comparing provincial performance in English and mathematics ...........................32
3.2 Performance in ZELA by pupil characteristics .........................................................................32
 3.2.1 ZELA performance by gender ............................................................................................... 32
3.2.2 ZELA performance by urban/rural locations................................................................... 35
3.2.3 Performance of pupils with disabilities ............................................................................. 36
3.2.4 Performance of pupils by languages spoken at home ............................................... 37
3.2.5 Performance of pupils by time spent working at home............................................. 38
3.2.6 Performance of pupils by number of meals at home ..................................................39
3.2.7 Performance of pupils by number of possessions ........................................................40
3.2.8 Performance of pupils by educational resources .......................................................... 41
3.2.9 Performance of pupils by parental education ................................................................ 42
3.2.10 Performance of pupils by socio-economic status ...................................................... 42
3.2.11 Performance by number of days absent from school ...............................................44
3.2.12 Performance by age ............................................................................................................... 45
3.3 Performance by school characteristics ......................................................................................48
3.3.1 Performance by school type ............................................................................................49
3.4 Performance in indigenous languages ......................................................................................54
Chapter 4: Key findings, recommendations, policy implications and future programming
..............................................................................................................................................................................57
4.1 Key findings and recommendations of the ZELA 2021 cycle ........................................... 57
4.1.1 Key findings ..................................................................................................................................57
4.1.2 Recommendations from the ZELA 2022 cycle ................................................................58
References ........................................................................................................................................................60
List of figures .................................................................................................................................................. 61
List of tables .................................................................................................................................................... 62

Foreword

It is with immense pleasure that I am presenting the ZELA 2022 research cycle report.

The mandate of the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE) is to promote
the provision of a wholesome, high-quality and inclusive education for all Zimbabweans
that is equitably accessed.
The Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment (ZELA) is an annual internal assessment
administered to Grade 2 pupils upon exiting the Infant School Module (ISM), which
covers four years of Early Childhood Development (ECD) A to Grade 2. The objective of
this Ministry’s internal assessment is to measure and evaluate teaching and learning
outcomes as the Grade 2 pupils transition into junior school level (Grades 3–7). This
assessment is also intended, in particular, to check the extent of achievement of
foundational literacy and numeracy competencies by pupils. The key goal of this early
grade assessment is to provide evidence-based instructional interventions for the
improvement of learning outcomes at the ISM level in an effort to strengthen the
education foundation in Zimbabwe.
The Ministry endeavours to meet the country’s vision and aspirations which envisage an
upper-middle-income economy by the year 2030, as enshrined in National
Development Strategy 1 (NDS1)1, through strengthening the education foundation.
Consistent with SDG 4, which calls for state governments to ensure that by 2030 all girls
and boys have access to high-quality early childhood development, care and pre-
primary education so that they are ready for primary education, the Ministry instituted
ZELA so as to enhance the learning outcomes at early grade levels. The ZELA assessment
also aligns very well with Africa’s Agenda 2063 which appeals for increased access to
high-quality, inclusive and equitable ECD education and increased investment in the
infant subsector, hence this national assessment which is premised on creating a human
capital base capable of transforming the country’s economy.
Building on the global momentum generated by the United Nations (UN) Transforming
Education Summit held in June 2022, Member States were called upon to translate
commitments of the global initiative into action. In response to this critical initiative, the
ZELA 2022 cycle research had a paradigm-shift trajectory, tailor-made to suit
transformative global 21st-century assessment models that are digitally oriented. My
hope is to see this deliberate initiative starting to bear fruit in the coming years by
significantly reducing the number of pupils exiting junior school without being able to
read and write. One such initiative that countries must commit to is the strengthening of
Foundational Learning.
My Ministry will therefore deliberately focus greater attention on the Infant Education
Module in order to enhance foundational literacies and numeracy. This focus will ensure
the creation of a strong education foundation, where it matters most, leaving no one
behind.

1
Government of Zimbabwe (2020)
I therefore call for all education implementers, stakeholders and education development
partners to embrace the recommendations of the ZELA research in order to attain
foundational numeracy and literacy for the achievement of Vision 2030.

Hon. Dr Evelyn Ndlovu (MP)

Minister for Primary and Secondary Education
Preface
Zimbabwe’s Education system provides four years of the Infant School Module (ISM)
comprising two years of early childhood development at ECD A and ECD B and two
years at Grades 1 and 2 in primary school. The establishment of the ISM is meant to
ensure a strong foundation for school readiness and improved learning outcomes in
subsequent educational levels.
In order to realise the aforesaid, MoPSE adopted assessments at two levels in the
primary education sector, namely the internal ZELA which is administered to Grade 2
pupils as they exit the ISM, and the public ZIMSEC Grade 7 assessment.
ZELA has been institutionalised by the Ministry as a mandatory annual assessment and a
quick-win strategy meant to take stock of the teaching and learning outcomes when
pupils exit the ISM at Grade 2. Its main focus is to measure literacy and numeracy
competencies as a way of strengthening the education foundation. By strengthening the
education foundation, the Ministry’s thrust is to do the correct thing the first time,
ensuring that no one is left behind in the process.
As is the norm, among other aspects, the 2022 ZELA cycle focused on evaluating the
impact of the government and education partners’ grants on teaching and learning
programmes in order to determine pupil performance, taking into account the influence
of plausible factors such as pupil home background, school type, distance travelled,
among others.
ZELA was instigated in 2012 and was funded by UNICEF until 2021. However,
commencing in 2022, ZELA funding was transferred to Education Development Trust.
Nevertheless, ZELA’s goals and scope remained the same despite the changes in the
research’s funding modalities. The Ministry is spearheading the ZELA research; Education
Development Trust provides funding and ZIMSEC provides the technical support.
The Ministry is confident that through teamwork we can deliver our shared goals to
achieve high-quality education and improved outcomes to learning, in order to equip
pupils with knowledge, numeracy and literacy skills that are necessary for life and work.
Mrs T. Thabela
Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education
Executive summary

The Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment (ZELA) is a MoPSE annual internal assessment
that is administered to Grade 2 pupils upon exiting the Infant School Module (ISM).

The objectives of the ZELA 2022 cycle were for MoPSE to:
• take stock of the teaching and learning outcomes as the Grade 2 pupils transition
into junior school level (Grades 3–7)
• check the extent to which foundational literacy and numeracy competencies have
been achieved by pupils upon exiting the ISM.

The rationale for undertaking the ZELA research is to:

• provide evidence-based improvements of teaching and learning outcomes at the
ISM level
• strengthen the education foundation in Zimbabwe by an enhanced early
assessment model which feeds into decision-making for early learning
• proffer appropriate research-based interventions for educational improvements.

The ZELA internal assessment started in 2012, and was funded by UNICEF until 2021. In
2022 ZELA was transferred to Education Development Trust through the UKAID-funded
Teacher Effectiveness and Equitable Access for all Children (TEACH). Through the TEACH
programme, Education Development Trust provides both financial and technical support
to MoPSE in the implementation of ZELA (via UKAID), while ZIMSEC collaborates with
MoPSE, providing technical support.

In the ZELA 2022 cycle, a mixed-method research design was adopted to capitalise on
the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. A sample of
13,292 pupils from 500 primary schools participated in the study. To cater for
geographical differences, such as location and school type, a stratified sampling
technique was employed. Data was collected using five instruments. The first three sets
of instruments were pupil assessments in mathematics, English and an indigenous
language. The final two instruments were the pupils’ and heads’ questionnaires. These
mainly collected quantitative data in two areas: pupils’ home backgrounds, and school
variables, respectively constituting the fourth and fifth instruments.

Data was initially captured, coded, sorted, cleaned, classified, aggregated and
segmented using Excel, before being imported to SPSS for analysis. ConQuest was then
used to develop a single-scale analytic algorithm to align pupil abilities for each of the
three test items. For each subject scale, the distribution of pupil abilities in the ZELA
2022 cycle was then transformed to a scale with a mean of 300 score points and a
standard deviation of 25. As in previous research cycles, link items from the baseline
year (2012) were included and returned in their positions in all the 2022 tests. This was
done to ensure comparability over the years. In order to establish relationships or
associations between mathematics and English performance, stepwise regression
analysis was performed. The key findings are presented below.

Overall, from the ZELA 2022 research cycle it emerged that increasing gains have been
made since 2019 in both English and mathematics. There has been a general
improvement in pupils’ performance since the baseline year, with no drop in
performance from baseline onwards. The performance results for the ZELA 2022 cycle
show that about one quarter of the infant pupils were transitioning into junior school
level without being able to read and lacked basic computation competences, as listed
below.
 Modest gains were notable in both English and mathematics between 2019 and
2022. There was greater improvement in mathematics compared with English,
with an average increase of 5.74 score points in English compared with an
average increase of 7.33 score points in mathematics.
 Overall, the percentage of pupils performing at or above grade level in 2022 was
77.1% and 75.3% for English and mathematics, respectively, compared with 75.9%
literacy and 72.3% numeracy rates in 2021. The overall percentage of
improvement was 1.8% for literacy and 3.6% for numeracy.
 In English, 22.9% of pupils performed below grade level, whereas 24.1% of pupils
performed below grade level in mathematics. These performance results show
that about one quarter of infant pupils are transitioning to junior school level
without being able to read and lacking basic computation competences.
 Harare and Bulawayo performed substantially better than other provinces in both
English and mathematics regarding the percentage of pupils performing above
grade level. In English, 69.5% of pupils in Bulawayo and 64.4% of pupils in Harare
performed above grade-level proficiency, with the national average being 20.1%.
In mathematics, 66.6% of pupils in Bulawayo and 63.8% of pupils in Harare
performed above grade-level proficiency – significantly higher than the national
average of 25.8%.
 Girls and boys performed similarly, with girls marginally outperforming boys in
both English and mathematics.
 Pupils in urban areas performed better than rural pupils in both English and
mathematics. In English, 60.42% of urban pupils performed above grade level,
compared with 13.28% of rural pupils. Rural pupils were also more likely to
perform below grade level in English (25.82% compared with urban pupils at
 5.43%). In mathematics, 63.1% of urban pupils performed above grade level,
compared with 19.4% of rural pupils. Similar to the results for English, more rural
pupils performed below grade level (27.0%) compared with urban pupils (7.4%).
The results suggest regional variations, with rural populations requiring more targeted
interventions to address the attainment gap between urban and rural pupils. Most of
the analysed variables were positively skewed towards urban pupils compared with their
rural counterparts. The disparities in access to the multiplicity of the learning variables
subsequently negatively affected those pupils with less access to those critical learning
resources.
Acknowledgements
The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE) is grateful for the leadership
of the Permanent Secretary Mrs T. Thabela, the Chief Director for Primary, Secondary
and Non-Formal Education Mrs O. Kaira, and the Acting Director of Primary Education
Ms O. Zava, who provided guidance and encouragement in the development of the
ZELA 2022 research cycle report. Singular appreciation goes to the MoPSE technical
working group, comprising the following MoPSE and ZIMSEC officers:
i. Mr Kaunda Chidota – Acting Deputy Director of Primary Education
ii. Mr Danga Mennard – Education Research Officer (Primary)
iii. Mr Pedzisai Marufu – Education Research Officer from the Department of
Strategic Planning, Policy, Research and Statistics (SPPRS)
iv. Mr Bafana Andrew Ndlovu – an Education Research Officer with the PSNE
department
v. Mr Mandeya Edward – Material Production Officer (MPO) with Learner Welfare,
School Psychological Services and Special Needs Education (LePS)
vi. Mr Kupfumira – ZIMSEC Research Manager
vii. Mr Chirume – ZIMSEC Research Manager (Mathematics)

Lastly, MoPSE acknowledges the financial support offered by UKAID through the
TEACH programme (operated by the Education Development Trust Zimbabwe office)
and the technical support provided by our consultant, Datalyst Africa, through Mr
Munyaradzi Damson.
Acronyms and abbreviations
BEGE Basic Education and Gender Equality
CBC Competence-Based Curriculum
ECD Early Childhood Development
EDF Education Development Fund
ESD Education for Sustainable Development
HSES High Socio-Economic Status
ISM Infant School Module
IRT Item Response Theory
LePS Learner Welfare, School Psychological Services and Special Needs Education
LSES Low Socio-Economic Status
NDS1 National Development Strategy 1
MoPSE Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education
MPO Materials Production Officer
MSES Medium Socio-Economic Status
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
PSU Primary Sampling Units
SEACMEQ Southern Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SES Socio-Economic Status
SPSS Statistical Product and Service Solutions
TMO Test Monitoring Officers
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
EDT Education Development Trust
ZELA Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment
ZIMSEC Zimbabwe School Examinations Council
ZIMSTAT Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency

Chapter 1: Introduction and background to the study

1.1 Introduction
The Infant School Module (ISM) (ECD A–Grade 2) education programmes provide
foundational care, learning and development of capital culture in the process of the
holistic development of a child, as well as human resource development. This
observation was made by the Commission of Enquiry into Education and Training2 as a
follow-up to the 1990 UNESCO World Conference on Education for All which revealed
that investment in infant education programmes gives social and economic benefits to
implementing countries. In order to ensure an effective and efficient infant education
programme, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE) measures and
evaluates the ISM at the end of the cycle (at the end of Grade 2 annually). The
measurement and evaluation process assumes an evaluation research configuration
popularly known as the Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment (ZELA).

1.2 Historical background to ZELA

At independence in 1980, post-colonial Zimbabwe inherited an education system that
was characterised by legacies of segregation and racialism, which restricted education
opportunities to favour white children, with very few black children having access to
education. Those who did have access to education found themselves in missionary-run
schools that were poorly funded, with very few educational resources and a separate
curriculum from that offered in all-white schools. The whole system of education was
characterised by bottlenecks. The first major reform to education at independence was
the unification of the dual education system to remove anomalies and inequalities, as
well as the adoption of a socialist education phenomenon – ‘growth with equity’ – to
redress the inequalities in access to quality education. Owing to the positive education
reforms, the number of primary school enrolments subsequently doubled within seven
years. By 1982, primary school enrolment rates were reported at almost 100%3.
Between the years 1990 and 2000, international aid to Zimbabwe ceased, which
subsequently led to the rapid deterioration of its education services. The deterioration
of the country’s economy beginning in 2000 had serious negative impacts on the
delivery of education services4. A high unemployment rate and hyperinflation peaked in
Zimbabwe in 2008. This created an unstable environment that led to the loss of
substantial investments in education and an exodus of skilled workers, including

2
Nziramasanga (1999)
3
Nyanguru and Peil (1991)
4
Government of Zimbabwe (2009)
teachers5. In 2009, UNICEF6 reported that between 2008 and 2009, school attendance
fell from 80% to 20%. It was also estimated that only about 40% of the country’s
teachers were attending lessons7.
The sector slowly began to recover in 2009, with education taken as a priority in the new
government’s Short Term Emergency Recovery Programme8. By 2012, international
education data indicated increases in enrolments and improvements in the education
system. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) reported a total net enrolment rate of
93.9% in primary education9. While enrolment and teacher numbers recovered between
2008 and 2009, there continued to be significant achievement lags in the education
system10. Given the high variation in pupil achievement in rural and urban areas, there
was therefore a need to focus on resolving systemic equity issues11.
In an attempt to reduce the high variation in pupil achievement, MoPSE prioritises Early
Childhood Development education as it lays the foundation for lifelong learning. In an
effort to meet this obligation, MoPSE is working with various education partners in the
provision of teaching and learning resources, grants, and technical support to enhance
service delivery in the education sector. Consistent with the global collective aspirations
and determination of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), MoPSE regularly takes
stock of teaching and learning outcomes by monitoring and evaluating education
programmes, in a bid to achieve Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), an
education system that provides for a paradigm shift from being smart consumers to
producers of goods and services.
In view of the above, MoPSE institutionalised the Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment
for pupils exiting the infant level and transitioning into junior school level. National
Development Strategy 1 (NDS1)12, as the driving economic blueprint for Zimbabwe,
works towards achieving a prosperous and empowered upper-middle-income society by
2030. This drive can only be achieved if the Zimbabwean populace is well educated, and
possesses 21st-century skills that can be used to transform the socio-economic status of
the country by the target date. It is therefore against this background that the education
foundation has to be kept relevant and responsive to the demands for skills and
knowledge of education for sustainable development, with ZELA used as a way of

5
Kwenda and Ntuli (2014)
6
UNICEF (2009)
7
UNICEF (2008)
8
Government of Zimbabwe (2009)
9
UNESCO (2015b)
10
UNICEF (2013)
11
UNICEF (2014)
12
Government of Zimbabwe (2020)
tracking the achievement levels of desired learning outcomes and then providing
recommendations to MoPSE’s Decision Support System (DSS).

Chapter 2: Methods
The 2022 ZELA study cycle was largely guided by quantitative research methodology.
The quantitative approach took the form of questionnaires for headteachers and pupils.
Quantitative data was also collected from the English, mathematics and indigenous
languages assessments administered to Grade 2 pupils. This chapter outlines the
methodology, participant profile and limitations of the study.

2.1 Statement of the problem

Over the years, ZELA has been providing MoPSE with recommendations that advocated
for remedial interventions. As of now, quite a number of interventions have been
employed. In view of this background, the research sought to assess the level of
achievement in basic literacy and numeracy in English, mathematics and indigenous
languages.

2.2 Aims and objectives of the research

The research aimed at assessing the level of achievement in basic literacy and numeracy
in English, mathematics and indigenous languages.
2.2.1 Objectives
The objectives of the study were as follows.
 To find out how the 2022 cohort of Zimbabwean pupils in Grade 2 performed in
both languages and mathematics tests with reference to literacy and numeracy
competencies.
 To find out whether there were noticeable patterns of change in performance
over time after the implementation of various interventions.
 To infer the cause-and-effect relationships between the following groups of
variables and test achievements in language subjects and mathematics at the end
of Grade 2 in Zimbabwe:
i. pupil background
ii. teacher and teaching resources
iii. school funding and facilities.
2.2.2 Research questions
1. At what level do early-grade Zimbabwean pupils perform in language and
mathematics tests?
2. What were the effects of the various interventions by MoPSE on pupils’
performance?
 3. What is the effect of certain plausible/latent variables on pupil performance in
English and mathematics? The variables studied were:
a) age

b) gender
c) school location
d) province
e) meals per day
f) language spoken at home

g) time spent working for the family

h) educational materials at home
i) parents’/guardian’s level of education

2.3 Theoretical framework

The overall theoretical framework for the ZELA research study is item response
theory (IRT). IRT is a measurement and evaluation model used in developed
countries. Within IRT, the interest is in whether an examinee gets each individual
test item correct or not, rather than in the raw score; thus it is more widely accepted
than the traditional classical test theory (CTT). Within CTT, the examinee’s raw test
score would be the sum of scores received on the items in the test. Furthermore, IRT
considers the effects on pupil performance of plausible/latent variables such as the
number of meals a pupil eats per day, a pupil’s home background, the level of
education of a pupil’s guardian or parents, and school location and status13. It was
for this reason that IRT was adopted as the ZELA study framework.

2.4. Sampling and data collection approach

The target population for ZELA was pupils in Grade 2 enrolled at the sampled registered
and satellite schools in Zimbabwe. A sample of 500 out of an expected sample of 700
primary schools was drawn from a total population of 7,081 primary schools. This was
due to financial constraints caused by the sponsorship transition from UNICEF to
Education Development Trust; Education Development Trust scaled down the funding.
However, for the 2022 ZELA cycle, 13,292 Grade 2 pupils took the tests in November
2022. Data was collected through subjecting the sampled pupils to ZELA standard tests
in mathematics, English and eight indigenous languages (Shona, Ndebele, Tonga,

13
Baker (2001)
Sesotho, Kalanga, Nambya, Venda and Xichangana). Five hundred (500) headteachers
from the sampled schools responded to a headteacher’s questionnaire and all the
participating pupils completed a pupil’s questionnaire instrument. More information
about the characteristics of the sample is included in section 2.6 below.

2.5 Data analysis techniques

Data collected was organised under given themes, and grouped by codes within
these thematic areas. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the
data. The results of data analysis were presented using tables and graphs to make
interpretation easy and meaningful.

2.6 Sample characteristics

This section reports on the characteristics of pupils in relation to their geographic
location, demographic and family backgrounds. The sample characteristics have been
tabulated by variable in the sample descriptive tables below.

Table 1: Sample characteristics in 2019, 2021 and 2022

Variable Options 2019 2021 2022

Boys 48% 49% 48%

Gender
Girls 52% 51% 52%

Urban 14% 14% 15%

Location
Rural 86% 86% 85%

Bulawayo 1.9% 4% 3%

Harare 5.3% 7% 5%

Manicaland 13.4% 13% 15%

Province
Mashonaland Central 9.7% 10% 8%

Mashonaland East 11.0% 9% 11%

Mashonaland West 14.0% 14% 12%

Variable Options 2019 2021 2022

Masvingo 16.5% 14% 15%

Matabeleland North 9.2% 9% 10%

Matabeleland South 6.7% 6% 8%

Midlands 12.3% 14% 12%

Aged below 7 1.9% 7% 1%

Aged 7 29.8% 8% 7%

Aged 8 42.6% 30% 42%

Aged 9 18.5% 28% 34%

Age (in years) Aged 10 4.7% 12% 10%

Aged 11 1.6% 5% 3%

Aged 12 0.5% 3% 1%

Aged 13 0.2% 3% 1%

Aged 14 and above 0.2% 4% 1%

Meals per day 1 meal 10.8% 18% 9%

2 meals 38.4% 36% 36%

3 or more meals 50.9% 46% 55%

Shona 74.8% 64.1% 74.1%

Language
Ndebele 14% 13.2% 16.0%
spoken at home
English 1.5% 5.4% 1.6%
Variable Options 2019 2021 2022

Other 9.7% 17.3% 8.3%

Less than 1 hour a day 32.5% 33.1% 43%

1 or more but less than 2 31%

Time spent 37.9% 28.2%
hours a day
working for
2 or more but less than 3 16%
family 17.0% 19.4%
hours a day

3 hours or more a day 12.7% 19.3% 11%

None 29% 17.6% 7%

1 28% 26.3% 24%

Number of
home 2 23.6% 20% 22%
possessions
3 19.0% 19.7% 25%

4 or more 0.4% 16.5% 22%

None 2.4% 1.8% 2%

1 21.5% 15.1% 19%

Number of
educational 2 27.4% 17.1% 29%
resources
3 21.7% 34.1% 26%

4–6 27.0% 31.9% 24%

Did not go to school 1.9% 9.8% 2%

Highest parental
Completed primary 13%
education 13.4% 20.3%
education
Variable Options 2019 2021 2022

Completed secondary 69%

72.4% 54.9%
education

Completed a tertiary 16%

12.3% 15.0%
course

2.7 Proficiency levels and proficiency standards

The indicator to be used to measure changes in pupil achievement in English and
mathematics in Zimbabwe is the percentage of pupils achieving at or above the grade-
appropriate level after completing Grade 2 in Zimbabwe. One of the key objectives of
ZELA is to monitor changes in English and mathematics performance over time. The
ZELA English and mathematics scales form the basis for the assessment; these comprise
a set of three proficiency levels with substantive descriptions, which were established in
2013. The described levels are syntheses of the item contents within each level, and they
provide an empirically and substantively convenient way of presenting the national
picture of the achievement levels of Zimbabwean pupils.
Pupils whose results are located within a particular level of proficiency are typically able
to demonstrate the understandings and skills associated with that level, and they also
typically possess the understandings and skills defined as applying to lower-level
proficiency levels. ‘Achieving at a level’ means a pupil masters or is learning to master
most items within that level. This test should be composed of some questions ranging in
difficulty, but always appropriate to the year level of the pupils. Thus, some questions
would be easier than others, but they would not fall outside this range. The cut-point
separating ‘below’ the grade-appropriate level and the ‘at’ grade-appropriate level
represents the minimum acceptable standards in the subject.
2.7.1 Creating the proficiency levels
To identify the appropriate range of difficulty, a panel of fourteen language experts and
a panel of eight mathematics experts from ZIMSEC established three achievement levels
based on judgements about what cut-point positions would best represent the
appropriate standard expected at the end of Grade 2 in Zimbabwe. The panels of
experts also developed indicative standards for the three levels of achievement in
mathematics and English, describing what pupils achieving at each level can generally
do14. Two levels of achievement in Shona and Ndebele were developed; however, as
sampling was not undertaken based on the language of instruction, the results are not
considered to be representative of the national situation and are therefore not reported.
2.7.2 Proficiency level cut-points
Three proficiency levels were established for reporting the percentage of pupils
performing within each level. Table 2 identifies these levels by cut-point.

Table 2: Proficiency level cut-points

English Mathematics

Scale score Below (<) 300.3 305.0

Above (>) 331.4 329.6

2.7.3 Setting the proficiency standards

The process of setting the proficiency standards, referred to as the empirical judgmental
technique, requires stakeholders to examine the test items and the results from the
national assessment and agree on a Proficient Standard for the year level.
The Proficient Standard comprises points on the proficiency scale that represent a
‘challenging but reasonable’ expectation for typical Grade 2pupils to have reached by
the end of Grade 2. The concept of the Proficient Standard refers to the knowledge,
skills and understanding that one would expect to observe in a pupil who was
functioning adequately for their year level.
2.7.4 Describing proficiency levels
Information about the items in each level was used to develop summary descriptions of
the English language and mathematics skills associated with different levels of
proficiency.
2.7.5 Indicative standards for three levels of achievement for mathematics
Pupils achieving at a grade-appropriate level can generally:
 compare the magnitude of numbers below 100 and order objects from first to
twentieth
 recall simple multiplication facts when 2, 5 and 10 are factors
 apply sets to solve multiplication problems and division problems using brackets
 read time on the hour and on the half hour on a clock face
 interpret pictorial representations of fractions

14
Ziesky (2001); Mitzel et al. (2000)
  compare the area of plane shapes without the use of standard units
 measure length in standard units
 add two numbers in a real-life context
 count, add, compare and order numbers of objects in an unfamiliar context.

In addition, pupils achieving above the grade-appropriate level can generally:

 count and write the number of objects in a given set
 interpret the meaning of additional terms such as ‘altogether’, ‘sum of’ and ‘total’
 add two and three single- and double-digit numbers to give a total of up to 50
 find the difference between any two numbers in the range 0–50
 compare the length of various objects and the capacity of various containers
without the use of standard units.

Pupils who are not yet achieving at the grade-appropriate level can generally:
 find the product of two numbers by counting sets when the product is less than
or equal to 100
 recall basic division facts for multiples of 2, 5 and 10 up to 100
 find a quotient by sharing equally when the dividend is less than or equal to 100
 approximate numbers as nearer to 0, 10 or 20 up to 100; divide objects into
halves and quarters
 give the composition of Zimbabwean coins up to $1 and calculate change for
amounts not exceeding $1
 read days of the week and place days of the week in their correct order
 identify two-dimensional shapes and find the perimeter of these shapes using
non-standard units
 compare the mass of common objects and the rate of performed tasks without
the use of standard units
 interpret the meaning of a mathematical story, translate words into numerical
statements and solve the problem posed.

2.5.7 Indicative standards for three levels of achievement for English

Pupils operating at the grade-appropriate level in English can generally:
 identify and name familiar objects in English
 spell simple words correctly, and express in words a number of objects between 0
and 10
 use simple prepositions with or without the help of a diagram
 use verb tenses (simple present, simple past and simple future)
 use possessive pronouns and superlative forms of simple adjectives
  use simple adverbs using the indefinite article (a/an) and use simple adverbs
using definitive article
 locate detail in a text and find directly stated information
 connect ideas and make inferences.

Pupils operating below the grade-appropriate level can generally:

 identify and name familiar objects in English
 spell simple words correctly
 express in words a number of objects between 0 and 10.

2.8 Limitations of the study

The ZELA 2022 study cycle was limited to a sample of 500 schools instead of a more
representative sample of 700 schools. The limitation was due to insufficient funding.
However, all provinces were represented.
Chapter 3: Findings from the 2022 ZELA study
This chapter presents the findings from the 2022 ZELA study in three sections:
1. overall performance in ZELA on national and provincial levels
2. performance in ZELA against pupil characteristics (demographics and family
background)
3. performance in ZELA against school characteristics.

3.1 National and provincial performance in ZELA 2022

Overall, the majority of pupils scored at or above grade level in English compared with
mathematics (77.1% of pupils in English compared with 75.9% in mathematics).
Improvements over time were noted in both subjects. Despite fluctuation, for both
English and mathematics the proportion of pupils performing at or above grade level in
2022 was higher than that in any previous year.
In English, pupils performing above grade level has fluctuated since 2012. The
proportion of pupils performing at grade level has increased by 18% since 2012. In 2022,
10% more pupils were performing above grade level compared with 2012.
Figure 1: Pupils performing above, at or below grade level between 2012 and 2022
in English (%)

Mathematics has also witnessed fluctuations in pupil performance, with the proportion
performing at grade level increasing by 14% since 2012. The proportion performing
below grade level has dropped by more than half, from 54% in 2012 to 24% in 2022.
Figure 2: Pupils performing above, at or below grade level between 2012 and 2022
in mathematics (%)

When observing the average scores of pupils, gains are evident in English and
mathematics from 2019 to 2022 (Figure 3). There has been a significant improvement in
mathematics performance compared with English since 2019. Mathematics average
score points underwent increases of 3.07 and 4.26 in 2019 and 2022, respectively,
compared with average score points increases in English of 1.54 and 4.20 in the same
two years.
Figure 3: Average point scores in English and mathematics between 2019 and 2022
3.1.1. National and provincial performance in English
A total of 77.1% of pupils were found to be performing at grade level or above in
English (20.1% above, 57.0% at grade level). The below figure displays pupil proficiency
alongside a description of what each level refers to.
Figure 4: Pupil proficiency levels in English ZELA 2022, with % at each level

At the provincial level, Harare and Bulawayo substantially outperformed other provinces
in the percentage of pupils performing above grade level in English, with 68.5% of
pupils above grade-level proficiency in Bulawayo and 64.4% above grade proficiency in
Harare. This is significantly higher than the national average of 20.1% of pupils
performing above grade level. Mashonaland Central and Matabeleland North were the
lowest-performing provinces in English, with approximately 30% of pupils in each
province performing below grade-level proficiency.
Figure 5: percentage of pupils below, at, and above grade-level proficiency in English by
province 15

15
Sample per province: Bulawayo = 347; Harare = 685; Mashonaland East = 1,509; Mashonaland West =
1,596; Manicaland = 1,985; Masvingo = 2,005; Midlands = 1,652; Matabeleland South = 1,127;
Matabeleland North = 1,273; Mashonaland Central = 1,123.
3.1.2. National and provincial performance in mathematics
A total of 75.9% of pupils performed at or above grade level in mathematics, with 24.1%
performing below grade level. The next figure displays pupil proficiency alongside a
description of what each level refers to.

Figure 6: Mathematics scale for 2022

As with English, Harare and Bulawayo substantially outperformed other provinces in the
percentage of pupils performing above grade level in mathematics, with 67% of pupils above
grade-level proficiency in Bulawayo and 64% above grade proficiency in Harare. This can be
compared with a national average of 26% of pupils performing above grade level. Mashonaland
Central and Matabeleland North were again the lowest-performing provinces, with 28% (n=315)
and 31.2% (n=394) of pupils scoring below grade-level proficiency, respectively.
Figure 7: Percentage of pupils at or above grade-level proficiency in mathematics by
province 16

16
Sample per province: Bulawayo = 347; Harare = 685; Mashonaland East = 1,509; Mashonaland West =
1,596; Manicaland = 1,985; Masvingo = 2,005; Midlands = 1,652; Matabeleland South = 1,127;
Matabeleland North = 1,273; Mashonaland Central = 1,123.
3.1.3 Comparing provincial performance in English and mathematics
A comparison of pupil performances by province in both English and mathematics
shows that there were minimal variations with reference to individual provinces’ average
scores in both English and mathematics per level, except for Harare and Bulawayo (Table
3).

Table 3: English and mathematics average scores by province for 2022

Mathematics average
Province English average score score
Bulawayo 346.34 337.32
Harare 345.16 337.30
Manicaland 314.33 315.87
Mashonaland Central 308.20 313.19
Mashonaland East 317.22 319.55
Mashonaland West 315.53 318.74
Masvingo 316.20 319.00
Matabeleland North 307.50 311.96
Matabeleland South 311.93 312.89
Midlands 312.53 316.14
Grand Total 315.91 317.95

3.2 Performance in ZELA by pupil characteristics

This sub-section provides a disaggregated overview of performance in ZELA by different
demographic characteristics, including gender, disability and socio-economic indicators.
3.2.1 ZELA performance by gender
Female pupils outperformed male pupils in both English and mathematics. In both
subjects, a greater proportion of female pupils performed above grade level compared
with male pupils (5% more female pupils for both English and mathematics). The same
proportion of female and male pupils performed at grade level in both subjects, with a
greater proportion of male pupils performing below grade level (6% more male pupils
performing below grade level in English, and 5% more in mathematics). The difference
in English performance between girls and boys is statistically significant at the 5% level
of significance.
Figure 8: English and mathematics proficiency levels by gender, 2022

Figure 9 below shows the cross-tabulation of English and mathematics performance

trends by gender since 2019. The performance patterns for both boys and girls indicate
an incremental trend. The difference in average scores between female and male pupils
was statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. The 2022 results show that
there was a significant improvement in performance in both English and mathematics.
The performance improvement was statistically significant at the 5% level of significance.
Figure 9: Mean performance in English and mathematics by gender since 2019
3.2.2 ZELA performance by urban/rural locations
In both English and mathematics, urban pupils significantly outperformed rural pupils. In
urban areas, 47% more pupils performed above grade level (60.4% in urban areas
compared with 13.9% of pupils in rural locations). The picture was similar in
mathematics, with 44% more pupils in urban areas performing above grade level
compared with rural pupils (63.1% performed above grade level in urban areas,
compared with 19.4% in rural areas).

Figure 10: English and mathematics proficiency levels by rural/urban locations

When observing differences since 2019, it can be seen that there has been overall
improvement in performance amongst both urban and rural pupils, though the gap
between the two groups has widened in both subjects. In 2019, there was an average
score difference between urban and rural pupils of 17.5 score points in mathematics; by
2022, this has widened to an average score point difference of 22. In English, there was
an average point-score difference of 27.47 in 2019, widening to 30.5 in 2022. The dotted
lines in the figure below represent statistically insignificant improvements, with solid
lines representing statistically significant improvements at the 5% significance level.
Figure 11: English and mathematics performance by rural and urban schools

3.2.3 Performance of pupils with disabilities

Out of the total sample of 13,292 pupils, 870 reported having at least one disability
(6.5%). The most commonly reported disability was related to sight, with 37% of those
with a disability reporting difficulty seeing (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Types of disability reported (% of pupils who reported at least one
disability)
Results from an independent t-test showed that there was no statistically significant
difference in either English or mathematics scores between pupils with disabilities (self-
reported) and those without (Table 4).

Table 4: Distribution by pupils with disabilities

Group Statistics
Disability N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Yes 870 315.87 24.55367 0.83245
English Average Score
No 12,422 315.92 23.96382 0.21501
Mathematics Average Yes 870 318.43 21.94838 0.74412
Score No 12,422 317.92 21.33468 0.19142

3.2.4 Performance of pupils by languages spoken at home

In terms of language spoken at home, pupils who speak English at home outperformed
those who speak other languages in both mathematics and English. The difference is
statistically significant at the 5% level.
The 2022 ZELA research results further show that pupils who speak English at home had
higher score points in both English and mathematics (344.85 and 336.98, respectively).
Figure 13: English and mathematics performance by language spoken at home,
2022
Figure 14 shows the same performance trend from 2019 to 2022. Pupils who speak
English at home have continued to outperform pupils who speak indigenous languages
at home in mathematics. Pupils who speak indigenous languages at home performed
better in mathematics than in English, though still scored significantly lower than their
peers who speak English at home.
Figure 14: Mean performance in mathematics by language spoken at home since
2019

3.2.5 Performance of pupils by time spent working at home

Time spent working at home (daily) by pupils was analysed and the results show that
those who spent less than one hour per week working at home perform better than
those who spent more hours working for the family at home.
Figure 15: English and mathematics performance by time spent working at home
for 2022

3.2.6 Performance of pupils by number of meals at home

When the results were analysed by the number of meals taken at home by pupils, it
emerged that pupils reporting having three meals or more outperformed those who had
either two meals or only one meal per day in both English and mathematics.
Figure 16: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by number of meals
taken at home

3.2.7 Performance of pupils by number of possessions

Number of possessions at home was used as a proxy indicator for socio-economic
status. Analysis by home possessions indicated that pupils with four or more home
possessions outperformed all the other categories. The general trend portrayed in the
research is that the greater the number of home possessions, the better the pupil’s
performance.
Figure 17: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by number of home
possessions

3.2.8 Performance of pupils by educational resources

Analysis by home educational resources indicated that pupils with more home
educational resources perform better than those with few home educational resources.

Figure 18: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by number of home
educational resources
3.2.9 Performance of pupils by parental education
Analysis by parental education level indicates that pupils with parents who completed a
tertiary course substantially outperformed pupils with parents of lower education levels.
Those with parents who completed secondary education also performed better than
those in the other categories, though the difference was less pronounced. It can
therefore be generalised from these results that the higher the parental educational
level, the better the pupils’ performance.

Figure 19: English and mathematics performance by highest parental education for
2022

3.2.10 Performance of pupils by socio-economic status

Figure 20, below, illustrates the performance of pupils by their socio-economic level.
Pupils from families of a higher economic status outperformed pupils from families of
both medium and low economic status.
Figure 20: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by socio-economic
status

Pupils from families with high socio-economic status have persistently performed better
than their peers in lower and middle socio-economic categories each year. However, the
proportion of pupils with low socio-economic status performing below grade level has
dropped at a greater rate than other categories. This is true for both English and
mathematics.
Figure 21: Socio-economic status by proficiency levels for English

Figure 22: Socio-economic status by proficiency levels for mathematics

3.2.11 Performance by number of days absent from school

An analysis of the number of days that pupils attended school per term was computed
and correlated to pupils’ performance in both English and mathematics. The research
results reveals that, generally, absenteeism has a negative effect on pupils’ performance
in class.
Figure 23: English and mathematics performance by number of days absent per
term, 2022

3.2.12 Performance by age

Overall, pupils aged 7 years outperformed all other age groups in both English and
mathematics, with score points of 321.20 and 321.54, respectively, followed by those
aged 8 years (318.07 and 318.97, respectively). The lowest-performing age was pupils
aged 11 for English and 10 for mathematics (314.54).
Figure 24: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by age

Over time, all age groups have improved in performance. The greatest progress was
noted amongst 13 year olds, with average gain scores of 24.36. In English, there was a
significant increase in mean performance from 2012 to 2022 for all age groups save for
those aged below 6, and for 12- and 14-year-olds.

Table 5: Performance in English since 2012 by age group17

English 2012 2019 2021 2022 2012–

2022

Age 6 and 298.2(3.08 ⇑ 308.42(1.5 ⇔ 307.25(0.69 318.56 ⇑

below ) 0) )

Age 7 305.7(1.90 ⇑ 310.68(0.3 ⇔ 311.97(0.64 321.20 ⇑

) 7) )

17
Where {⇑} indicates a significant increase, {⇔} no change and {⇓} a significant decrease. Standard errors
are reported between brackets.
English 2012 2019 2021 2022 2012–
2022

Age 8 303.0(1.32 ⇑ 311.15(0.3 ⇑ 314.85(0.32 318.07 ⇑

) 0) )

Age 9 296.7(0.92 ⇑ 308.16(0.4 ⇑ 311.82(0.30 314.27 ⇑

) 3) )

Age 10 294.7(1.00 ⇑ 308.44(0.8 ⇔ 310.04(0.47 310.90 ⇑

) 1) )

Age 11 295.3(1.03 ⇑ 305.68(1.1 ⇑ 308.86(0.69 309.89 ⇑

) 6) )

Age 12 293.9(1.52 ⇑ 310.12(2.2 ⇔ 308.72(0.90 312.73 ⇑

) 9) )

Age 13 292.7(3.68 ⇑ 304.73(4.1 ⇑ 308.78(0.92 317.06 ⇑

) 5) )

Age 14 and 298.7(1.90 ⇑ 307.52(4.1 ⇔ 307.51(51) 314.08 ⇑

above ) 7)

The mathematics performance by age group is shown in Table 6. The table shows that in
2022 there was a significant increase in mathematics performance for all age groups.

Table 6: Performance in mathematics since 2012 by age group18

Mathematics 2012 2019 2021 2022 2012–2022

Age 6 and 295.8 ⇑ 307.95 ⇑ 309.93 316.16 ⇑

18
Where {⇑} indicates a significant increase, {⇔} no change and {⇓} a significant decrease. Standard errors
are reported between brackets.
Mathematics 2012 2019 2021 2022 2012–2022

below (3.22) (1.12) (0.59)

Age 7 303.5 ⇑ 309.58 ⇑ 312.48 321.54 ⇑

(1.49) (0.32) (0.54)

Age 8 302.2 ⇑ 311.62(0.25) ⇑ 315.63(0.27) 318.97 ⇑

(1.23)

Age 9 297.7 ⇑ 310.12 ⇑ 314.44 317.47 ⇑

(1.01) (0.38) (0.27)

Age 10 296.0 ⇑ 311.17 ⇔ 313.43 314.54 ⇑

(1.07) (0.73) (0.42)

Age 11 297.2(1.19) ⇑ 309.84 ⇔ 311.88(0.66) 314.79 ⇑

(1.18)

Age 12 297.0(1.73) ⇑ 313.21(2.32) ⇔ 311.07 316.01 ⇑

(0.83)

Age 13 297.0 ⇑ 311.69(3.57) ⇓ 309.16 316.62 ⇑

(4.02) (0.91)

Age 14 and 304.6 ⇑ 312.56 ⇔ 311.47 316.60 ⇑

above (2.26) (4.02) (0.77)

3.3 Performance by school characteristics

All reported results in this section are based on pupil-level analysis. In this analysis,
pupils were the unit of analysis, even for variables that were collected at school level.
Some descriptions of school characteristics were collected in the headteacher
questionnaire. The characteristics that were collected and related to performance
through cross-tabulation analysis for this chapter in the ZELA 2022 cycle study were:
 i. school type (registered versus satellite)
ii. school facilities (electricity and water).

3.3.1 Performance by school type

There are two school types of schools in Zimbabwe; registered and satellite schools.
Schools are categorised by the differences in the availability of various facilities,
infrastructure and resources. Satellite schools generally do not have adequate school
facilities, infrastructure and resources as compared with registered schools.
The differences in English and mathematics performances between registered and
satellite schools are statistically significant. In English, the difference in performance
between registered and satellite schools was 3.25 score points, while in mathematics the
performance difference was 1.18 score points at the 5% level of significance.
Table 7: Mean performance by school status in English and mathematics

Group Statistics
Registration N Mean Std. Std. Error
status Deviation Mean
English Average Registered 10987 316.48 23.79895 0.22705
Score Satellite 2305 313.23 24.77611 0.51606
Mathematics Registered 10987 318.30 21.36239 0.20380
Average Score Satellite 2305 316.30 21.36200 0.44495

The general trend reveals that registered schools have performed better than satellite
schools in both English and mathematics over time. The gap in scores between
registered and satellite schools remained overall constant between 2012 and 2022,
marginally widening in both subjects. In mathematics, the gap widened from an average
score point difference of 18.19 to 19.73. For English the average score point difference
increased from 16.57 to 17.31 over the ten-year time period.
Figure 25: Mean performance in English and mathematics by school type since
2012
3.3.2 School facilities and performance – electricity and water
School headteachers were asked if their schools had water (piped, tank or spring) and
electricity (mains, generator or solar). Descriptive statistics were computed on whether
they had both electricity and water, either of the two, or none. The results indicate that
29.86% had neither electricity nor water, 36.60% had either electricity or water (but not
both), and 33.50% had both electricity and water.
Table 8 below shows that pupils’ performance has been gradually improving annually
since 2012 in both English and mathematics. In 2012 and 2022, pupils from schools with
both water and electricity performed better than pupils from schools with either
electricity or water, who in turn performed better than pupils from schools without
electricity and water in both English and mathematics. The gap in performance between
those with electricity and water and those with either or none has been decreasing over
the last 10 years. In 2012, for English the gap between pupils in schools with both
electricity and water and those with neither was an average point score of 16.8, reducing
to a gap of 7.65 in 2022. The same was true for mathematics, with an average point
score difference of 14 in 2012, narrowing to 6.19 in 2022.

Table 8: Performance in English and mathematics in schools with and without

electricity and water in 2012, 2019, 2021 and 202219

English 2012 2019 2021 2022 2012–2022

Electricity 308.1 ⇑ 320.05 ⇔ 319.44 318.81 ⇑

and water (2.64) (0.38) (0.32) (0.63)

Difference ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑

Either 295.0 ⇑ 307.66 ⇔ 308.61 313.24 ⇑

electricity or (1.18) (0.29) (0.26) (4.63)

water

Difference ⇑ ⇑ ⇔ ⇑ ⇑

No electricity 291.3 ⇑ 302.82 ⇑ 306.84 311.16 ⇑

19
Where {⇑} indicates a significant increase, {⇔} no change and {⇓} a significant decrease. Standard errors are reported
between brackets.
and no water (1.33) (0.29) (0.28) (4.32)
Mathematics 2012 2019 2021 2022 2012–2022

Electricity 306.6 ⇑ 317.77 ⇔ 318.06 320.63 ⇑

and water (2.27) (0.31) (0.26) (2.57)

Difference ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑

Either 296.2 ⇑ 307.59 ⇑ 311.50 315.37 ⇑

electricity or (1.45) (0.25) (0.24) (3,87)

water

Difference ⇑ ⇔ ⇔ ⇑ ⇑

No electricity 292.6 ⇑ 306.99 ⇑ 311.47 314.44 ⇑

and no water (1.68) (0.28) (0.27) (2.97)

3.4 Performance in indigenous languages

3.4.1 Indigenous language scores overall

Pupils overall scored similarly in the different indigenous languages with the exception
of Ndebele, which had below-average scores compared with Shona, Nambya, Tonga
and Venda.

Table 9: Performance in indigenous languages for 2022

Ndebele Shona Nambya Tonga Venda

Average 281.98 300.02 300.00 300.00 300.00

score

3.4.2 Indigenous language scores by province

Comparing scores by location is not possible for Nambya, Tonga and Venda as the
assessments were only administered in one province each. For Ndebele, the lowest-
performing province was Matabeleland North with an average score of 283.64, and the
highest-performing province was Bulawayo, with an average score of 301.25. For Shona,
the highest-performing participating province was Harare, with an average score of
314.40, and the lowest-performing province was Mashonaland Central with an average
score of 295.48.
Table 10: Performance in indigenous languages by province, 2022

Province Ndebele Shona Nambya Tonga Venda

Bulawayo 301.25

Harare 314.40

Manicaland 299.52

Mashonaland Central 295.48

Mashonaland East 300.33

Mashonaland West 297.90

Masvingo 302.02

Matabeleland North 290.62 299.56 298.11

Matabeleland South 283.64 301.46

Midlands 295.60 297.12

3.4.3 Indigenous language scores by gender

Performance by gender differed by language, though there were only marginal
differences for most, with the exception of Tonga in which boys scored an average of
6.38 points higher than girls.

Table 11: Performance in indigenous languages by gender, 2022

Ndebele Shona Nambya Tonga Venda

Boys 283.00 298.40 300.06 303.29 299.49

Girls 281.02 301.53 299.95 296.91 300.48

Average 281.98 300.02 300.00 300.00 300.00

Chapter 4: Key findings, recommendations, policy
implications and future programming

The 2022 ZELA was the seventh cycle conducted by MoPSE and ZIMSEC after the expiry
of the ACER contract in 2012, the first cycle to be funded by Education Development
Trust, and the second assessment cycle after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
ZELA 2022 cycle report provides an in-depth analysis of three major research questions.
These include analysis of how Zimbabwean pupils in Grade 2 performed in the 2022
ZELA research cycle in cognitive literacy and numeracy tests. The research report also
explored the relationships between literacy and numeracy and a range of variables that
impact on pupil performance. Lastly, the research sought to examine the extent to which
improvement in literacy and numeracy performance could be attributed to government
and partner funding, as well as to other Ministry interventions.

4.1 Key findings and recommendations of the ZELA 2021 cycle

4.1.1 Key findings

There is overall improved performance amongst pupils on a national level, though
performance gaps remain between provinces.
Overall, the majority of pupils scored at or above grade level in English compared with
in mathematics (77.1% of pupils in English compared with 75.9% in mathematics).
Improvements over time were noted in both subjects. Despite fluctuation, for both
English and mathematics the proportion of pupils performing at or above grade level in
2022 is higher than in any previous year. In mathematics and English, the proportion
performing below grade level has dropped by more than half. There were disparities on
a provincial level in both English and mathematics, with pupils from Bulawayo and
Harare performing substantially better than their peers in other provinces.
Gender, rurality, poverty indicators and socio-economic status continue to be
drivers of performance.
Girls continued to outperform boys in both English and mathematics. While the same
proportion of boys and girls performed at grade level in both subjects, more girls likely
performed above grade level as compared to their boys counterparts.. Interestingly, no
difference in performance was identified between pupils with a self-reported disability
compared with those without.
Location of pupils has also continued to play a role in performance, with urban pupils
significantly outperforming their rural peers. In English, 60% of urban pupils performed
above grade level, compared with 13% of pupils in rural areas. The picture was similar
for mathematics, with 63% of urban pupils performing above grade level, compared
with 18% of pupils in rural areas.
As with previous years, pupils speaking English at home was a predictor for a higher
average score compared with pupils speaking indigenous languages at home. Though
all groups have improved since 2019, the gap between English and indigenous speakers
has not narrowed.
Indicators used as a proxy for poverty demonstrate that children with fewer resources
and access to meals at home performed worse than pupils with more resources and
meals. Similarly, pupils engaging in work were more likely to have weaker performance
than their peers who spend less than one hour working at home per week.
Parental education was also found to play a role, with pupils who had at least one
parent who had completed tertiary education scoring significantly higher in both
subjects than pupils whose parents’ highest level of education was secondary or lower.
Registered schools continued to outperform satellite schools, as did schools with
better resources.
In English, the difference in performance between registered and satellite schools was
3.25 score points, while in mathematics the performance difference was 1.18 score
points at the 5% level of significance. In 2012 and 2022, pupils from schools with both
water and electricity performed better in both English and mathematics than pupils from
schools with either electricity or water, who in turn performed better than pupils from
schools without electricity and water. The gap in performance between those with
electricity and water and those with either or none has been decreasing over the last 10
years. In 2012, for English the gap between pupils in schools with both electricity and
water and those with neither was an average point-score difference of 16.8, reducing to
a gap of 7.65 in 2022. The same was true for mathematics, with an average point-score
difference of 14 in 2012, narrowing to 6.19 in 2022.

4.1.2 Recommendations from the ZELA 2022 cycle

a) In view of the 22.9% of pupils exiting the ISM without being able to read and 24.1% of
pupils transitioning into junior education without basic computation skills, it is
recommended that individual clinical remediation is intensified at junior school level.
There is a need for the reskilling of infant teachers who have general teaching
qualifications, resuscitating reading initiatives (ERI, THRASS, Montessori, etc.) in schools
and developing and distributing a variety of reading materials to infant schools.
b) Culminating from the finding that urban schools performed better than rural schools,
it is recommended that MoPSE takes a positive discriminatory stance in the distribution
of resources (material, human, financial, technical resources, etc.)
c) MoPSE should speed up the registration of schools.
d) There is a need for curriculum harmonisation between the Ministry of Environment,
Climate, Tourism and Hospitality and MoPSE. ECD teachers are struggling to deliver
Visual Performance Arts, Physical Education and ICT because they were not taught in
teacher training colleges.
e) Provision of qualified ECD and infant teachers to remote, rural schools, especially in
Mat North and Mash Central, is required.
f) There should be an intensive programme of constructing teachers’ houses and
improving working conditions for teachers in rural schools to enhance teacher retention.
g) Increased financing for Programme 3 under programme-based budgeting, as well as
increasing safety nets, mostly for rural schools, is needed.
h) Use of SNE diagnostic tests by all teachers in schools for early assessment of pupils in
literacy and numeracy levels is required.
i) In-class and clinical remediation in schools should be scaled up.
j) Junior teachers who are teaching infant classes should be retrained to improve their
pedagogic skills.
k) More teaching and learning materials should be provided for all infant classes.
l) Action research should be carried out to establish the variances between ECD
enrolment against Grade 1 enrolment.

m) There is also a need to increase the ZELA sample size from the current 700 schools,
while maintaining the 10% representation.
References
Baker, F. B. (2001). The Basics of Item Response Theory. College Park, Maryland:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Government of Zimbabwe. (2009). Short term Emergency Recovery Programme
(STERP): Getting Zimbabwe moving again. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.
Government of Zimbabwe. (2020). National Development Strategy 1, January 2021–
December 2025. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.
Kwenda, P. and Ntuli, M. (2014). ‘Private returns to education, migration and
development policies: The case of Zimbabwe’, African Development Review, 26
(4): 535–548.
Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure:
Psychological perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards:
Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 249–281). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
MoPSE. (2012). Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment (ZELA) Evaluation Report.
Harare: Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.
MoPSE. (2019). Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment (ZELA) Evaluation Report.
Harare: Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.
MoPSE. (2021). Zimbabwe Early Learning Assessment (ZELA) Evaluation Report.
Harare: Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.
Nziramasanga, C. T. (1999). Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Education and
Training. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.
Nyanguru, A. & Peil, M. (1991). Zimbabwe since Independence: A people's assessment.
African Affairs, 90(361), 607-620
UNESCO. (2015). Institute for Statistics (UIS) Database. UNESCO.
UNICEF. (2008). Zimbabwe education system in a state of emergency. UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2009). Zimbabwe education crisis worsens. UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2013). GPE Support Project. Project Document. Harare. UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2014). The Education Development Fund: Stronger systems, better outcomes.
Sixth Progress Report. Harare. UNICEF.
Ziesky, M.J. (2001). Passing scores. A manual for setting standards of performance on
educational and occupational tests. Livingston SA.
List of figures
Figure 1: Pupils performing above, at or below grade level between 2012 and 2022 in
English (%) ........................................................................................................................................................26
Figure 2: Pupils performing above, at or below grade level between 2012 and 2022 in
mathematics (%) ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 3: Average point scores in English and mathematics between 2019 and 2022 ..... 27
Figure 4: Pupil proficiency levels in English ZELA 2022, with % at each level ....................... 28
Figure 5: percentage of pupils below, at, and above grade-level proficiency in English by
province ............................................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 6: Mathematics scale for 2022 ................................................................................................... 30
Figure 7: Percentage of pupils at or above grade-level proficiency in mathematics by
province ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 8: English and mathematics proficiency levels by gender, 2022 .................................. 33
Figure 9: Mean performance in English and mathematics by gender since 2019 ...............34
Figure 10: English and mathematics proficiency levels by rural/urban locations ................ 35
Figure 11: English and mathematics performance by rural and urban schools ................... 36
Figure 12: Types of disability reported (% of pupils who reported at least one disability)
..............................................................................................................................................................................36
Figure 13: English and mathematics performance by language spoken at home, 2022 .. 37
Figure 14: Mean performance in mathematics by language spoken at home since 2019
..............................................................................................................................................................................38
Figure 15: English and mathematics performance by time spent working at home for
2022 ....................................................................................................................................................................39
Figure 16: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by number of meals taken at
home.................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 17: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by number of home
possessions ......................................................................................................................................................41
Figure 18: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by number of home
educational resources ................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 19: English and mathematics performance by highest parental education for 2022
..............................................................................................................................................................................42
Figure 20: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by socio-economic status ... 43
Figure 21: Socio-economic status by proficiency levels for English ..........................................44
Figure 22: Socio-economic status by proficiency levels for mathematics .............................. 44
Figure 23: English and mathematics performance by number of days absent per term,
2022 ....................................................................................................................................................................45
Figure 24: English and mathematics performance for 2022 by age ..........................................46
Figure 25: Mean performance in English and mathematics by school type since 2012 ... 51

List of tables
Table 1: Sample characteristics in 2019, 2021 and 2022 ............................................................... 19
Table 2: Proficiency level cut-points ...................................................................................................... 23
Table 3: English and mathematics average scores by province for 2022 ................................32
Table 4: Distribution by pupils with disabilities .................................................................................37
Table 5: Performance in English since 2012 by age group ...........................................................46
Table 6: Performance in mathematics since 2012 by age group ............................................... 47
Table 7: Mean performance by school status in English and mathematics ........................... 50
Table 8: Performance in English and mathematics in schools with and without electricity
and water in 2012, 2019, 2021 and 2022 .............................................................................................52
Table 9: Performance in indigenous languages for 2022 ..............................................................54
Table 10: Performance in indigenous languages by province, 2022 ........................................ 56
Table 11: Performance in indigenous languages by gender, 2022 ........................................... 56