Quality Improvement of Early Primary Education in Ethiopia

A Mixed Methods Study of Save the Children Supported Schools in

Amhara and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regions

Michael Wondemu

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

December 2017
ii
Quality Improvement of Early Primary Education in Ethiopia
A Mixed Methods Study of Save the Children Supported Schools in
Amhara and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regions

iii
© Michael Wondemu

2017

Quality Improvement of Early Primary Education in Ethiopia

A Mixed Methods Study of Save the Children Supported Schools in Amhara and Southern
Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regions

Michael Wondemu

http://www.duo.uio.no/

University of Oslo

Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo

iv
 ABSTRACT

Integrating quality with access is a main challenge globally, notably in low income countries such
as Ethiopia. The government in Ethiopia has put a special emphasis on addressing issues of
quality of education and is supported in its efforts by international agencies, including Save the
Children (SC). This study examines quality improvement efforts in early primary education in
public primary schools supported by SC in Ethiopia. It has two general objectives: to examine the
similarities and differences of SC supported schools in two regions in Ethiopia, namely Amhara
and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region (SNNPR) based on Save the Children
Norway (SCN) Quality Learning Environment (QLE) and student literacy raw data. It further
explores the particular factors contributing to a positive learning environment in the three best
performing schools based on their QLE results.

The study employs a mixed method design combining quantitative and qualitative data, but gives
more weight to the qualitative findings. Data were collected from the 2015 SCN dataset,
interviewees and participant observations. The findings show that schools in the Amhara region
are better in terms of the quality of the learning environment than schools in the SNNP region.
The length of time for SC intervention matters for the schools' quality of the learning
environment. Schools that achieved the four QLE guiding principles for a quality learning
environment have a higher literacy score than schools that did not achieve them.

Particular factors contributed to the quality of the learning environment in the three schools with
some differences across them. The factors are pedagogic processes, teacher motivation, special
needs education, textbooks for each subject and other learning materials, the use of the mother
tongue and the code of conduct, school, parent and community link, and basic school
infrastructure and teacher training. Factors that, to different degrees, negatively affected the
quality of education in the schools were lack of basic school infrastructure, access to clean water
and toilets, and teacher shortages.

The findings of the study are understood based on the three quality concepts of social justice
theory: inclusion, relevance and democracy. Understood in this way, the findings have
implications for SC and the Ethiopian Ministry of Education (MOE). In contrast to the inclusion
dimension, basic school infrastructure and teacher motivation are not particularly emphasized in
SC's QLE framework. Similarly, teacher motivation, special needs education, access to clean
water and toilet facilities and menstrual hygiene products are not addressed in the MOE
understanding of quality. In contrast to the relevance dimension, relevance to national education
goals is not stressed in QLE. Contrary to the democracy dimension, the use of code of conduct in
schools is not included in the MOE understanding of quality.

v
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to the memory of my dear father, who gave me unconditional
love and support.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks go to my dad, who passed away during the period of writing the thesis, and my
mom for her continuous support.

I would like to express my deepest and sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Lene
Buchert, for her patience, motivation, professional and substantive support. Next, I would
like to express my sincere thanks to my co-supervisor, Henok Zeratsion, for his valuable
support, notably in the quantitative part of the study. I am also very grateful to the Norwegian
Quota scheme for the financial support.

Many thanks to the respondents, especially the students who agreed to participate in the
study. I am extremely thankful to my friends, including but not limited to Addis Alemayehu,
Arber Ademi, Brook Addis, Endalew Mehari, Hanna Abate, Samuel Kebede and Yonas
Bayru. Last but not least, I am extremely thankful to the administrators of the Amhara
Education Office and Libo Kemekem District Education Bureau. The research would not
have been possible without their support.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ v
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF BOX, FIGURES, PHOTOS AND TABLES ........................................................................... x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Focus of the Study and its Justification ................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................................... 8
THE CONTEXT FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALITY IN ETHIOPIA.................................................... 8
2.1 The Socio-Economic and Political Background of Ethiopia ........................................................ 8
2.2 The Golden Age: Education Policy of the Emperor Regime, 1941-1973 ..................................... 9
2.3 The Education Policy of the Derg Government, 1974-1991....................................................... 10
2.4 Ethiopian Educational Development from 1991 to the Present Situation ................................... 10
2.5 The Ethiopian Ministry of Education Definition of Educational Quality ................................... 13
2.6 The Role of International Organizations in Ethiopian Educational Policy Development .......... 14
2.7 The Role of Save the Children in Education in Ethiopia ............................................................ 16
2.8 The Quality Learning Environment: Save the Children's Quality Framework ........................... 18
CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................................................. 22
FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS FOR THE STUDY .......................................................................... 22
3.1 Definitions of and Approaches to Quality .................................................................................. 22
3.1.1 What is Quality? ...................................................................................................................... 22
3.1.2 The Human Capital Approach to Educational Quality ............................................................ 25
3.1.3 The Rights-based Approach to Educational Quality................................................................ 25
3.1.4 The Social Justice Approach to Quality................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................................................. 35
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 35
4.2 Research Methods and Types of Data....................................................................................... 36
4.3 Quantitative Data: The SCN Education Data Set ..................................................................... 37
4.3.1 The QLE Dataset ..................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.2 Student Literacy ....................................................................................................................... 39
4.4 Qualitative Data: Fieldwork ...................................................................................................... 40
4.4.1 Interviews................................................................................................................................. 41
4.4.2 Non-Participant Observation ................................................................................................... 42
4.5 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 43
4.5.1 Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................................... 43
4.5.2 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................................. 44
4.6 Units and Levels of Analysis ...................................................................................................... 46

viii
 4.7 Data Quality: Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................ 47
4.8 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................ 48
4.9 Major Challenges ........................................................................................................................ 48
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................................. 50
5.1 Best Performing Regions and Schools According to QLE Results ............................................ 50
5.1.1 Best Performing Regions According to QLE .......................................................................... 50
5.1.2 Best Performing Schools in QLE and Student Literacy Scores .............................................. 51
5.1.3 School Achievement based on Length of SC Intervention......................................................51
5.1.4 Relationship between the Schools' Quality of Learning Environment and Student Literacy .. 53
5.2 Quality Improvement of the Best Performing SC Supported Primary Schools .......................... 54
5.2.1 The Inclusion Dimension ......................................................................................................... 54
5.2.1.1 Basic School Infrastructure and Human Resources .............................................................. 55
5.2.1.2 Safe and Healthy Learning Space ......................................................................................... 59
5.2.1.3 Textbooks and other Learning Materials .............................................................................. 64
5.2.1.4 Pedagogic Processes and ICT Supported Learning .............................................................. 66
5.2.1.5 Special Needs Education....................................................................................................... 70
5.2.1.6 Teacher Training and Motivation Mechanisms .................................................................... 71
5.2.2 The Relevance Dimension ....................................................................................................... 73
5.2.2.1 Use of the Mother Tongue .................................................................................................... 73
5.2.3. The Democracy Dimension...................................................................................................75
5.2.2.2 Relevance for National Educational Goals ........................................................................... 74
5.2.3.1 School Code of Conduct ....................................................................................................... 76
5.2.3.2 School, Parent and Community Links .................................................................................. 77
5.2.4 Administrator, Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Quality of Education ................................ 79
5.3. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER SIX ..................................................................................................................................... 83
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 83
6.1 Summary and Interpretation........................................................................................................ 83
6.1.1 Research Question No. 1.......................................................................................................... 83
6.1.2 Research Question No. 2.......................................................................................................... 84
6.2 Implications of the Study ............................................................................................................ 89
6.3 Suggestions for Further Research ............................................................................................... 91
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 92
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 98
Annex I: Interview Checklist ................................................................................................................ 98
Annex II: Observation Checklist......................................................................................................... 102
Annex III: Assumptions of Independent Samples T-test .................................................................... 105
Annex IV: Normality Test, Skewness and Kurtosis ........................................................................... 106
Annex V: Test of Reliability ............................................................................................................... 108
Annex VI: Consent Form .................................................................................................................... 109
Annex VII: Average Score on the 28 QLE Sub standards, by School ................................................ 110

ix
 LIST OF BOX, FIGURES, PHOTOS AND TABLES
BOX

Box 4.1 The QLE Four-point Scoring Scale ........................................................................................ 39

FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Map of Ethiopia .................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2.2 Save the Children’s QLE Framework............................................................................... 19
Figure 3.1 A Framework for Understanding Education Quality........................................................ 23
Figure 3.2 A Framework for Understanding Educational Quality in Africa ..................................... 29
Figure 4.1 Visual Presentation of Embedded Mixed Methods Design .............................................. 36
Figure 4.2 Map of Libo Kemekem District........................................................................................ 40
Figure 4.3 Data Analysis Visual Presentation.................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.4 A Framework for Comparative Education Analysis ........................................................ 46

PHOTOS
Photo 5.1 School A classroom ........................................................................................................... 56
Photo 5.2 School C outside classroom view ...................................................................................... 56
Photo 5.3 Water tank provided by SC for School A .......................................................................... 58
Photo 5.4 Ongoing construction in School B ..................................................................................... 63

TABLES

Table 1.1 Schools' Average QLE Score and Percentage of Schools achieving all QLE
Guiding Principles, by Country, 2015 (it would be better if you could indent this line) ....................... 5
Table 2.1 Education Budget in ESDP III and ESDP IV, 2005-2015, by Main Stakeholder............... 16
Table 2.2 QLE Indicators .................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.1 Framework of Analysis for the Study ................................................................................. 33
Table 4.1 Types and Sources of Data, by Research Question ............................................................ 37
Table 4.2 Number of SCN Schools Sampled in 2015, by Country................................................... 38
Table 4.3 Category and Number of Informants, by School ................................................................ 42
Table 4.4 Examples of Thematising Qualitative Data ........................................................................ 45
Table 5.1 Average Score on the 28 QLE Sub-standards, by School.................................................. 52
Table 5.2 Schools' Achievement of all QLE Guiding Principles, by Region, % ................................ 51
Table 5.3 Schools' Achievement of all QLE Guiding Principles based on the Length of SC
Intervention, %...................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 5.4 Student Literacy in Schools Achieving/Not Achieving the QLE Guiding Principles. ...... 53
Table 6. 1 Factors affecting Quality in School A, B and C .................................................................. 85

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CRC- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of the United Nation

ECCD Early Childhood Care and Development
EFA Education For All
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
ETP Education and Training Policy
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GCE Global Campaign for Education
MOE Ethiopian Ministry of Education
NGO Non-governmental Organization
Norad Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
PTA Parent Teacher Association
QLE Quality Learning Environment
SC Save the Children
SCI Save the Children International
SCN Save the Children Norway
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region
SST Sub-standard
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Unicef United Nations Children's Fund
WB World Bank

xi
xii
xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
The issue of quality of education is predominant in the international discourse on
education and development. Over the past decade, the focus on international education
development has shifted from access to quality. This is because quality is considered as being
at the heart of education. It is also believed that achievement in access depends on the quality
of education (UNESCO, 2015a; UNESCO, 2005; SC, 2012). The efforts of integrating
quality with access is a main challenge globally since millions of children are able to go to
school but fail to learn the required basic skills because of poor quality of education
(UNESCO, 2015a; SC, 2012).

In 1990, Education for All (EFA) was launched in Jomtien at the World Conference
on EFA. EFA was a global commitment to quality of basic education for all children, youth
and adults. The declaration identified quality as a prerequisite to achieving equity. A decade
later, in 2000, the EFA goals were reaffirmed at the World Conference held in Dakar. Goal 2
and 6 of the Dakar Framework for Action commit nations to the provision of primary
education of good quality, and to improve all of its aspects (UNESCO, 2004). However, the
planned goals were not met by the 2015 deadline, particularly in the poorest developing
countries and conflict-affected states (UNESCO, 2015a). The new global education goal in
the post-2015 Sustainable Development agenda also focuses on quality. Goal 4 recognizes
that ensuring an inclusive and equitable quality of education is indispensable for achieving
the best possible learning outcomes needed to attain sustainable development. It also states
that quality of education enhances the skills of literacy and numeracy, problem-solving,
cognitive, interpersonal and social skills (UNESCO, 2014).

There is much discussion in the academic and international community on what

constitutes educational quality and a quality improvement process. Quality is an elusive,
multifaceted concept and difficult to measure. In the academic discourse on quality, the
behaviourist, humanist, critical, and constructivist traditions explain the concept of quality
differently. The behaviourist tradition has an absolute interpretation of quality, emphasizing
the economist view of educational quality. It means defining quality as related to quantitative
learning outcomes and cognitive achievement. In contrast, the humanist tradition of quality

1
has a relativist interpretation of quality focusing on educational processes (Barrett, Duggan,
Lowe, Nikel, & Ukpo, 2006). From the critical theory point of view, quality is defined as the
effectiveness in the outcomes of education and value transmission (UNESCO, 2004). The
constructivist tradition emphasizes quality as learners actively constructing their own
knowledge of the world based on their own experiences (Young & Marks Maran, 1998).

International and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Children's
Fund (Unicef), the World Bank (WB) and Save the Children (SC) have their own
conceptualization of educational quality. For example, Unicef views quality as related to the
issue of human rights, having five interrelated dimensions of learners, environments, content,
processes and outcomes (Unicef, 2000). According to Unicef, quality can be improved when
the teaching and learning process is implemented in a healthy, safe and conducive learning
environment, and when children, parents and the community become active participants in
school decision-making (Unicef, 2009). The bilateral-multilateral organizations and
international and national NGOs have had a growing influence on quality improvement
initiatives. Non-governmental actors, the private sector and civil society in collaboration with
national governments have played a key role in this regard. UNESCO, Unicef, and the WB
are among the very influential international organizations that are involved in quality
improvement efforts, especially in the countries of the South (Abdeljalil & Lauwerier, 2014).

SC is also an important player on the international scene concerning quality

improvement efforts. SC was launched in 1919 in the United Kingdom with the aim to
improve the lives of children by fostering better education and health care. The agency strives
to ensure that children enjoy their right to good quality of education. SC is an umbrella
organization, currently consisting of 30 national SC organisations, including SC USA, SC
Canada and SC Norway (SCN). All members have a shared vision and common values to
address the needs of children globally. The agency has been providing continuous support to
education programmes worldwide, thereby informing its Global Education Strategy to ensure
access to basic education of good quality (SC, 2016). SCN is responsible for leading, on
behalf of SC International, the global initiative on education. “SCN facilitates involvement in
education by Save the Children members, and also in global initiatives, such as child rights
governance, protection, and health and nutrition, which are led by other SC members” (SCN,
2014, p. 4). SCN is responsible for measuring SC's educational contribution in the global
educational strategy (SCN, 2014).

2
 SC has its own framework for understanding educational quality, which is the Quality
Learning Environment (QLE). The QLE is a holistic framework for quality education,
designed to foster better learning outcomes for all children in school. QLE has four guiding
principles for quality of education. These are emotional and psychological protection,
physical protection, active learning processes and improved learning outcomes, and
participation. SC uses the QLE framework to examine quality in SC-supported schools.

SC has been providing continuous support to education programmes worldwide to

ensure access to basic education of good quality, and performs its work based on the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The agency operates in over 120 nations,
mostly in developing countries. Ethiopia is one of the countries and SC has been operating
there since the 1930s. SC currently runs an extensive educational programme in Ethiopia
aimed at improving the quality of education. It has 39 offices across the country in all the
regional states of Amhara, Tigrai, Oromia, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples
Region (SNNPR), Benishangul-Gumuz, Somalia and Afar and in the main city of Addis
Ababa (SC, 2016).

Over the last two decades, the Ethiopian government has invested highly in education,
and huge improvements have taken place in terms of access to education at primary,
secondary and tertiary levels (Ethiopian Ministry of Education (MOE), 2014). The
introduction of the Education and Training Policy (ETP) in 1994 helped to increase access to
education at all levels of the education system (MOE, 2014), but this happened at the expense
of quality (UNESCO, 2015b). The 2015 EFA Global Monitoring Report states that Ethiopia
achieved large increases in both pre-primary and primary enrolment since 1994. However, the
quality of education is poor. Until now, student achievement has not adequately improved, the
pupil-teacher ratio is 37:1, and students are not active participants in the teaching and learning
process (UNESCO, 2015a).

1.2 The Focus of the Study and its Justification

Presently, Ethiopia has put special emphasis on addressing the issues of quality of
education, access, equity, and relevance. The government efforts are supported by
international agencies and NGOs. So far little research has been conducted on the role of
international NGOs in general or of SC in particular on quality improvement of early primary
education in Ethiopia, even though SC has run an extensive education program in the country
since the 1990s, specifically in early primary education, aimed at improving the quality of

3
education (SC, 2016). Hence, it is worth examining the quality improvement efforts of early
primary education (Grades 1-4) in SC supported schools in Ethiopia.

The study has two general objectives aimed at answering 'what' and 'why' questions:
(a) to examine the similarities and differences of SC supported schools in two regions in
Ethiopia based on SCN's QLE and student literacy raw data; (b) to explore the factors
contributing to a positive learning environment in the schools. The study employs a mixed
method design combining quantitative and qualitative data, i.e. the SCN education
quantitative dataset and field work qualitative data. The first objective is met using the SCN
quantitative raw data. The second objective, which is exploratory, is met through fieldwork to
collect qualitative data.

The SCN education dataset consists of quantitative raw data of seven African
countries’ student literacy scores, schools' QLE results, and enrolment, retention and dropout
rates. The study particularly uses the Ethiopia dataset of schools' QLE result and the student
literacy score. The Ethiopia dataset only includes data from the Amhara and SNNP regions.
The similarities and differences of school performance in the two regions are examined using
the QLE and literacy data.

The rationale for choosing Ethiopia as a case country was based on the performance
of schools in QLE in the seven countries in Africa where SC is active. Based on schools'
average QLE score and percentage of schools' achievement of the four QLE guiding
principles, the SC supported schools in Ethiopia perform better than in the other six African
countries. As can be seen in Table 1.1, out of the sampled 73 schools, Ethiopia has an
average QLE score of 2.4 and almost one third (28.8%) of schools achieved the four QLE
guiding principles. SC supported schools in Somalia follow with an average QLE score of 2.2
but only 9.8% of schools achieved the four QLE guiding principles. Malawi has an average
QLE score of 2.1 and only 1% of the schools achieved the four guiding principles. Uganda,
Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Niger have average QLE scores of 2.1, 1.9, 1.8, and 1.4 and no
schools achieved the four QLE guiding principles.

4
Table 1.1 Schools’ Average QLE Score and Percentage of Schools achieving all QLE
Guiding Principles, by Country, 2015
Rank Country Schools' QLE Percentage of schools achieving
Average all QLE guiding principles

1 Ethiopia 2.4 28.8

2 Somalia 2.2 9.8

3 Malawi 2.1 1

4 Uganda 2.1 0

5 Zimbabwe 1.9 0

6 Mozambique 1.8 0

7 Niger 1.4 0

Source: SCN, 2015

Note: The table has been constructed based on the SPSS output using SCN raw data.

Using the Ethiopia dataset, the study identified which schools and regions perform
better based on the QLE results. Schools' QLE results were examined in relation to the length
of time for SC interventions. Following this, the students' literacy scores were examined in
the context of the schools' QLE results.

Researchers, such as Hanushek and Wößmann (2009) and Tikly and Barrett (2013)
note that the notion of quality involves basic skills of literacy and numeracy. Efforts to
achieve quality of education in early primary education primarily aim at improving student
achievement of cognitive skills (McCormac, 2012). According to the EFA goals, literacy is
considered one of the fundamental rights, an essential part of the right of every individual to
education. It is also one of the most neglected EFA goals (UNESCO, 2006). Poor literacy is
one of the prominent challenges that hinder the quality of education, especially in the global
South (UNESCO, 2006). International, regional and national assessment tests show that a
substantial proportion of primary school students do not have even basic levels of literacy and
numeracy (UNESCO, 2010 cited in Tikly & Barrett, 2013). Hence, the efforts to improve the
quality of primary education must focus on student learning outcomes of literacy and
numeracy. In this respect, this study examines the relationship between the schools' quality of

5
the learning environment and student performance using the QLE and student literacy data.
SC collects student literacy data in addition to the QLE data as part of measuring student
learning outcomes.

The fieldwork qualitative data are used to compare the best performing primary
schools in the Amhara region based on their QLE results. It aims at examining the particular
factors contributing to the quality of the learning environment in the schools, and whether
these are also important for SC and the MOE.

1.3 Research Questions

The study is guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences of the quality of the learning environment
in the SC supported schools in the Amhara and SNNP regions?

a) What schools and regions perform better based on the QLE results?

b) What is the relationship between the schools' QLE results and the length of
time of SC intervention in the schools?

c) What is the relationship between the schools' QLE results and student
literacy performance?

2. What are the particular factors contributing to the quality of the learning
environment in the selected primary schools?

1.4 Organization of the Study

The study is organized into six chapters. Following the introduction, Chapter two
provides the contextual background to the study, discussing the socio-economic and
political situation of Ethiopia and its education system and the role of international
organizations and SC in quality improvement efforts in the country. It discusses
understandings of quality in Ethiopia and explains the QLE framework.

Chapter three outlines the definitions and approaches to quality and also
introduces the framework of analysis for the study. The framework of analysis was
developed by combining three interrelated dimensions of quality in the social justice
perspective, namely inclusion, relevance and democracy, with the QLE framework and in
view of the MOE definition of quality.

6
 Chapter four introduces the research design and methodology. It discusses the
philosophical assumptions, research methods and types of data, the research site, sampling
procedures, units and levels of analysis, reliability and validity issues, ethical considerations,
and major challenges of the study.

Chapter five presents the results and analysis of data. The data gathered from the SCN
education dataset, interviews and non-participant observations are discussed in the context of
the framework of analysis for the study. It identifies the best performing schools and regions
from the QLE, examines schools' QLE results in relation to the length of time of the SC
interventions, and examines the relationship between schools' QLE results and student literacy
scores. It also identifies the particular factors contributing to the quality of the learning
environment in the best performing SC supported schools.

Chapter six summarizes the research findings and interpretations in view of the
framework of analysis for the study. It also discusses the implications of the study for SC and
the government as related to their understanding of quality. It, finally, makes suggestions for
further research seen in light of the limitations of the study.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

THE CONTEXT FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALITY IN ETHIOPIA

Ethiopia is located in the horn of Africa and shares its borders with Eritrea, Djibouti,
Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan (Figure 2.1). It has the second highest population in
Africa next to Nigeria, estimated at around 102.4 million in 2016 (WB, 2017). The country
has more than 80 ethno linguistic groups. It has nine States and two City Councils which are
based on settlement, language, and identity. Amharic is the official working language at the
Federal level (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), 2004). According to the
2007 national census, 43.5% of the population are Christians and 33.9% are Muslims
(Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency (ECSA), 2007).

Figure 2.1 Map of Ethiopia

Source: InfoPlease, 2000-2016

2.1 The Socio-Economic and Political Background of Ethiopia

Ethiopia is the oldest independent African nation and was never governed under
colonial rule (Gordon cited in Bekele, 2004). Agriculture plays a significant role in the
Ethiopian economy with 85% of the population being engaged in farming (FDRE, 2004).
Agriculture highly contributes to foreign exports, including coffee, flowers, vegetables, and

8
sugar (Bekele, 2004). After the fall of Ethiopia’s communist military regime in 1987, the
country engaged in massive fiscal and political decentralization efforts to support sustainable
economic development. Although Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world, it has
invested hugely in physical infrastructure and human resources over the past two decades.
The economy grew impressively by 11.8% annually between 2004 and 2007 (McCormac,
2012) and continued to grow by 10% annually until 2014. Since 2014, economic growth has
gradually decreased because the 2015 El Niño climate change caused severe drought in some
regions of the country (Sudan Tribune, July 6, 2016).

Since the 1940s, Ethiopia has experienced three systems of political governance, each
with a different education policy. The first one was the emperor Haileselasse regime that
lasted until 1974. The second was the socialist system during 1974-1991, and the third one is
the current federal administration which started in 1994 governed by the Ethiopian People’s
Republic Democratic Front (EPRDF) (Bekele, 2004). Currently, Ethiopia has experienced
violent anti-government protests, mainly by the Oromo people. The ongoing protests started
in November 2015 and led to the death of an estimated 400-500 people. The plan to expand
the boundaries of Addis Ababa to Oromia region was the initial cause of the protest. It then
expanded to include political freedoms that challenge the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front
(TPLF) dominated government structure (Stratfor, 2016).

In the following section, the aims and development of the education system are
discussed from the regime of the Emperor (1941-1973) to the socialist system that was
replaced in 1991 by the current federal system of governance. It focuses particularly on the
increasing importance of the issue of quality over access to education.

2.2 The Golden Age: Education Policy of the Emperor Regime, 1941-1973
In contrast to the previous Orthodox Christian dominated education system, the
emperor Haileselasse regime introduced the golden age of modern education in 1940. The
emperor administration strongly believed in the centrality of education as a vehicle of growth
and development. During this period, the education policy fostered incentives to encourage
students to join education. Brilliant students were given an opportunity to join vocational
secondary schools with free accommodation. In the 1940s and 1950s, there were not enough
schools available to students since schooling was free for all and therefore ensured access to
education for the poorer sections of the population. In 1950, the first higher education
institution, the University College of Addis Ababa, was established (Negash, 2006).

9
 In the 1960s, the MOE introduced a new education policy, which was functional until
1974. During this period, the focus on technical and vocational training continued to be
prioritized. Vocational training was provided along with formal education. The policy enabled
the government to expand the public school system. In 1971, there were only 1,300 primary
and secondary schools and 13,000 teachers. Besides, the education system suffered from a
shortage of qualified teachers, financial constraints, and overcrowded classrooms (Teferra &
Altbatch, 2003).

2.3 The Education Policy of the Derg Government, 1974-1991

Following the Derg socialist government which came to power in 1974, the Ethiopian
education policy was dramatically changed to the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The economy
was socialized and the education policy defined quality as preparing students to respond to
the demands of the socialist ideology. Priority was given to research activity, and science and
technology (Negash, 2006). During this period, ensuring the right of every citizen to free
primary education was prioritized in support of the socialist ideology of education for the
masses, i.e. education for production, for research and for political consciousness. Public
ownership of schools was considered to be the best strategy to enhance access to primary
education.

The net national enrolment ratio at primary and secondary levels dramatically
improved compared to the previous regime (Bishaw & Lasser, 2012). According to Negash
(2006), the gross enrolment ratio increased from 15.8% in 1974 to 36.2% in 1988-89.
Primary education expanded throughout the country, but the attempt to increase learning
spaces significantly affected the quality of education. Educational quality decreased because
of the scarcity of human and financial resources. Lack of trained teachers, inadequate
teaching and learning materials, and overcrowded classrooms were among the problems that
hindered the quality of education. The education policy and the curriculum were influenced
by Eastern European governments, mainly Eastern Germany, Bulgaria and Hungary since
policy advisors were assigned from Eastern European countries to participate in the
curriculum development process (Bishaw & Lasser, 2012).

2.4 Ethiopian Educational Development from 1991 to the Present Situation

In 1991, the current government of Ethiopia, EPRDF, overthrew the socialist regime
after a long and devastating civil war. EPRDF has prioritized investment in education,
believing that sustainable development relies on the expansion and provision of quality of

10
education for all citizens. Three years after EPRDF seized power, Ethiopia introduced the
Education and Training Policy (ETP) in 1994. This was the third education policy in the
country since 1945. The ETP played a pivotal role in creating opportunities for the private
sector to make its own inputs into the education sector. Following the initiation of this policy,
the MOE managed to mobilize external support through bilateral or multilateral agreements
to improve the education sector. The Ethiopian Government has given due attention to early
childhood care and education in the ETP. Much emphasis was also given to the expansion of
tertiary education, and the enrolment rate in higher education has consistently increased
(Negash 2006).

The ETP emphasized access, equity, efficiency, quality and relevance in education as
important to ensure sustainable development (Bishaw & Lasser, 2012). As a result, the gross
enrolment in primary schools doubled between 1990 and 2004. According to the 2015 EFA
Global Monitoring Report “the percentage of children who had never been to school
decreased by remarkable rates from 67% in 2000 to 28% in 2011” (UNESCO, 2015a, p. 81).
The Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) increased from 41.7% for girls and 48.8% for boys in 2001
to 90.1% for girls and 95.1% for boys in 2014. In 2014, over 30,000 schools provided
educational services for children (UNESCO, 2015b; Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
(MFAF), 2014). Primary education is divided into basic education/primary first cycle (grades
1–4) and general primary education/primary second cycle (grades 5–8).

The ETP was designed based on the rights-based approach to education, recognizing
the right to education as a human right. Yodit (2009) notes that:

The ETP envisages that “basic education” will be the right of all individuals of the
country and the education system will ensure that the provision and spread of
education will be equitable in the different parts of the country, with particular
reference to girls (p. 43).

Since 2000, Ethiopia has been committed to achieve universal primary education by
the year 2015. The country strived to expand access and improve efficiency, equity (in
relation to gender and regional disparities), quality and relevance in education. UNESCO and
Unicef (2007) state that these four key elements are essential in the rights-based approach to
education. Among these, Ethiopia has given greater emphasis to ensuring access to primary
education of good quality. There was continued emphasis on making basic and primary
education free of charge in public schools.

11
 Within the framework of the ETP, the Education Sector Development Program
(ESDP) (I-IV) was launched in 1997 (MOE, 2008). It is a long-term, 20-year education sector
indicative plan to achieve universal primary education by 2015. It is revised every five years
and the fourth cycle of the plan was finalized in September 2015. According to the MOE:

ESDPs I and II concluded in 2001/02 and 2004/05, respectively, with remarkable

success in expanding access to primary education. Primary school enrolment was
boosted from 3.7 million in 1999 to 8.1 million in 2000/01, and grew to 13.5 million
in 2005/06. During the same period, the gross enrolment rate increased from 61.6% to
91.3%, and the net enrolment rate grew from 52.2% to 77.5% (MOE cited in
UNICEF, 2010, p. 1).

However, achievements in access highly compromised the quality of education and

affected learning outcomes. Educational services in schools also declined in quality because
of rapid expansion. In response, the third phase of the ESDP was launched in 2006. It had
more emphasis on universalizing access to quality primary education by 2015, and to quality
secondary education by 2025 (MOE, 2010). It was designed in line with the priorities of the
Millennium Development Goals, i.e. achieving good quality universal primary education and
gender equality by 2015 (Yodit, 2009). To that end, in 2007, the MOE introduced the General
Education Quality Improvement Program (GEQIP) to improve the quality of education in
Ethiopia. The program has four key areas of intervention; (a) the Teacher Development
Program; (b) curriculum improvement; (c) leadership and management; and (d) the School
Improvement Program (MOE, 2008). By doing so, Ethiopia has made significant progress in
some aspects of quality of education compared to the previous years. For instance, more
trained teachers were made available, and the teacher-pupil ratio decreased from 32:1 in
2004/05 to 16:1 in 2008/09 in early primary education (MOE, 2010).

During the implementation period of ESDP III, access to education increased at a

higher rate at all levels of the education system, but challenges related to quality were still
rampant (MOE, 2010). The average qualifications of teachers had gone down; many schools,
particularly at the primary level, were constructed using non-durable materials which affected
children’s motivation to attend and remain in school. There were also insufficient qualified
teachers, primarily for mathematics and science. The availability of teaching and learning,
and ICT materials was poor. Student achievement also gradually decreased compared to the
previous years (MOE, 2010).

12
 The ESDP IV plan was introduced with the intention to address these challenges. It
has “a consistent focus on the enhancement of the teaching and learning process and the
transformation of the school into a motivational and child-friendly learning environment”
(MOE, 2010, p. 6). The country started to implement the fifth Educational Sector
Development Programme (ESDP V) in September 2015. It conceptualizes quality based on
the components of GEQIP, namely quality of teacher and leader development; curriculum,
teaching and learning materials; and school improvement initiatives. Compared to the
GEQIP, the ESDP V has two additional components of quality: the use of ICT; and quality
assurance initiatives.

2.5 The Ethiopian Ministry of Education Definition of Educational Quality

As stated above, the MOE defines quality based on the four key elements of GEQIP:
teacher development; curriculum improvement; leadership and management; and school
improvement. MOE (2008) notes that, “the GEQIP takes a holistic approach to improve the
quality of general education by adapting the concept of the school effectiveness model” (p.
4). The GEQIP aims at improving quality, including inputs, outputs, and processes
(McCormac, 2012).

The first element of quality, i.e. teacher development, stresses that quality relies on an
increased supply of academically qualified, motivated and ethically trained teachers, and on
in-service and pre-service teacher development efforts in primary and secondary education.
The second element, curriculum improvement, includes re-arranging and updating the content
of the curriculum, and increasing the availability of textbooks and teacher guides. The third
component of quality which is capacity development for education sector planning and
management, aims at building the capacity of federal and regional level strategic planning by
increasing human and financial resources (MOE, 2008).

The fourth element of quality is school improvement. The aim is to ensure that
schools achieve minimum standards to support effective teaching and learning in a healthy
and safe environment. It encompasses four key aspects: improving an active teaching and
learning process; ensuring instructional leadership and management; creating a conducive
and attractive learning environment by providing basic operational resources to schools; and
encouraging community participation in resource utilization and in school decision making
processes (MOE, 2008). These aspects are highly related to the SC core principles of QLE as
will be discussed below.

13
 As stated above, the current ESDP V conceptualizes quality by adding two core
components. According to MOE (2015):

The use of ICT includes increasing the use of ICT in education by expanding and
improving ICT infrastructure at all levels, producing and widely distributing digital
education resources and building the ICT skills and capacity of teachers and leaders to
support curriculum delivery. Quality assurance also means providing oversight of
teacher skills through licensing of the school’s teaching and learning environment
through inspection and of overall system performance through regular assessment of
student achievement (p. 55).

The development of education and of policy-making in Ethiopia is undertaken in

collaboration with external and internal partners. As discussed below, major multilateral and
bilateral organisations have a long presence in Ethiopia as do international and national non-
government organisations, such as SC.

2.6 The Role of International Organizations in Ethiopian Educational Policy

Development
During 1955-1974, the United States and Sweden were the major countries supporting
the Ethiopian education sector and policy reform through the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) and Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (Sida). Negash (2006) notes that during the golden age period, the education policy
was also shaped by UNESCO and the WB with the aim of human capital expansion; but
UNESCO had the upper hand. During this period, UNESCO suggested that the Ethiopian
education policy should emphasize the “role of education in the economic development of the
state, with the aim of investment in human capital via the promotion and eventual expansion
of the education system” (Negash, 2006, p. 13).

After the Derg socialist government took power, the USAID role in Ethiopian
education policy reform stopped because of the ideological change. However, Sida continued
to provide assistance throughout the entire period. Sida supported the newly introduced
education policy and curriculum in collaboration with German aid agencies (Negash, 1996).
Under the Derg regime, one important policy change was adopted based on an equity driven
reform. This policy is based on the right of every citizen to free access to primary education.
Unlike USAID, many Eastern European countries and, significantly, Sida supported this
policy reform to ensure access to primary education for all (Bishaw & Lasser, 2012). Sida

14
also supported the efforts in primary education development in the rural areas during 1975-
1990 by constructing schools, and providing teaching and learning materials.

Since 1991, while maintaining the main financial responsibility, Ethiopia has received
substantial financial and non-monetary support for the ESDP from international donors (Table
2.1). The role of donors in ESDP is to participate in coordination of the policy dialogue and to
provide technical assistance in the implementation process, mostly in primary education,
focusing on curriculum and staff development, and teacher training. Donor assistance was
provided as direct budgetary support and not tied to any specific part of the sector programme
(Lasonen, Kemppainen & Raheem, 2005). During 2005-2015, of the total cost of 11.1 billion
USD for the education sector in ESDP III and ESDP IV, 2.8 billion USD (25.4%) was
covered by bilateral and multilateral donors and NGOs. Table 2.1 shows that the donor
contribution increased annually but has slowed since 2011. According to MOE (2015), the
ongoing economic growth in the country enabled the government to cover most of the
education budget from taxation. During the period of ESDP IV, the government budget to
education was increased from 6.5 billion Eth. birr in 2010/11 to 8.4 billion Eth. birr in
2014/15. Overall, the proportion of the education budget of the total budget increased from
20% during 2005-2010 to 25% during 2011-2015 (MOE, 2015).

The country adopted four major reforms supported by international organizations:

decentralized management; universalization of primary and post-primary education; cost
sharing (in tertiary education) to ensure additional funding for primary education; and the 70-
30 quota enrolment policy1 in natural and social sciences in favour of science and technology
with the aim to foster economic development (Molla, 2013).

As Oulai, Lugaz, Minas and Teklehaimanot (2011) note the non-monetary support by
international donors to the ESDP has been massive. Since 1991, the WB, Sida, UNESCO,
Unicef, USAID, SC, DFID, Irish Development Cooperation, and the Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (Norad) have played a pivotal role in Ethiopian education policy
reform and practice.

1
The government introduced the 70-30 quota enrolment policy aimed at increasing the number of students
enrolled in natural science streams in higher education. All public universities should allocate 70% of the
admissions to natural science subjects and 30% to social science subjects.

15
Table 2. 1 Education Budget in ESDP III and ESDP IV, 2005-2015, by Main Stakeholder

ESDP III ESDP IV Total

Year 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2005-2015

USD
million
Bilateral, 38 94 191 268 305 382 385 387 395 400 2.8
Multilateral, Eth. birr
billion
NGOs
0.3 0.8 1.7 2.9 4.8 6.5 6.8 7.3 7.9 8.4 47.4
Contribution USD
million
MOE 1.08 0.9 1 0.87 0.7 0.67 0.71 0.76 0.8 0.9 8.3
Eth.
birr
billion
8.7 8.9 9.8 9.2 8.7 11.7 12.9 14.5 16.2 18.3 118.6

Total USD
million
Education
1.12 1.09 1.19 1.14 1.01 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.3 11.1
Budget
Eth.
birr
billion 9 9.7 11.5 12.1 13.5 18.2 19.7 21.8 24.1 26.7 166

Source: Adapted from MOE, 2008; MOE, 2015

Note: 2015/16 data are not available. The MOE contribution and the total education budget declined in USD
in 2006/07, 2008/09, 2009/10 because of the currency depreciation of the Ethiopian birr against the
USD.

The WB has given policy recommendations through consultancy and research. It

outlined policy options in collaboration with national policy stakeholders. UNESCO was
involved in strengthening national educational capacities by giving training, technical advice,
policy evaluation and policy advice. SC has also been an important player in the development
of the national early childhood education curriculum in order to improve access to early
primary education in disadvantaged areas (SC, 2016).

2.7 The Role of Save the Children in Education in Ethiopia

The SC intervention in Ethiopia began in the 1930s. The first permanent offices in
Ethiopia were set up in 1965 by SC-Sweden and in 1974 by SC-UK. The agency’s earliest
work focused on providing humanitarian and emergency relief with the aim to address the

16
famine that devastated significant parts of Ethiopia. Presently, SC intervenes in different
programmatic areas, mainly health and education, nutrition and food security, water,
sanitation and hygiene, child protection, and child rights governance. In 2012, the SC
member organizations of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, UK and USA came
together to form a single organization, called Save the Children Ethiopia (SC, 2016).

SC has been supporting educational activities in Ethiopia in collaboration with the

MOE. In recognition of the main objective of SC to support national efforts based on child-
rights principles, the agency has been working closely at the policy level with the MOE’s
departments of education and development. SC also works with Regional Education Bureaus
supporting public schools in their efforts to ensure educational quality. The agency runs an
extensive educational programme in the country to expand access and improve the quality of
education. SC (2016) states that:

While nearly all children now have access to primary education, the quality of
education is low, and the average student now scores lower on national assessments
compared to a decade ago. SC supports early grade reading programs in nearly 3,000
schools for more than one million students that include teacher training,
improvements in classroom environments, and community mobilization (....) it also
runs teacher training and alternative basic education programs. In addition, SC is
providing access to education for refugee children that benefit more than 125,000
students in 2016 (p. 1).

SC supports the MOE by providing educational assistance under the Early Childhood
Care and Development (ECCD), Education for Youth Empowerment (EYE) and Education in
Emergencies (EiE) programs. ECCD aims at strengthening the Emergent Literacy and Maths
(ELM) skills of students in its preschool programs. During 2008-2014, SC implemented 46
educational projects by spending 50 million US dollars. During this period, the agency
constructed 313 primary schools, 272 alternative basic education centres, 20 satellite
classrooms, 86 teacher residences, 3 education offices, and also some school laboratories
(SC, 2014a).

SC has provided continuous educational support to improve children’s literacy skills

under the Literacy Boost program in two phases. The first one was during 2010-2012, and the
second during 2011-2014. The program aims at improving learning outcomes and quality of
primary education in the country. It focuses on enhancing children's skills of literacy: letter

17
knowledge, vocabulary, fluency, accuracy and comprehension. Literacy Boost provides
broad-based community mobilization for education. It has contributed to the increase in
student literacy by 24% in the supported regions. Within this program, SC provides technical
and financial support for schools. SC examines the output of this program using the QLE
(SC, 2014a).

2.8 The Quality Learning Environment: Save the Children's Quality Framework
SC monitors the results of its educational programs and interventions. This is done in
line with SC's Global Education Strategy (GES) which provides a global outcome indicators
framework to monitor all SC education interventions in three areas, namely access, quality
and literacy. The global indicators for access are used to understand the availability of
educational services in SC-supported schools. QLE is used to examine quality in SC-
supported schools. Literacy is used to measure learning outcomes (SC, 2013).

At the 2010 global SC education conference in Cambodia, SCI member organisations

agreed to formulate a holistic quality framework for education, i.e. the QLE framework. It is
globally implemented as a framework to support ECCD and basic education in stable and
fragile contexts. It is designed to foster better learning outcomes for all children in school. It
was developed over a period of two years by actively involving educational professionals and
practitioners within and outside of SCI. QLE views quality as a multi-dimensional and
complex construct which is ensured by collaborative efforts, including learners, teachers,
school staff, administrators, government, private sector, parents, families, civil society and
communities (Heijnen-Maathuis & Christensen, 2016).

During 2012-2016, more than 40 countries used the QLE framework as a monitoring
and planning tool for quality in ECCD and basic education programs (Heijnen-Maathuis &
Christensen, 2016).

Countries have contextualized and translated the QLE framework and selected how to
best use the framework in their context and programmes. In Nepal for example, the
QLE is used as a School Self-Assessment (SSA) framework to inform and monitor
school improvement, in Cambodia it is used to discuss gaps and priorities for sector
planning with Government partners and in Indonesia the QLE is used to assess the
inclusiveness of the education system at different levels (Heijnen-Maathuis &
Christensen, 2016, p. 6).

18
 QLE has four guiding principles for quality education, and each of these has its own
comprehensive indicators to assess and monitor quality (SC, 2013). Figure 2.2 presents the
four guiding principles of QLE, namely emotional and psychological protection, physical
protection, active learning process and improved learning outcomes, and parents and local
community participation. It has two contexts for understanding educational quality: a
development and an emergency context. In the development context, educational quality can
be improved through developing children’s basic literacy skills and their critical thinking,
communication, social and practical skills. In an emergency context, access to education of
quality is ensured by developing a child friendly learning environment (SCN, 2014).

Figure 2.2 Save the Children’s QLE Framework

Source: SC, 2013, p. 12

SC also developed indicators to monitor the four general principles of quality of

education. Table 2.1 presents the indicators that are categorized for each of the four principles
of QLE. The indicators include, amongst others, a code of conduct in school, a school
management plan, safe learning environment, teacher training and professional development,
the use of interactive teaching methods and the mother tongue, and parent-community
collaboration in school. The number of indicators by QLE guiding principle differs. For
example, comparatively more are indicated for QLE guiding principle 3, i.e. active learning
process and improved learning outcomes, which has 12 indicators, and to QLE guiding
principle 2, i.e. physical protection, with 7 indicators. In contrast, there are only 5 indicators
for QLE guiding principle 1 and 3 for QLE guiding principle 4.

19
Table 2.2 The QLE Indicators

1. Emotional and 2. physical protection 3. Active learning process, 4. Close collaboration

psychological Protection improved learning between school and
outcomes parents/community
1.1. Code of conduct for 2.1. Safe learning spaces 3.1. Teachers are present for 4.1. School management
learners and teachers their classes Committees, Parent teacher
association includes
representatives from the
community
1.2. School has a mechanism 2.2. Safe drinking water is 3.2. Teachers have 4.2. Teachers and parents
in place for receiving and specialized training and
available for learners and collaborate on key issues
responding to complaints national qualifications
from fellow learners and staffs affecting the children's
teachers
learning process, such as
absenteeism, sickness etc.
1.3.Learning environments 2.3. Adequate sanitation 3.3. Teachers are provided 4.3. Parents and
free from violence, with continuous support to
facilities communities are trained in
intimidation, bullying and improve practice
harassment how they can support the
3.4. Learning is supported learning process
1.4. The teacher interacts
with all learners in a positive through the use of relevant
2.4. Safe play areas
and respectful manner visual aids and other
regardless of their teaching materials
background

1.5. Teachers are trained in
psychosocial support to
detect cases of abuse or
trauma among their students
and provide support
2.5. Accessible learning 3.5. Teachers develop lesson
plans
environment in terms of
hours, location and fees
2.6. Learners participate in 3.6. Teachers use of mother
health promotion programs tongue

2.7. School disaster 3.7. Teachers ask individual

management plan questions and interact with
the learners

3.8. Teachers use informal

and formal learning
assessment tools

3.9. Teachers are trained on

child rights and protection
3.10. Learning participation
is ensured during
development and
implementation of teaching
and learning services
3.11. Learners participate
actively in decision making
activities in schools

3.12. The learning

environment encourages
expression of child rights

Source: SC, 2014b, p. 7

20
 It is also noticeable that the QLE indicators stress quality processes more than inputs
and outputs. Quality processes relate to a conducive and safe learning environment, teacher
training and ongoing professional development, student-parent-community participation,
code of conduct, and participatory teaching methods. Of important quality inputs in other
thinking (as will be discussed later), the QLE indicators do not include basic school
infrastructure and human resources, such as classrooms, a school library, and the availability
of teachers. Of important quality outputs (as will also be discussed later), there is no
emphasis on academic achievement, literacy and life skills in the QLE indicators.

The QLE guiding principles are in many ways consistent with the MOE definition of
quality. In both cases, there is strong emphasis on quality processes. For example, the first
component of GEQIP, i.e. teacher training, is also reflected in the QLE which stresses that
teachers must be trained to be able to undertake active learning processes and improve
learning outcomes. Aspects of the fourth component of GEQIP, i.e. school improvement, are
highly related to the core principles of QLE since creating an active teaching and learning
process, having a safe and conducive school environment and physical protection, and
ensuring close collaboration between school and community, are all vital to ensure quality of
education and support school improvement.

Countries, such as Nepal, Cambodia and Bhutan have contextualized the QLE guiding
principles and indicators in their national quality of education framework. In Nepal, the QLE
is used to examine school improvement in national school self-assessment. In Cambodia, it is
used to explain priorities and limitations for sector planning with government partners. In
Bhutan, the QLE is adopted by the government as the national quality framework for ECCD
(Heijnen-Maathuis & Christensen, 2016).

Thus, over time in Ethiopia the focus has shifted from access to quality of education,
notably after the introduction of GEQIP in 2007. This is because massive improvement in
access during the previous periods highly compromised the quality of education which is poor
in early primary schools. In response to this, SC is an important contributor to the efforts to
improve educational quality in collaboration with MOE and other stakeholders. The SC QLE
framework is a comprehensive framework which focuses on quality processes based on
specified indicators according to four guiding principles.

In the next chapter, this framework is seen in the context of other discussions of
quality in order to understand its comparative value. It is based on this discussion that the
framework of analysis for the study is developed.

21
 CHAPTER THREE

FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS FOR THE STUDY

In this chapter, the framework that guides the analysis of quality in SC supported
primary schools in Ethiopia is developed. It has been constructed based on a discussion of the
concept of and different approaches to quality in different academic traditions. This serves as
a basis both to place the QLE framework in context and to consider whether alternative or
additional indicators of quality should be considered for the study.

3.1 Definitions of and Approaches to Quality

3.1.1 What is Quality?

The concept of quality can be associated with different ideological, social and
political traditions. McCormac (2012) notes that various factors influence educational quality.
Therefore, it is difficult to have a universally agreed definition of quality. UNESCO (2000)
defines quality as “one that satisfies basic learning needs and enriches the lives of learners
and their overall experience of living” (p. 20). UNESCO also stresses the need to recognize
the relationship between access and quality when defining quality of education. This means
that efforts to expand access must be in line with efforts to improve quality of education. In
the UNESCO (2004) report developed by an independent research team, quality is
determined by a number of dimensions related to social context, learner characteristics, and
quality of inputs, leading to learning outcomes (Figure 3.1).

As displayed in Figure 3.1, learner characteristics cover the learner's socio-economic

background, health, place of residence and previous learning experience. Social context
includes: societal values and attitudes; national governance and policies; parental support;
economic and labour market conditions; and national standards. Inputs are interlinked with
the resources available to support the learning process and the direct ways in which these
resources are managed. It involves human and material resources, teaching methods,
assessment and feedback, physical structure and facilities, and school governance. Outcomes
of education concern academic achievement which includes examination of performance,
literacy, numeracy and life skills, creative and emotional skills, values and social benefits
(UNESCO, 2004).

22
Figure 3.1 A Framework for Understanding Education Quality
Source: UNESCO, 2004, p. 36

The UNESCO framework has elements that are similar to the Unicef (2002) quality
framework which has five dimensions: the learner; the quality environment; content; process;
and outcomes (see section 3.1.3). Both frameworks have some identical indicators related to
learning characteristics, inputs, content, and outcomes. These include understanding learners'
needs and capacities, availability of adequate human and material resources and use of active
teaching and learning methods. In terms of their difference, the Unicef understanding of
quality strongly emphasizes process rather than inputs. Similar to the QLE framework, the
Unicef understanding of quality has strong attention to the school environment, teaching and
learning methods, and school governance, considering these as part of the educational
process, whereas in the UNESCO definition, these are categorized as enabling inputs.

23
 The UNESCO (2004) framework has been criticized for not focusing on pedagogic
excellence and viewing teaching and learning as input rather than process. This input–output
model suggests a ‘one size fits all’ approach to quality that is insensitive to the learning needs
of different groups of learners and to diverse learning environments (Tikly, 2011). Too much
focus on inputs and outputs overlook process indicators (e.g. child friendly and gender
sensitive learning environment) that affect the teaching and learning process in classrooms.
Alexandar (2008a) notes that pedagogy is the missing element in UNESCO's definition of
educational quality and that the ‘teaching and learning dimension’ is considered as a sub-set
of enabling inputs (Alexandar, 2008b). Pedagogy is defined as a controllable input rather than
as a process whose dynamics reflect the unique circumstances of the classroom. For instance,
in the UNESCO (2004) understanding of quality, teachers are identified as one of the pillars
in the teaching and learning process. However, there is no explanation of what teachers need
to teach and how, in what aspects they need to be competent, and in what and how they are
trained (Alexandar, 2008a). Alexander (2000) instead defines quality in terms of micro-
processes of pedagogy, namely teaching and learning, school values and organization, and
aspirations and actions taken by individuals, notably teachers, which have a positive effect on
the learners.

The QLE framework similarly pays strong attention to pedagogy and educational
processes, focusing on the teaching and learning environment, teacher training, professional
development and competence. However, it does not appear to identify strategies to ensure a
positive teaching and learning environment in school. Tikly and Barrett's (2009, 2011, 2013)
social justice perspective on quality also gives strong attention to pedagogy and educational
processes which are addressed in a comprehensive way. Their discussion of quality strongly
emphasizes the integration of democratic dimensions into educational processes as will be
discussed below (see section 3.1.4).

The social justice thinking is considered an alternative approach to the human capital
and human rights approaches in contemporary discussions of quality, integrating elements of
both. The three approaches are discussed in the following as a basis to critically review the
QLE framework and develop an alternative framework to guide the analysis of quality in
Ethiopia.

24
3.1.2 The Human Capital Approach to Educational Quality
Human Capital is an economic theory which is a modern wing of Adam Smith`s
thinking (Smith, 2005). Its rationale is the investment in human capital to foster economic
growth, social services and production of new knowledge (Olaniyan & Okemakinde, 2008).
Human capital theory draws on neoliberal ideology by stressing liberty and social progress
(Monteiro, 2015). Tikly and Barrett (2011) state that the “human capital approach has
provided policy makers with an important economic rationale for a focus on educational
quality” (p. 4). It is consistent with the behaviorist tradition of quality which supports cost-
efficiency programs, rates of return on investment in education in terms of earnings, and
cognitive achievement as measured in national or international tests (Barrett et al., 2006).

The human capital approach does not by itself provide a framework to understand
educational quality. However, influential texts published by the WB have adopted the human
capital approach to explain school effectiveness and improvement frameworks (Tikly &
Barrett 2011). The school effectiveness and improvement frameworks are important
analytical tools to examine the provision of quality in school. The discussion of quality by
Lockheed and Verspoor (1991) in Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries
illustrate school effectiveness approaches: quality is improved when schooling is “cost-
efficient in producing academic achievement, as indicated by students having a high
probability of completing the primary cycle without repetition” (p. 7). Lockheed and
Verspoor (1991) highlight four elements of an effective school: an orderly school
environment, instructional leadership, the quality of head teachers, and the availability of
material inputs. They emphasize the importance of “cognitive competencies” with literacy
and numeracy as the most important pathways to improve the quality of education.

The human capital approach to quality has been criticized because of its over-reliance
on standardized assessments of cognitive learning to measure quality and on educational
inputs and outcomes rather than processes (Tikly & Barrett, 2011).

3.1.3 The Rights-based Approach to Educational Quality

In contrast to the human capital approach, the rights-based approach focuses on rights
to education, rights in education and rights through education (Tomaševski, 2004). The
rights-based approach to education emphasizes four core elements of education which are

25
interrelated and important in order to realize the right to education: access, equity, quality and
relevance.
According to Tomaševski (2003) the rights-based approach to education can be
understood in a 4-A Scheme with the dimensions of availability, accessibility, acceptability,
and adaptability. The right to education indicates the right to equitable access to education for
all people. The right in education refers to the provision of quality of education and
recognizes the protection of human rights values and principles in the education system. The
right through education involves the concept of relevance in order to fulfil personal and
societal needs.

The Unicef/Global Campaign for Education (GCE) rights-based quality framework

has become increasingly influential. It was first designed in 2002 based on five dimensions of
quality as discussed in section 3.1.1 (Tikly & Barrett, 2011). First, the learner dimension
which stresses healthy, well-nourished learners who are ready to participate and learn, and
are supported in learning by their families and communities. This means that the quality of
children’s lives before beginning formal education plays a pivotal role in influencing their
learning experience and academic achievement.

Second, the quality environment dimension incorporates a child-friendly, welcoming,

gender sensitive, healthy, safe and protective environment. Active participation of the local
community is also vital. It is further concerned with the protection of the emotional and
psychological well-being of children, including the significance of protecting children from
abuse, bullying, or sexual exploitation. It also fosters a gender-responsive environment to
ensure gender equality in school. The aim is to give equal opportunities to boys and girls in
school, and also to facilitate that the social system makes this happen (Sahu, 2012; UNESCO
& Unicef, 2007).

Third, the content dimension includes a broad, relevant and inclusive curriculum. The
curriculum should enable every child to obtain basic cognitive and essential life skills that
help them enhance critical thinking and social affiliation. It also turns children into decision
makers and helps them cope with life challenges. The curriculum must be relevant to the
learners and the society, and must recognize human rights, fundamental freedoms, different
cultures and values. It must be inclusive and tailored to the needs of children in different
circumstances regardless of sex, ethnicity and social status. For example, a curriculum shall

26
foster that the teaching and learning materials are free from gender stereotypes and from any
prejudice against culture and ethnicity (UNESCO & Unicef, 2007).

Fourth, the process dimension focuses on participatory child-centred teaching and

learning approaches, teacher training and professional development. The aim is to make
children active contributors to their own learning, rather than passive recipients of education.
It involves the use of different interactive teaching and learning methods to create stimulating
and participatory environments (UNESCO & Unicef, 2007). Fifth, the outcomes dimension
encompasses academic achievement in general, and literacy and numeracy in particular, and
also life skills that are linked to national goals for education and positive participation in
society (Unicef, 2000). It includes the need for testing, and assessment of learning
achievement to identify learning needs, and to examine the extent to which educational
objectives are achieved.

Robeyens (2006) criticized the human rights approach because of its emphasis on
legal rights that are formulated, ratified and implemented at international and state levels.
Tikly (2011) supports this argument, considering the rights-based approach as predominantly
top down with “little attention to the importance of grass roots campaigns for a better quality
education” (p. 8). Human rights in education should be understood in terms of different
contexts, cultures, people and experiences that are important parts of pedagogic practice
(Coysh, 2014). Furthermore, similar to the human capital approach, the human rights
approach does not fully address the political dimension of educational quality. For example,
it does not discuss how different barriers and lack of participation prevent learners from
changing their resources into capabilities. However, the social justice approach to quality
stresses elements of the political dimension, such as the role of a student-parent-community
voice in educational processes.

3.1.4 The Social Justice Approach to Quality

The social justice perspective redefines educational quality and appreciates both
economic growth and the realisation of human rights as important elements to ensure
sustainable development. It extends the two dominant approaches of human capital and
human rights. For instance, it promotes teacher training and continuing professional
development through an effective system of professional support that creates accountability
and autonomy, aiming at improving learning outcomes. It also seeks to develop teacher
capabilities that help to enhance learning outcomes. According to the human capital theory,

27
providing incentives and creating accountability mechanisms are the only ways to enhance
teacher enthusiasm. But from the human rights perspective, teachers are motivated not only
through the use of different forms of incentives and accountability mechanisms but through
the development of their professional autonomy (Tikly & Barrett, 2009, 2011).

Tikly and Barrett's understanding of educational quality is based on Nancy Fraser's

(2008) three dimensions of social justice: redistribution, recognition and representation. In
keeping with the human capability approach of Sen (1999, 2009) and Nussbaum (2000),
Tikly and Barrett demonstrate how the capability approach integrates the concerns of a
rights-based approach which emphasizes learner needs, linguistic and cultural rights and girl
friendly schooling with the redistributive concerns found in school effectiveness studies.
School effectiveness studies are concerned with the conditions for schooling to enhance
learning outcomes. For instance, it highlights the importance of teaching and other pedagogic
learning materials to improve academic achievements.

Based on the social justice perspective, Tikly and Barrett (2011) define quality as
“education that provides all learners with the capabilities they require to become
economically productive, develop sustainable livelihoods, contribute to peaceful and
democratic societies and enhance individual wellbeing” (p. 9). As stated previously, Tikly
and Barrett's social justice perspective draws on the human capability approach which
emphasizes the opportunities that individuals and groups need in order to realise different
‘functionings’ that they have reason to value. It gives much attention to the broader
economic, cultural and social forces and structures that limit or foster justice. According to
Sen (2009), the human capability approach combines the concerns of both the human capital
and the rights-based approach. It recognizes education as having instrumental (livelihoods,
generating income and reducing human insecurity) and intrinsic values (intrinsic worth as a
capability in its own right).

As presented in Figure 3.2, Tikly (2011) provides a framework for understanding

educational quality in Africa based on the social justice approach of quality. It is
comprehensive and considers existing research about educational quality in Africa and the
international context. It is developed based on a context led model of educational quality,
focusing on interacting environments that together determine the quality of education. These
interacting environments are the policy environment, the school environment and the school
and community environment. The policy environment emphasizes teacher professional
development and competence, monitoring and evaluation, a relevant and inclusive curriculum,

28
 teaching and learning materials, and financial support for schools. The school environment
focuses on structured pedagogy, school based professional development, school infrastructure
and resources. The home and community environment involves parental literacy, parental
support for learning and place of study for students. The policy, school, and community
environments have common interacting quality elements (indicated by the circles in Figure
3.2): stakeholder engagement, local support for schools, community voice, school governance
and parental voice, home school links, and school feeding and child health (Tikly, 2011).

Enabling policy environment

• A national debate on education quality

• Stakeholder engagement
• Local support for schools
Enabling school environment
• School based professional
development
• School self evaluation
infrastructure, and resources
• Structured pedagogy
• Stakeholder engagement
• Teacher development, salaries and
• Community voice
incentives
• Head teacher training
• Assessment, monitoring and evaluation
• A relevant and inclusive curriculum
Enabling home and community
• Textbook procurement and distribution
environment
• Targeted financial support for schools
• Parental literacy
• Parental support for learning
• Books in the home
• A place to study
• School governance and
parental voice
• Home/school links
• School feeding and child
health

Figure 3.2 A Framework for Understanding Educational Quality in Africa

Source: Adapted from Tikly, 2011, p. 17

Tikly and Barrett (2009, 2011, 2013) discuss their social justice perspective of quality
of education using three important dimensions or concepts: inclusion; relevance; and
democratic participation.

29
The Inclusion Dimension

According to Tikly & Barrett (2009), the inclusion dimension emphasizes the uniform
distribution of access to education in school which is tailored to the needs of children in
different circumstances, regardless of sex, ethnicity and social status. For example, special
needs education and how the provision of sanitary facilities impact on education for girls.
Concerning the inclusion dimension, Tikly and Barrett (2013) note that suitably trained,
experienced, prepared and motivated teachers are necessary to improve the quality of
education. Ensuring gender balance in the recruitment of teachers for marginalized groups is
vital to improve learning outcomes. Guiding principle 3 of the QLE also recognizes teacher
access to professional growth and development through training and national qualifications.

Tikly and Barrett's (2011) social justice perspective suggests that learning
environments should be child-seeking, welcoming, and gender sensitive, and protective to
ensure good quality of education. It furthermore addresses the emotional and psychological
well-being of children, including the significance of protecting children from abuse, bullying,
or sexual exploitation. Tikly and Barrett (2013) note that investing in basic infrastructure and
resources, especially the use of ICT, could help the achievement of students from
disadvantaged groups. They also argue that the use of appropriate textbooks and learning
materials play an important role in improving learning outcomes. Textbooks are critical for
supporting the teaching and learning process, particularly in disadvantaged contexts and
where teacher subject knowledge is limited. Tikly and Barrett (2013) also focus on school
feeding programmes, considering them an important element for child health and early
childhood development, particularly as regards children from disadvantaged groups. They
further stress pedagogic practice which means that the use of structured pedagogy and
effective teaching of language in multilingual settings are important for the quality of
education.

The Relevance Dimension

Tikly and Barrett's social justice perspective also stresses relevance: education to meet
personal and societal needs (Tikly & Barrett, 2009, 2011). Tikly and Barrett (2009, 2011)
state that the social justice perspective seeks to develop “capabilities, which individuals,
communities and national governments have reason to value” (p. 10). The curriculum and

30
pedagogy need to be matched with educational and development goals in order to make
education relevant and improve educational quality. The school curricula should recognize
marginalized socio-cultural identities and include the histories and knowledge of indigenous
communities (Tikly & Barrett, 2013). Learning in the mother tongue is critical for learners to
access the curriculum and develop capabilities. Hence, learning in the mother tongue, at least
in early primary education, plays a pivotal role in improving the quality of education (Tikly
& Barrett, 2009, 2011).

In quality related debates, the human capital and human rights proponents also
emphasize the relevance of the curriculum. Both approaches aim at enabling learners to
acquire literacy, numeracy and essential life skills. The human rights approach defines life
skills as wider than vocational skills. In social justice thinking, human rights, health, and
peace education are essential life skills (Tikly & Barrett, 2011).

The Democratic Dimension

The democratic dimension addresses participation and voice in order to address the
issue of double exclusion faced by learners, parents and communities. It is consistent with
Fraser's (2008) idea which has participatory justice as an important element for quality of
education. It deals with the “nature and extent of voice that different individuals and groups
enjoy in educational debate and strategies for increasing that voice” (Tikly & Barrett, 2011,
p. 11). Sen (2009) stresses democratic participation in the capabilities approach and
recognizes how different forms of economic, cultural and political barriers could prevent
disadvantaged groups from changing their resources into capabilities.

According to Tikly and Barrett (2013), the democratic dimension at the classroom
level concerns the extent of control that learners have on the content of the curriculum and
classroom processes. At the school level, it focuses on the participation of students, teachers,
and the community in school governance. Tikly and Barrett (2009) note that the social justice
perspective goes beyond human capital and human rights approaches as related to the
democratic dimension. Both approaches equate the democratic dimension with the good
governance agenda. The human capital approach largely defines good governance in terms of
accountability, decentralisation and greater efficiency, whereas the human rights approach
relates its broader implications to marginalized groups. From a social justice perspective,
accountability is linked to increased parental and community voice. For example, providing
training opportunities and empowering parents and school committee members have been
found to improve the quality of education.

31
 The three interrelated dimensions of quality in the social justice perspective, namely
inclusion, relevance and democracy, are the organizing concepts for the framework of
analysis for this study. Indicators for each dimension were selected based on their relevance
for the context of Ethiopia and guides the analysis of quality in the SC supported primary
schools (Table 3.1). The three dimensions have been combined with the QLE framework and
also consider the MOE definition of quality. The framework addresses inputs, processes, and
outcomes of quality.

Rationale for Combining the Social Justice Approach and QLE

The rationale for choosing the social justice perspective is that it provides a
comprehensive understanding of quality in the context of disadvantaged learners, notably in
low income countries such as Ethiopia. Consistent with the capability approach, it relates
access to quality of education. For example, in light of basic school infrastructure, it unveils
how students in public rural schools are disadvantaged because their education is not
provided in schools with standardized classrooms, electricity and water supply. As noted in
Tikly & Barrett (2011), this problem affects learners’ ability to convert resources available
into capabilities they have reason to value. Basic school infrastructure is important in quality
related discussions but is not addressed in the QLE framework.

Unlike the MOE understanding of quality and QLE, the social justice perspective
emphasizes the importance of special needs education for students with disability who are a
disadvantaged group because, historically, they have been treated differently from others in
the education system. Providing equal access to education for special needs students forms
part of an inclusive quality of education. Another aspect which is not part of the MOE
definition of quality and of QLE, but is raised in the social justice perspective, is teacher
morale: “evidence suggests many developing countries face a crisis in teacher morale that is
mostly related to poor salaries” (Tikly & Barrett, 2009, p. 12).

As discussed earlier, the social justice perspective goes beyond human capital and
human rights understanding of quality and has put much emphasis on quality of processes as
regards, for example, teacher training and morale, student-teacher-parent and community
participation, pedagogic processes, and a safe and conducive learning environment in
disadvantaged context.

In terms of the quality of the learning environment, the social justice perspective
emphasizes a child-seeking, welcoming, and gender sensitive school environment. It

32
highlights the significance of protecting children from abuse, bullying, or sexual exploitation,
but does not specify indicators. The gender dimension is instead mostly related to provision
of sanitary facilities that impact the quality of education (Tikly & Barrett, 2009). In contrast,
the QLE has a strong emphasis on a safe and conducive learning environment and specifies
28 sub-standard indicators. Of these indicators, the following have been included in the
framework of analysis for the study: (a) sub-standard indicator (SST) 1.1 (code of conduct for
learners and teachers ), (b) SST 2.2 (safe drinking water for learners and staff), (c) SST 2.4
(safe play areas for all learners), (d) SST 2.3 (adequate sanitation facilities for learners), (e)
SST 1.4 (teachers’ interaction with all learners in a positive and respectful manner regardless
of their background), and (f) SST 1.3 (learning environment free from violence, intimidation,
bullying and harassment).

There are also a number of common indicators in social justice thinking and QLE
which have been included in the framework to guide the analysis. For the inclusion
dimension, these are water supply, school environment free from abuse and violence, access
to safe toilets, access to textbooks, teacher’s use of annual and specific lesson plans,
interactive teaching methods, formative and continuous assessment, ICT supported learning,
and teacher training. For the relevance dimension, they are: teachers’ use of the mother
tongue. For the democracy dimension, they are the voice of students, teachers, parents and
community in decision making.

How the study was designed and what methods were used to select the data appear in
the following chapter.

33
 Table 3.1 Framework of Analysis for the Study
Dimension Component
Basic school infrastructure
Inclusion
and human resources
Safe and healthy learning
space
Textbooks and other learning
materials
Pedagogic processes and
ICT supported learning
Special needs education
Teacher training and
motivation mechanism
Relevance Use of mother tongue
Relevance to meet national
education goal
Democracy School Code of conduct
School, parent, and community School includes the voice of students,
teachers, parents and community in
link
decision making
Source: Developed based on Tikly and Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2013; SC, 2013
Quality
Indicator/Factor Framework
Standardized classroom and library • Social justice
Water supply • Social justice and QLE SST
indicator 2.2
Electricity supply • Social justice
Availability of teachers for each subject • Social justice
Adequate administrators, supervisors, other • Social justice
staff
School environment free from abuse and • Social justice and QLE SST
violence indicator 1.3
Teacher-student positive and respectful • QLE SST indicator 1.3
interaction
Access to clean water • QLE SST indicator 2.2
Access to safe toilet • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 2.3
Access to menstrual hygiene products • Social Justice
Access to safe school compound and play • QLE SST indicator 2.4
areas
Access to textbook for each subject • Social justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.4
Access to adequate learning materials •• Social Justice
Teacher use of annual and specific lesson • Social Justice and QLE SST
plans
indicator 3.5
Interactive teaching methods • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.7
Formative and continuous assessment • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.8
Teaching aids • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.4
ICT supported learning • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.4
Special needs education • Social Justice
Teachers receive training on how to • Social Justice
deal with students with disabilities
Teacher receive ongoing in service trainings • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.3
Teacher received pre-service trainings • Social Justice and QLE SST
indicator 3.2
Teacher motivation • Social Justice
Teachers use of mother tongue for teaching • Social Justice and QLE SST
Relevance formeet
Education to national educational
national goals
education goal • indicator
Social 3.6
Justice
Code of Conduct for learners and teachers • QLE SST indicator 1.1
Use of code of conduct in school • QLE SST indicator 1.1
• Social Justice, and QLE SST
indicator 4.1 and 4.2
34
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design and methodology for the study. A research
design is a blueprint for the collection, measurement and analysis of data. It constitutes a
methodology of assumptions, principles and procedures to systematically address the
research problem (Kothari, 2007). The chapter starts by laying out the underlying
philosophical assumptions of the study.

4.1 Philosophical Assumptions

The study adheres to the pragmatic paradigm for studying knowledge and reality.
A paradigm is a philosophical and theoretical framework which involves the set of beliefs,
and values that are shared by members of a scientific community, explaining how problems
and social reality can be understood and addressed (Kuhn, 1970). The pragmatic paradigm is
a contemporary paradigm derived from the work of Peirce, James, Mead and Dewey
(Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016). According to this paradigm, a research problem cannot
be understood in relation to one particular understanding of philosophy and reality. It is not
categorized into either positivism or interpretive which means that reality is neither objective
nor socially constructed. The pragmatic paradigm stresses the importance of understanding a
particular research problem combining the two philosophical positions: subjectivism and
objectivism (Creswell, 2003). It supports the use of a mixed method approach to conduct
research.

This study aims at answering 'what' and 'why' research questions. It initially uses the
SC education quantitative dataset to examine the similarities and differences of SC supported
schools in the context of a quality learning environment and student performance. It identifies
the best performing primary schools based on their QLE results. But in order to explore which
factors contribute to the quality of the learning environment in the selected primary schools,
qualitative data were collected on site in order to provide a deeper understanding of quality
improvement efforts in the schools.

This is consistent with the pragmatic paradigm and the ontological assumption of
understanding both subjective and objective meanings. The study combines qualitative and
quantitative data because neither was sufficient on its own to answer the research questions.

35
The epistemological assumption, therefore, stresses the importance of multiple ways of
thinking to generate pragmatic answers.

4.2 Research Methods and Types of Data

The study uses a mixed method design. This is a procedure for collecting, analyzing,
and “mixing” quantitative and qualitative research methods in a single study. As presented in
Figure 4.1, the study uses an embedded mixed methods design collecting and analyzing
quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously or sequentially, having one form of data play
a supportive role for the other (Creswell, 2012). In this study, the qualitative and quantitative
data collection is sequential since the qualitative data were collected following the analysis of
the quantitative data. The study gives more weight to qualitative data because the main
purpose of the study is to provide an in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to the
quality learning environment in the schools selected based on the QLE data.

Quantitative Data:
Qualitative Data
• • Quantitative • Qualitative
Schools' QLE • Interviews
results interpretation interpretation
• Non-participant observation
• Student literacy
scores

Figure 4.1 Visual Presentation of Embedded Mixed Methods Design

The first research question was answered and analyzed using quantitative data (i.e.
QLE results and student literacy scores) (Table 4.1). The second research question was
answered using mainly qualitative data (from interviews and non-participant observation).
The qualitative results were related to the schools' QLE sub-standard indicator scores.

Both primary and secondary data were used in the study. The primary data are the raw
SCN education dataset and data from in-depth interviews and non-participant observation.
The secondary data are from reviews of documents, academic books and journal articles. The
combination of secondary and primary data can help draw inferences because they are
complementary (Olsen 2004). This also helps to ensure validity of a study.

36
Table 4.1 Types and Sources of Data, by Research Question
Research Question Types and Sources of Data

1. What are the similarities and differences of
the quality of the learning environment in the
SC supported schools in the Amhara and SNNP
regions?
• Primary data (quantitative data: SCN
education dataset of Ethiopia, schools' QLE
and student literacy score)

• Primary data (qualitative data: interviews

2. What are the particular factors contributing and non-participant observation. quantitative
data: schools QLE sub-standard indicators
to the quality of the learning environment in the score)
selected primary schools?
• Secondary data (academic books and journal
articles)

4.3 Quantitative Data: The SCN Education Data Set

The SCN education dataset is quantitative. It was used to identify the best performing
schools and regions in Ethiopia based on the QLE results, to examine schools' QLE results in
relation to length of time for SC interventions, and to investigate the relationship between
schools' QLE results and student literacy scores.

The SCN education database was established in 2015 following an agreement

between Norad and SCN on "centralisation of all education data collected for reporting to
Norad 2015-2018". Since 2015, SCN started to use this dataset for monitoring SC educational
programs and interventions. The data concerns the quality of the learning environment,
literacy results, and enrolment, retention and dropout rates. It covers seven African countries:
Ethiopia, Somalia, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Uganda and Zimbabwe. All types of data
are collected annually at the country level by SCN-hired external consultants, except for the
literacy dataset which is collected twice a year by SCN consultants (SCN, 2015).

4.3.1 The QLE Dataset

The QLE data is categorized based on urban/rural, region, district, and length of time
of SC interventions in the school. The length of SC intervention is classified into four:
schools receiving support for more than 2 years (>2years), between 1 and 2 years (1-2 years),
between 6 months and 1 year (6 months-1 year) and for less than 6 months (<6months)
(SCN, 2015).

37
 The sampled schools were selected using systematic random sampling (Table 4.2).
This means that schools were selected from the sample of all SCN supported schools with a
random starting point in a fixed periodic interval.

Table 4.2 Number of SCN-supported Schools and Number of SCN Schools Sampled in
2015, by Country
Country SC Supported Schools Sampled SC Schools
Ethiopia 190 73

Somalia 47 41

Malawi 102 43

Mozambique n/a 72

Niger n/a 41

Uganda 103 60

Zimbabwe 140 43

Total 582 373

Source: SCN, 2015

n/a = not available

The study uses the data that were collected in 2015 when the first comprehensive
QLE review was undertaken. It has a particular focus on the Ethiopian dataset. Different
types of descriptive (average of averages of schools' QLE results and cross tabulation) and
inferential (independent samples T-tests) statistics were used. The dataset on Ethiopia is
based on data from two regions: Amhara and SNNP. Out of the total 73 sampled schools in
Ethiopia, 47 schools were from the Amhara region and 26 were from the SNNP region.

The QLE has 28 sub-standard quality indicators (Table 2.1). Country office SC
consultants collected data by questionnaires using a survey design. Specific questions were
prepared for each QLE sub-standard.

The QLE Sub-standard Scoring Scale

A four-point scoring scale was designed for each QLE sub-standard indicator ranging
from not at all achieved (1) to exceeded (4) (Box 4.1).

38
 Box 4. 1 The QLE Four-point Scoring Scale

1 = Indicator is not at all achieved

2 = Indicator is partially achieved

3 = Indicator is achieved

4. = Indicator is exceeded

The indicator is not at all achieved when there is no evidence that any efforts have
been made to achieve it. An indicator is partially achieved when some efforts are made, but
are inconsistent. Because of this, additional work is required to ensure consistency. An
indicator is achieved when consistent evidence exists that the indicator has been successfully
reached in the learning environment. An indicator is exceeded when there is direct and
consistent evidence that the indicator has been achieved. There is evidence that different
strategies have been used to go beyond the minimum expectation and ensure a high level of
quality during implementation (SC, 2013).

4.3.2 Student Literacy

In addition to measuring the QLE, SC measures student learning outcomes in terms of

literacy. Literacy is defined as children’s scores on reading single words, fluency in reading
connected text or passages, and reading comprehension (SC, 2013). SC measures literacy
combining indicators, including but not limited to, the Literacy Boost program, EGRA and
national literacy assessment data (SC, 2013). EGRA measures the status of children's basic
reading skills in grades 1-4. It is flexible in its design because it considers the linguistic
context of the country (Centre for Global Education Monitoring (GEM), 2014). According to
the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the International Rescue Committee (IRC) (2011),
EGRA has ten standard subtasks that can be used for assessment based on the language,
context and purpose. These subtasks are concepts about print, sounds, oral vocabulary, letter
identification, syllable reading, non-word reading, familiar word reading, oral reading
fluency, listening comprehension, and dictation.

The 2015 SCN education dataset measures literacy based on seven literacy
competency scores: number of letters correct per minute, number of letters in a word read

39
correctly, familiar word fluency per minute, invented/unfamiliar words oral reading fluency
per minute, word reading fluency per minute, comprehension, and listening words per minute
(SC, 2015). Students are expected to score an average of 50% to achieve each competency.

The QLE and literacy quantitative data are used in Section 5.1 to examine the
similarities and differences across SC supported schools based on their QLE and literacy
results. In addition, qualitative data were collected in the field using interviews and non-
participant observation. In Section 5.2, fieldwork data were analyzed together with schools'
QLE sub-standard indicator scores based on the framework of analysis for the study.

4.4 Qualitative Data: Fieldwork

Fieldwork was conducted to collect qualitative data in the three best performing
primary schools (School A, B, C) based on their QLE results. The aim was to investigate the
factors contributing to the quality of the learning environment in the schools. The schools
were identified based on their QLE results >3. They are located in Libo Kemekem District in
Debub Gonder Zone which borders Fogera, Lake Tana, Semen Gondor and Ebenat Districts.

Figure 4.2 Map of Libo Kemekem District

Source: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),
2013, p. 1
School A is a public primary school which was established in 2012. It is located on
the Southern border of Libo Kemekem District in Addis Zemen town. School B is a public
primary school which was established in 2014. It is located along the main road at the center

40
of Libo Kemekem District in Addis Zemen town. School C is a public primary school which
was established in 2011. It is located on the Northern border of Libo Kemekem District in
Addis Zemen Town. The school is located two kilometers from the main road of the district.

The MOE office in Addis Ababa was contacted for permission to conduct fieldwork.
The office referred to the Amhara regional education office that gave the permission. After
that, the school administrators and teachers were contacted in person to get permission to
arrange interviews and decide on observation dates. The fieldwork used interviews and non-
participant observation to collect qualitative data. It lasted for approximately five weeks from
mid-February to late March 2017.

4.4.1 Interviews
Interviews were chosen in order to get in-depth information from the participants.
Kothari (2007) states that “the interview method of collecting data involves presentation of
oral-verbal stimuli and reply in terms of oral-verbal responses” (p. 97). In this study,
interview questions were prepared using open-ended questions to enable participants to freely
explain their own ideas (Annex I). Four different interview guides were prepared for students,
teachers, administrators and parents. The interview questions were translated from English
into the mother tongue, Amharic, to avoid language difficulties.

All interviews were recorded using an audio recorder after getting permission from
the participants. Non-probability, purposive sampling was used to select participants for
interviews. According to Cresswell and Clark (2011), purposive sampling is used to select
individuals or groups of individuals that are especially knowledgeable about or experienced
with a phenomenon of interest. It requires the capacity and willingness of participants to
participate in the research (Bryman, 2004). To conduct interviews, participants were
purposively chosen and willing to participate in the study. Students and teachers were
selected using the criteria of gender balance and their length of time in the school. It was
difficult to maintain a gender balance for administrators and teachers since there were no
female in an administrative position and the number of female teachers was small in the
schools.

As Table 4.3 shows, 22 respondents were purposively selected from the three schools:
3 school administrators (all male), 6 parents (3 males, 3 females), 9 teachers (6 males, 3

41
females) and 12 students (6 males, 6 females). From each school, 1 school administrator, 2
parents, 3 teachers and 4 students were interviewed.

Table 4.3 Category and Number of Informants, by School

Category Schools Total

School A School B School C

Administrators 1 ( male) 1 ( male) 1 ( male) 3 ( males)

Parents 2 (1 male, 1 2 (1 male, 1 2 (1 male, 1 6 ( 3 males, 3

female) female) female), females)

Teachers 3 (2 males, 1 3 (2 male, 3 (2 males, 1 9 (6 males, 3

female) 1female) female) females)

Students 4 (2 males, 2 4 (2 males, 2 4 (2 males, 2 12 (6 males,

females) females) females) 6 females)

10 (6 males, 4 10 (6 males, 10 (5 males, 5 30 (17 males,

females) 4 females) females) 13 females)
Total

Using purposive sampling, students between 15 and 18 years were selected because
they could give their own consent. They also had been in the school for more than two years.
Similar to students, teachers who had been in the school for two years or more were included
in the sample. It was assumed that students and teachers who had stayed longer in the school
would be better able to talk about their educational experiences in the school. The interviews
with a student lasted for 30 minutes on average. It was conducted in a vacant classroom. The
interviews with a teacher lasted on average for 35 minutes. It was conducted in the teachers’
staff room.

The school administrators were interviewed in their offices. The interviews with the
Directors of School A and C and with the Deputy Director of School B lasted on average 30
minutes. The parents were interviewed in their homes for on average 25 minutes.

4.4.2 Non-Participant Observation

In addition to interviews, non-participant observations were used guided by
observation checklists (Annex II). According to Payne & Payne (2004), “a non-participant
observer’s role is to record what is seen and heard without otherwise taking part in any

42
activities of a research’’ (p, 158). The study used non-participant observation to observe the
classroom and school environment. This included class sessions in Mathematics, Natural and
Social Sciences. The structure and cleanliness of classrooms, class size, the use of textbooks
and teaching aids, language of instruction and teaching methods, teacher-student interaction
and classroom management strategies were observed from the back of the classroom without
interfering in or influencing the teaching and learning process. Outside the classroom, the
school environment, such as the availability of clean water and toilets, play areas and
recreation facilities, and the conduct of learners and teachers were observed. Notes were
taken in a fieldwork notebook using the observation checklist questions.

4.5 Data Analysis

The quantitative and qualitative data were summarized and analyzed (Figure 4.3). The
quantitative data of the QLE and literacy dataset were analyzed using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Quantitative +Qualitative Data:

• Field work data transcription,

coding and thematization

• Interpretation of QLE
substandard scores
interpretation

Figure 4.3 Tools for Data Analysis

4.5.1 Quantitative Analysis

The schools’ QLE results, the average QLE score by region and the relationship
between QLE results and length of SCN intervention were analyzed using descriptive
statistics. Inferential statistics were used to examine the relationship between the QLE and
student literacy results.

43
Schools' QLE Score

The QLE results of a school are measured as the average score of the 28 QLE sub-
standard quality indicators score (SST) (Eq1)2. To determine the school's average QLE score
by country or region, the mean of the 28 QLE sub-standards for each school (x) were
calculated. The mean value of the schools were added up and divided by the number of
schools (n) in a country or region (Eq2)3. In order for a school to achieve all QLE guiding
principles, ≥50% of all sub-standards for each guiding principle must be ≥ 3. For example,
for guiding principle 1, at least 3 of the 5 sub-standards must be ≥3.

Student Literacy Competency Score

To determine student literacy competency score in percent by school, an average of

the seven competency literacy scores of students in each school were calculated.

Independent Samples T-test

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the student literacy mean of
schools that achieved or did not achieve each of the QLE guiding principles (Annex III).
Schools that achieved or did not achieve each QLE guiding principle seen in relation to the
student literacy scores were sufficiently normal to conduct a T-test, with Skew less than /2/
and Kurtosis less than /9/ (Schmider, Ziegler, Danay, Beyer, & Bühner, 2010) (Annex IV).

4.5.2 Qualitative Analysis

Following the quantitative data analysis, the qualitative fieldwork results were
transcribed, coded, and organised under themes for analysis purposes. The categorization,
coding and identification of themes were based on the dimensions of quality presented in the
framework of analysis (Figure 3.3).

Data from the interviews and participant observation were, following Bryman (2004),
broken down into themes which were given names. This is called open coding, i.e. “the
process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data”
(Strauss & Carbin, 1990, p. 61). At an initial stage of analysis, the audio data were organized
into file folders. Observations notes and photographs were kept in a safe place. During

2 SST1.1 + SST1.2 + SST1.3....+ SST 4.3

School QLE score=
28
3 X1 +X2 +X3 ………+Xn
School's average QLE scores by country or region =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠

44
transcription, the first step was to copy the audio file into written form. Verbal statements of
the participants were directly typed into the Microsoft office word file. Labels were manually
assigned to words that permitted searching for all words matching each code. Teachers,
students, directors and parents' responses were categorized separately in order to discuss their
views independently.

Kothari (2004) notes that arrange data in groups on the basis of common
characteristics is important in order to have meaningful relationships. The coded data were
therefore linked with the themes that emanated from the framework of analysis (Table 4.4).
For example, a parent from school A stated that in order to improve the quality of education
in the school, the water problem must be addressed. This statement was included under the
theme of safe drinking water.

Table 4. 4 Examples of Thematising Qualitative Data

Elements of theme Interviews and Non-participant Observation

• The interview results in the three schools

School, Parent and Community Link reveal that teachers, students and parents
were participating in school decision making
concerning teaching and learning and other
school activities.

• According to school observation, School A

had standardized classrooms that were
Basic School Infrastructure
adequate for all students. There were
blackboards in each classroom visible for all
students.

• Teachers were not allowed to teach without

preparing yearly and daily lesson plans
Pedagogic processes
because it is one of their professional
responsibilities.

• I always use Amharic. But I mention some

important words in English which I think
Use of Mother Tongue
students use in higher grades.

45
 Data from non-participant observation and interviews findings were related to
schools' QLE sub-standard indicator scores. Schools' QLE sub-standard indicator scores were
incorporated to identify the similarities and differences between the QLE and fieldwork data.
Conceptual discussions of quality were included in the themes in order to complement or
refute the interview and observation data.

4.6 Units and Levels of Analysis

The field of comparative education requires investigation of similarities and
differences between two or more educational phenomena (Bray & Thomas, 1995). Bray and
Thomas (1995) identify three comparative dimensions, namely geographic, non-locational
demographic grouping, and aspects of education and of society (Figure 4.4). The geographic
dimension has seven levels: regions/continents, countries, states/provinces, districts, schools,
classrooms, and individuals. The non-locational demographic groupings include, for
example, ethnicity, religion, age and gender. Aspects of education are, for example,
curriculum, teaching methods and finance.

Figure 4.4 A Framework for Comparative Education Analysis

Source: Bray and Thomas, 1995, p. 475

46
 This study has a comparative aspect for all the three dimensions: districts and schools
as geographic level; students, parents, administrators and teachers as non-locational
demographic groups; and quality of the learning environment as an aspect of education in the
three schools.

4.7 Data Quality: Reliability and Validity

According to Bryman (2004), reliability and validity are the two major criteria to
evaluate the quality of social research. For quantitative data, the reliability of the QLE and
literacy data is ensured because the variables are measured consistently using standardized
scales. This is called internal reliability, i.e. the degree to which the indicators that make up a
scale are consistent (Bryman, 2004). This was tested by the Cronbach’s alpha internal
consistency test. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value is high, i.e. 0.94 for QLE and 0.83
for literacy data (Annex V). This indicates, for example, that the QLE sub-standards properly
measure their respective guiding principles. To ensure the validity of the QLE and literacy
data, the quality of the learning environment and literacy were operationally defined before
the questionnaire was administered.

The qualitative data are also reliable. The interview and observation processes were
the same in all schools and based on consistent methods and the same questions. The
interview and observation guides were prepared based on quality concepts using the
framework of analysis for the study. The qualitative data assured the validity concerns in
research, such as content, internal and concurrent validity. Content validity is the extent to
which a measuring instrument provides adequate coverage of the topic under study (Kothari,
2004). Attention was paid to the use of proper constructs, operationalization of the quality of
education concepts and the validity of data collection tools. Triangulation between the data
gathered from interviews and results from the quantitative data and secondary sources was
made. Triangulation involves “collecting and converging (or integrating) different kinds of
data bearing on the same phenomenon” (Kothari, 2004, p. 536). The interviews, observations
and secondary data sources measured what they were supposed to measure which, in this
study, is quality improvement in the schools. Internal validity refers to whether the
conclusion of a study accurately answers its objectives. The study inferences were made
using valid information and theoretical constructs. The general and specific research
questions that needed to be answered qualitatively were properly answered. To control for

47
bias, the study combined several data sources (documents, quantitative, and qualitative data)
and ensured that the sample was representative of the population.

4.8 Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues in research cannot be ignored because they relate directly to the
integrity of the research (Bryman, 2004). Research clearances, confidentiality, informed
consent of participants, protecting participants from physical or mental discomfort, using
appropriate citation and giving credit to work of others are among the ethical considerations
that any researcher should follow when conducting research.

Before conducting the field work, research clearances were received from the Data
Protection Official for Research, Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD), UiO, and
federal and district education offices in Ethiopia. Before the interviews, all respondents were
asked to provide verbal and/or written informed consent to participate in the study (Annex
VI). All information gathered during the interviews has been treated confidentially, and the
names of each school and all participants are anonymous. Only the researcher has access to
the data collected from the interviews and observations which are securely saved and have
not been distributed to others. After completion of this study, particularly after the defence,
all audio records will be deleted. All direct personal data and indirectly identifiable data will
also be deleted. Furthermore, the information gathered from secondary data, books and
journal articles have been appropriately acknowledged using the APA 6th edition as
recommended by the UiO.

4.9 Major Challenges

The SCN education database has data from the Amhara and SNNP regions. However,
fieldwork was only conducted in the best performing primary schools in the Amhara region.
This was because the Ethiopian government declared a nationwide state of emergency in
October, 2016 following months of political protests. Hence, it was not possible to conduct
fieldwork in both regions. This prevented the originally planned regional comparison from
being undertaken.

The fieldwork was delayed for two months because of difficulties of getting approval
from the Amhara and Libo Kemkem Education offices due to the state of emergency. The
fieldwork had to be conducted under the protection of the Amhara district education office

48
due to the conflict. Another challenge was that it was difficult to access and interview
parents whose homes were far from the schools and with whom phone contact was not
possible. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of parents was included in the study to examine
their views on quality and their own school involvement in order to improve the quality of
education.

The quantitative data is limited because it refers only to 2015 data. This data is
nevertheless important since it is the most recent comprehensive dataset on quality in
Ethiopian primary schools and the first time that it forms the basis of a systematic study on
the quality of the learning environment. Although much might have been gained from a
regional comparison, the qualitative data from the three best performing schools in Amhara
do help to tell the story behind the quantitative data and to explain both similarities and
differences across schools exposed to similar kinds of interventions by SC as will appear in
the next chapter.

49
 CHAPTER FIVE

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE QUALITY OF THE LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT AMONG SC SUPPORTED SCHOOLS

This chapter presents the results and analysis of the data on quality improvement of
early primary education in SC supported schools in Ethiopia, specifically in the Amhara and
SNNP regions. Data were obtained from the SCN education dataset, interviews with school
directors, students, teachers and parents, and non-participant observations across the three
best performing primary schools in Amhara region.

The analysis has two main parts. The first one identifies the best performing schools
and regions based on the QLE results. It examines the schools' QLE results in relation to
length of SC interventions in the schools. It also examines the relationship between schools'
QLE results and student literacy scores. The second one analyzes the qualitative fieldwork
data in order to identify the particular factors contributing to the quality of the learning
environment in the schools.

5.1 Best Performing Regions and Schools According to QLE Results

5.1.1 Best Performing Regions According to QLE

The best performing region in QLE was identified using the schools' average QLE
score and their achievement of all QLE guiding principles. The schools' average QLE score
in the two regions was calculated using SPSS. The results show that the schools in the
Amhara region performed better in QLE (score 2.6 and standard deviation of 0.3) than SNNP
(score 2.1 with a standard deviation of 0.3). The schools' average QLE score in the Amhara
region was moderately higher than for the SNNP region.

Table 5.1 presents the schools' achievement of all QLE guiding principles in the
Amhara and SNNP regions. The results show that achievement of all QLE guiding principles
in Amhara was much higher than in SNNP. Out of the 46 sampled schools in the Amhara
region, 44.7% (21 schools) achieved all QLE guiding principles while no schools did so in
the SNNP region.

50
Table 5.1 Schools' Achievement of all QLE Guiding Principles, by Region, Number and
%

Region Total Achieved Not Achieved

No. % No. % No. %
Amhara 47 100 21 44.7 26 55.3
SNNP 26 100 0 0 26 100

Source: SCN, 2015

Note: SPSS output using SCN (2015) raw data.
This means that schools in the Amhara region are better in terms of quality learning
environment than schools in the SNNP region based on achievement of QLE guiding
principles.

5.1.2 Best Performing Schools in QLE and Student Literacy Scores

According to school average scores on the 28 QLE sub-standards, the three best
performing SC supported primary schools were School A (3.32) with 76.4% student literacy
competency score, School B (3.18) with 76.2% student literacy competency score, and
School C (3.04) with 76.8% student literacy competency score. The schools are located in the
Amhara region. As presented in Table 5.2, the Amhara schools ranked 1-24 of the 73
sampled schools. According to the ranking, there is only one school in the SNNP region, i.e.
School Y, with an average QLE score of close to 3 (2.61) with 63.8% student literacy
competency score.

5.1.3 Schools’ Achievement of All QLE Guiding Principles based on Length of Time of
SC Intervention
Table 5.3 presents the schools' achievement of all QLE guiding principles based on
length of SC intervention. The results show that the proportion of schools that achieved all
QLE guiding principles and received SC support for more than 2 years was much higher than
schools receiving SC support for 1-2 years or 6 months-1 year. This indicates that the length
of time for SC intervention matters for the schools' quality of the learning environment. As
shown in Table 5.3, no schools achieved all QLE guiding principles when supported for less
than 6 months.

51
Table 5.2 Average Score on 28 QLE Sub-standards and Student Literacy Scores, %, by
School

Rank School ID Region School Average Score of QLE Student Literacy

Competency Score
1 School A Amhara 3.32 76.4
2 School B Amhara 3.18 76.2
3 School C Amhara 3.04 76.8
4 School D Amhara 2.93 75.2
5 School E Amhara 2.93 75.0
6 School F Amhara 2.89 73.8
7 School G Amhara 2.89 71.4
8 School H Amhara 2.86 70.3
9 School I Amhara 2.86 72.0
10 School J Amhara 2.86 70.9
11 School K Amhara 2.86 67.7
12 School L Amhara 2.82 65.2
13 School M Amhara 2.82 65.4
14 School N Amhara 2.79 65.0
15 School 0 Amhara 2.75 65.1
16 School P Amhara 2.75 62.8
17 School Q Amhara 2.75 64.9
18 School R Amhara 2.71 64.1
19 School S Amhara 2.71 64.8
20 School T Amhara 2.64 63.9
21 School U Amhara 2.64 63.3
22 School V Amhara 2.61 63.3
23 School W Amhara 2.61 63.7
24 School X Amhara 2.61 63.5
25 School Y SNNP 2.61 63.8
26 School Z Amhara 2.57 62.7
27 School A1 Amhara 2.54 64.1
28 School B1 Amhara 2.54 63.8
29 School C1 Amhara 2.54 61.3
30 School D1 Amhara 2.54 60.1
31 School E Amhara 2.5 63.3
32 School F Amhara 2.5 63.1
Source: SCN, 2015
Note: SPSS output using SCN (2015) raw data. Refer to Annex VII for schools ranked 32-73 showing
QLE results less than 2.5.

52
Table 5.3 Schools' Achievement of all QLE Guiding Principles based on
Length of Time of SC Intervention, Number and %
Length of SC Achieved Not Achieved Total
support No. %
No. % No. %
>2 years 18 54.5 15 45.5 33 100
1-2 years 1 14.3 6 85.7 7 100
6 months-1year 2 9.5 19 90.5 21 100
<6 months 0 0 12 100 12 100
Source: SCN, 2015
Note: SPSS output using SCN (2015) raw data.

5.1.4 Relationship between the Schools' Quality of Learning Environment and Student
Literacy
According to Unicef (2006), the rights based quality dimensions, such as safe and
conducive learning environments that are free from corporal punishment and verbal abuse,
and teacher quality, significantly contribute to improve student literacy. The post-2015
sustainable development goals stress educational quality, emphasizing that a good teaching
and learning process enhances student literacy, numeracy and social skills (UNESCO, 2014).
The independent samples t-test results show that schools that achieved all QLE guiding
principles have a statistically significantly higher student literacy mean than schools that did
not achieve, with (t = -2.21, df = 364, p < 0.005) (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4 Student Literacy in Schools Achieving/Not Achieving QLE Guiding

Principles

Achieved all QLE Number of

principles students Student Literacy Sum Mean Std. Deviation

Yes 78 237.6795 97.78342

No 288 140.2014 104.44108
Source: SCN, 2015

As shown in Table 5.4, schools that achieved the four QLE guiding principles have a
better literacy score than schools which did not. This indicates that the student literacy score
is better in schools that provide children with emotional and psycho-social protection and
active learning processes, are physically safe, and involve parents and communities.

53
 In general, the QLE and literacy results show that schools in the Amhara region are
better in QLE than schools in the SNNPR region. The three best performing schools in QLE
have student literacy competency scores greater than 75%. This means that the student
literacy score is beyond the minimum expectation of 50% average of the seven competency
scores (number of letters correct per minute, number of letters in a word read correctly,
familiar words fluency per minute, unfamiliar words fluency per minute, word reading
fluency per minute, comprehension, and listening words per minute). The proportion of
schools that achieved all QLE guiding principles was higher in schools that had received SC
support for more than 2 years. Schools that achieved the four QLE guiding principles have a
higher literacy score than schools that did not achieve them.

The results of the qualitative data collected during fieldwork are now used to explain
what factors influenced the quantitative results.

5.2 Quality Improvement of the Best Performing SC Supported Primary Schools

This section examines the fieldwork data across the three best performing SC
supported schools identified in Section 5.1. The schools achieved all QLE guiding principles
and received SC support for more than 2 years. The schools are public schools located in the
Amhara region and are among the best performing schools in the region based on the MOE
input-process-output educational quality evaluation in 2016 (MOE, 2016). The input-process-
output model has standards for evaluation provided by the MOE and the schools are expected
to provide reports annually based on the standards. The analysis of the data is categorized into
topics based on the components and indicators of quality that are identified in the framework
of analysis for the study. The data collected from interviews and participant observation are
presented and interpreted in light of the schools' QLE sub-standard indicator scores. The
findings of the data are discussed in relation to the quality dimensions and concepts presented
in Chapter 3.

5.2.1 The Inclusion Dimension

In the framework of analysis for the study, the inclusion dimension has six
components and 23 indicators. The following analysis starts from the first component, basic
infrastructure and human resources, by examining the similarities and differences among the
three schools in terms of standardized classroom and library, water supply and electricity, and
the availability of teachers, administrators, supervisors and other staff. Whereas the QLE
framework does not give much emphasis to basic infrastructure and human resources in its 28
54
sub-standard indicators, stressing only safe drinking water (sub-standard 2.2), Tikly and
Barett (2009, 2011, 2013) note that basic school infrastructure and human resources are
important to improve the achievement of disadvantaged learners and ensure quality of
education.

5.2.1.1 Basic School Infrastructure and Human Resources

Data from interviews and observations showed huge disparities among the schools in
terms of basic infrastructure. School A was found to be better off in terms of basic
infrastructure than the other two schools.

The school director of school A said:

The school infrastructure is impressive and cannot be compared to other schools

in the district. SC has been giving countless support since the school was
established. To mention some: chairs, office accessories, blackboard, school
supplements, recreation materials, clinical materials (pain killers, and first aid
kits), gardening equipment, and sanitation products (soft paper and soaps)
(Interview, February 14, 2017).
Classroom Environment
According to school observation, School A has standardized classrooms that are
adequate for all students. There were 52 students on average in one class which matches the
national class size standard. All classrooms are cleaned to minimize dust and moulds, and
have enough desks and chairs for the students (Photo 5.1). There are blackboards in each
classroom visible for all students. The classrooms have cement floors and walls with a proper
door and windows. They are bright and airy. There is a table and a chair for teachers in each
classroom. The outside of the classrooms has attractive trees and flowers.

In school A, two model classes were designed by SC to show a good example of a

classroom environment. They are very attractive and decorated with teaching aids and student
paintings. The walls are well painted in bright colours and have a clean and tidy floor.

55
 Photo 5.1 School A classroom
In School B and C, the classrooms were constructed from sticks and mud covered by
metal roofing (Photo 5.2). The desks and chairs are very old, but fit all students. All
classrooms have dirt floors, and many of them have broken doors and windows. There is a
fixed large blackboard in every classroom. In a few classrooms, the blackboards are small
and not visible to all students. The average class size is 55 and 58 students in school B and C
respectively. The teachers’ staff room and director's office are also very old.

Photo 5.2 School C outside classroom view

To address infrastructure problems, School B has been constructing a building since
September-November 2016, fully funded by the district education office. However, the

56
construction stopped in December 2016 because of financial constraint. Students, teachers,
directors, and parents were keen to see the continuation of the building under construction.
The school has had discussions with parents and the community and has raised some money
to finalize the basement of the building.

Library

School A has a good library for students and teachers. There are long tables and chairs
by the sides of the library. It has an adequate number of textbooks and supplementary reading
materials provided by SC. Observation showed that some students were reading in the library
during break time. Most students stated in the interviews that they use the school library for
reading, mostly to read Amharic textbooks and story books. School B has a library but does
not have sufficient textbooks and story books. There are few tables and chairs available for
reading. During observation, students were not seen using the school library. Teachers in
school B noted that the library does not have adequate reading materials for students and
teachers. In the interviews, students in school B were asked how often they use the school
library. One of the students answered:

I do not see the purpose of spending my time in the library because there are not
sufficient supplementary books. I already have all textbooks at home and the
few story books that I can find in the library are outdated (Interview, February
22, 2017).
School C has no reading room for students and teachers because of shortage of rooms.
The school director of school C said:

There is no library in the school. We do not even have a shelf for the textbooks.
As you can see here, I decided to keep textbooks and some story books in my
office. To address this problem, I discussed with SC officials if they could help
us construct a library in the school. But they told me that they do not have a
budget for construction (Interview, February 28, 2017).
Water Supply
In school A, there is ground water supply stored in a water tank provided by SC
(Photo 5.3). In school B and C, despite water tanks provided by SC, there is no access to
water, whether piped or ground water.

57
 Photo 5.3 Water tank provided by SC for school A
Electricity Supply

The observation results revealed that there is no electricity supply in the three schools.
This significantly affects the teaching process, especially the use of radio sessions. Radio
instruction was interrupted during class sessions because of battery problems.

Human Resources

In terms of human resources, all schools had enough administrators, supervisors,

inspectors, and other support staff. However, there are teacher shortages since one teacher
teaches all subjects in all schools.

A teacher from School A said:

Imagine, I am expected to teach Mathematics. I am not interested and I do not

have enough knowledge to teach this subject because I did my bachelor in the
Social Sciences. This really affects student performance. Some students do not
fully understand when I teach Mathematics. On top of that, since I teach all
subjects, I do not have enough preparation time to develop lesson plans for each
subject (Interview, February 15, 2017).
Some students mentioned that they feel bored being taught by the same teacher in all
subjects. They are not able to concentrate in all sessions. They would like to have a different
teacher for each subject. During interviews, some parents noted that their children seem
unhappy about being taught by the same teacher. The pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) in the three

58
schools is 52:1. This is close to the national standard of 50:1 at the primary level (but higher
than the international standard of 40:1) (UNESCO, 2015a).

Another quality component in the inclusion dimension is a physically safe and healthy
learning space. For the purpose of this study, the indicators of this component are: school
environment free from abuse, bullying and corporal punishment, a positive and respectful
teacher-student relationship, access to clean water and toilet, access to menstrual hygiene
products, and safe school compound and play area. As explained in chapter 3, the QLE
framework has put much emphasis on a safe and conducive learning environment. It
addresses all of the indicators that are in a safe and healthy learning space, except access to
menstrual hygiene products. Providing access to menstrual hygiene product is important for
the quality of education. As Tikly and Barrett (2011) note, attention needs to be paid to find
ways that enable girls overcome barriers preventing their access to quality education.

5.2.1.2 Safe and Healthy Learning Space

A safe and healthy learning space, such as an accessible learning environment, clean
water and toilets, facilities for menstrual hygiene, and a safe play area suitable for all
children, is important to improve the quality of education (Heijnen-Maathuis & Christensen,
2016). As recognised by human rights approaches, creating safe and protective spaces for
learning plays a significant role in improving the quality of education (Tikly & Barrett,
2009). According to UNESCO and Unicef (2007) and SC (2013), this includes protecting
children from abuse, bullying, an authoritarian culture of corporal punishment and sexual
exploitation. It also emphasizes the provision of clean and accessible drinking water,
sanitation facilities, and hygiene education.

Abuse, Bullying and Corporal Punishment

According to the QLE sub-standard indicator 1.3 score, the learning environment in
the three schools is free from violence, intimidation, bullying and harassment. School A
exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator 1.3 with a score of 4. School B and School C
achieved it with a score of 3.

The interview and observation results confirm that the school environments are free
from abuse, bullying and corporal punishment. The teachers and supervisors did not punish
students in the schools. However, in School B, despite teacher denial, some students claimed

59
that they are verbally abused by some teachers when they disturb in class. When asked if the
teachers use corporal punishment in class, a student from School C answered:

They have not punished us at all, never. They rather give us advice on how to behave
properly. They discuss about student problems with supervisors and parents if the case
is serious (Interview, March 4, 2017).

A student from school A said:

Our teachers have never punished us. We feel like they are our parents, they advise us
when we do things wrong and they are always open to hear and address our
problems (Interview, February 16, 2017).

All three schools have a very strict code of discipline to prevent bullying. Students are
regularly informed by the teachers and supervisors on how to treat each other and what
behaviour is expected in order to prevent school bullying. The schools organise awareness
creation meetings for students to foster respect. Depending on the severity of bullying, a case
is brought to the unit leader or director.

Teacher-student Positive and Respectful Interaction

Most children who lack motivation to go to school do not like their teacher (Heijnen-
Maathuis & Christensen, 2016). The QLE sub-standard indicator 1.4 results for the three
schools show that the teachers interact with all learners in a positive and respectful manner
regardless of their background. School A and C exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator
1.3 with a score of 4. School B achieved it with a score of 3.

According to interview results in the three schools, students seemed happy about the
teachers. They claimed that they have significant support from their teachers. For example,
each semester, most teachers would cover learning materials costs for children from a poor
economic background. When students are sick, teachers raise money and help them get
better. If students are injured while playing, teachers provide first aid assistance. Parents also
mentioned that the teacher-student relationship is good - teachers listen to and show respect
for the students.

In the three schools, all children are treated equally in class regardless of socio-
economic status, gender, ethnicity, and so on. All parents, students and teachers believe that
the teachers treat students equally, for example, while marking exam papers, classwork and
homework, and giving equal opportunities for students to participate in class discussions.

60
Special needs students also get special support based on their specific needs in order to
enhance their capabilities.

Access to Clean Water, Sanitation Facilities and Menstrual Hygiene Products

As stated in Section 5.1.1.1, school A has access to water but there is no water supply
in school B and C. However, the results in terms of access to clean water differ between the
fieldwork and QLE results. According to the QLE result, safe drinking water is available for
learners and staff in the three schools. School A exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator
2.2 with a score of 4 whereas Schools B and C achieved the indicator with a score of 3.

During interviews, students and teachers in School A were asked if they have access
to clean water. They reported that the water supply is not clean because the groundwater is
contaminated.

The teachers from School B and C noted that lack of water significantly affects the
teaching and learning process. Most students are absent from class when they are thirsty.
Parents agreed with the teachers. During interviews, parents emphasized that the water
problem must be addressed to ensure quality of education. For example, a parent from school
A said:

In order to improve and sustain the quality of education, the water problem
must be addressed. Some students have not been attending classes because of
the water problem. For example, when my child is thirsty, he misses classes
and come home to drink water. Sometimes, I give him money to buy sparkling
water from the Mini shop to avoid that he is absent from class (Interview,
February 27, 2017).

To address the water problem, teachers and directors collected and stored sparkling
water when they attended seminars and meetings organized by NGOs. SC also provided
water jerry cans to bring water from other places. However, the jerry cans were not used
because there is no water access in the nearby areas of the schools.

According to the QLE results, there was adequate sanitation facilities for learners in
School A and B, i.e. sub-standard indicator 2.3 was achieved with a score of 3. School C
partially achieved sub-standard indicator 1.3 with a score of 2. The fieldwork results
complement the schools' QLE sub-standard indicator 2.3 score. School observation showed
that separate toilets for males and females are available in the three schools. All toilets

61
guarantee student privacy because they can be locked from inside. The toilets are fairly clean,
but no soap is provided for students to wash their hands after use of the toilets. School C
toilets are old and there is smell from the pipes. School B have newly constructed toilets with
a better standard than the other schools but they are not clean because of a water problem. The
school director of school B stated that the school toilets were constructed by SC in 2014.
Before that, the school toilets were very old and constructed without a ceiling. There was a
bad sewage system. In addition to toilets, SC provided menstrual hygiene facilities for girls,
such as sanitary pads and soap. But in school A and B, menstrual hygiene products are not
provided for girls. The director of school C said that some students cannot afford to buy
sanitary pads and miss school when they have their period.

In School A and C, solid waste was collected from classrooms and disposed in dust
bins. In School B, there were no dustbins inside or outside the classrooms which led to some
waste being thrown on the ground. In this school, some students reported that they suffered
from eye allergies because of the dirt on the ground. School B was also exposed to flooding
because of its sloped landscape and poor drainage system.

Safe School Compound

Schools must guarantee student safety by fencing the school compound (UNESCO &
Unicef, 2007). School B and C are appropriately fenced with stick and metal. But the School
A compound is not fenced because of lack of finance. Considering the current emergency
situation in Ethiopia, some students noted that they are not feeling safe in school because it is
not fenced.

To ensure safety, school buildings and grounds should be checked to eliminate causes
of potential injury (UNESCO & Unicef, 2007). In school B, students and teachers reported
that there are safety risks in relation to the ongoing construction. Because of the unfinished
groundwork, some students fell into a hole and were injured (Photo 5.4).

62
Photo 5.4 Ongoing construction in School B
Safe Play area

A healthy environment should provide safe and stimulating opportunities for play and
recreation. They are important to improve student motivation for learning (UNESCO &
Unicef, 2007). According to the QLE results, School B and C have play areas for all learners
and exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator 2.4 with a score of 4. School A partially
achieved sub-standard indicator 2.4 with a score of 2. The fieldwork results support school
A's QLE sub-standard indicator 2.4 score. The interview and observation results show that
the presence of recreational facilities is poor in School A. There is no playground or other
recreational facilities because of financial problems. The director of School A claimed that
the school is relatively new and has been waiting for a budget to construct a play area.

As stated above, School B and C exceedingly achieved QLE sub-standard indicator

2.4. But the interview and observation results show that the schools' recreation facilities are
not sufficient for the students. Most students would like to have a better play area. The two
schools achieved the same on sub-standard indicator 2.4, i.e. a score of 4. However, School
B had better recreation facilities than the other two schools based on the interview and
observation results. Football and volleyball grounds are available in School B. Students were
observed playing football and volleyball during break time. SC provides balls to School B
each year. Students can ask teachers or supervisors to borrow the balls when they want to
play.

There is only one football ground available for students in School A. No other
recreational facilities were observed in the school. Students mentioned that they do not have

63
enough balls. The school director of School C noted that SC has not provided recreation
materials for the school.

The third inclusion component is textbook and other learning materials. It has two
indicators: a textbook for each subject, and learning materials. Making textbooks available
for students and teachers is very important to improve the quality of education. The QLE
framework does not strongly emphasize textbooks in its indicators. QLE sub-standard 3.4
states that learning is supported through the use of relevant visual aids and other teaching
materials, but does not specifically mention textbooks.

5.2.1.3 Textbooks and other Learning Materials

Tikly and Barett (2013) state that textbooks and other learning materials play an
important role in improving learning outcomes and are critical for supporting the teaching
and learning process. The provision of appropriate textbooks to teachers and students is
pivotal particularly in disadvantaged contexts.

Textbooks

Data from interviews with teachers and students, and classroom observation show that
all students have their own textbook for each subject provided by the school, except for the
Amharic book.

In this regard, a student from School A said:

I have my own textbook for each subject, but I do not have an Amharic book. The
school provides textbooks to all students in the first semester of each school year
and we return them after the end of the second semester. We each share the
Amharic textbook with two or three other students depending on the number of
students in class (Interview, February 17, 2017).

During classroom observation, most students present in class had their own
textbooks. Teachers said that all teachers have textbooks for teaching provided by the
school. But they have a problem of guidebooks which they received late at the end of the
first semester. The teachers also confirmed that students have their own textbook for each
subject, except for the Amharic book. The average Amharic textbook to student ratio is
1:3, 1:4, 1:5 in School A, B and C respectively. There is a shortage of the newly published

64
Amharic textbook for Grades 1-4 in the country. The textbook is not yet fully distributed
across all regions, especially in rural schools. A teacher from School C said:

Even the teachers have not received the Amharic textbook. It is not only the
school's problem, but a countrywide problem. The government claims that the
printing process is delayed (Interview, March 1, 2017).

In several countries, textbook shortages have become even more acute over the past
decade which affects the quality of education (UNESCO, 2015a). In general, textbook
provision is good in the three SC supported primary schools. The pupil:textbook ratio is 1:1,
except for the Amharic book. According to all interviews, the availability of textbook for
each subject is one of the most important factors to the improvement of quality of education
in the three schools.

Other Learning Materials

Students were asked if they have school supplements, such as notebooks, pens, and
pencils. According to the results, all students in the three schools have school supplements for
learning. SC has contributed much in this regard, supplying educational materials to students
through its programming. SC frequently visits the schools to provide learning materials,
especially for students with a lower socio-economic status. In order to address the root causes
of the learning materials problem, SC supports parents from a poor economic background by
giving sheep and goats as livestock. This aims at enabling parents to cover learning materials
costs of their children in the coming years.

In School B, students claimed that they do not wear a school uniform because of
financial constraint. A student from School B said:

I feel stressed when I go to school because I do not have a uniform. Not only me,
but many students do not wear a uniform because of financial problems. These
days, the school forces students to wear a school uniform, but our parents cannot
afford to buy it. It costs 250 Ethiopian birr to buy a uniform for one student
(Interview, February 24, 2017).

During interviews, the school director of School A said that he was discussing with
SC officials to provide school uniforms to students for free or with minimum cost.

Another component of the inclusion dimension is pedagogic processes and ICT

supported learning. The indicators are: teacher use of annual and specific lesson plans,

65
interactive teaching methods, formative and continuous assessment, and ICT supported
learning. The QLE framework focuses on all indicators but relates ICT supported learning
only to the use of visual aids. QLE sub-standard indicator 3.4 indicates learning is supported
through the use of relevant visual aids, i.e. it emphasizes video lessons using DVD or the
internet, but does not mention others, such as radio instruction which is widely used in poor
countries (UNESCO, 2015) and computer based supported learning. Over the past decade,
interactive radio instruction has helped schools with poor ICT resources (UNESCO, 2015).

5.2.1.4 Pedagogic Processes and ICT Supported Learning

According to Tikly and Barrett (2013), pedagogic processes should be structured, i.e.
include an interactive learning process, “careful planning of lessons with a clear introduction,
using formative assessment and may use a range of strategies, including question and answer
with the whole class, individual exercises or reading, group discussion and practical
activities” (p. 205). ICT supported learning, such as audio-visual aids, TV and computer in
school also plays a significant role in improving academic achievements (Tikly & Barrett,
2013).

According to the interviewee responses, pedagogic processes were one of the

important factors for the quality of the learning environment in the schools. All interviewees
stated that the teaching and learning process in the schools is remarkable and played a
significant role in improving the quality of education.

Interactive teaching Method, Teacher Use of Lesson Plans

The QLE results of the three schools show that the teachers interact with the learners.
The schools exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator 3.7 with a score of 4. The
classroom observation and interview results also show that teachers use interactive teaching
methods in the schools. The schools develop annual and specific lesson plans. Teachers are
not allowed to teach without preparing yearly and daily lesson plans because it is one of their
professional responsibilities. According to the QLE results of the three schools, teachers
develop, follow and adapt lesson plans to the needs and abilities of learners in their class.
They exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator 3.4 with a score of 4.

Teachers come to school on time and start classes punctually. They introduce and
summarize each session, remind students of previous lessons to capture the learners'
attention, ask questions and interact with students. They gave various examples to enable

66
students to understand the lesson from different perspectives. Teachers regularly use teaching
aids, such as a map, a globe, a radio and pictures in addition to the textbooks. A teacher from
School A said:

I often use visual teaching aids in addition to oral presentations and notes. I believe an
image lasts longer in the minds of children. Student feedback is supportive of the use
of visual aids in class (Interview, February 17, 2017).

According to the schools' QLE sub-standard indicator 1.3 score, learning is supported
through the use of relevant visual aids and other teaching materials. School A achieved sub-
standard indicator 3.4 with a score of 3. School B and C exceedingly achieved with a score of
4. But the observation results show that the use of teaching aid facilities is better in School A
than in the other two schools. Teachers in School A have better access to teaching aids
because SC has regularly provided essential visual and audio teaching aids.

According to interviews, students stressed that teachers encourage students to

participate in the learning process before, during and after class sessions. They try to enhance
student confidence to speak their own ideas in front of other students. A student from School
A said:
Our teacher encourages students to participate in class, especially in the English
class. She would come to class with the English alphabet of A-Z and encourage
students to speak. When we answer questions, she encourages us by having students
applaud (Interview, February 14, 2017).
During observations, students were asking questions during and at the end of each
class session. The teachers teach the lesson again if students do not understand appropriately.
In the three schools, students are pleased with the teaching and learning process. The
observation results support the student responses. A student from school C mentioned:
I am confident that the school is one of the best in the district. Everybody knows that
the school infrastructure is bad, but the teaching and learning process is very good.
Before I enrolled here, I was in a private school for one month. I did not like that
school. Then I asked my parents to find me another school. Finally, I enrolled here.
From my first day in school, I really liked it (Interview, March 2, 2017).

During interviews, all teachers responded that they are using active and participatory
teaching methods. Using student centred teaching methods helps build student confidence
and make them independent thinkers. The teaching and learning process is frequently

67
observed by supervisors and directors. There is also another mechanism of classroom
observation in the school, namely teachers observing teachers in order to exchange feedback.

Formative and Continuous Assessment

Classroom-based formative and continuous assessment improves student learning

(Heijnen-Maathuis & Christensen, 2016). The QLE results of the three schools show that
teachers use informal and formal learning assessment tools. School B achieved sub-standard
indicator 3.8 with a score of 3. School A and C exceedingly achieved the indicator with a
score of 4.

The fieldwork data support the QLE result. During observations, teachers used
informal and formal learning assessment techniques. They used continuous assessment by
which students were examined constantly over a period of time. Quizzes, tests, mid-term and
final exams prepared by teachers and student marks are calculated for each type of exam.
Teachers ask questions of students individually in order to investigate their understanding of
daily lessons. Students are given enough time to provide answers and can ask for clarification
if they do not understand the questions. Teachers comment on the answers to create
interaction. As Oliver (1995) notes, in cognitive interaction, the teacher provides constructive
feedback on student responses which permits reflection and consideration of alternative
perspectives. Teachers also give group work exercises to make students collaborate, analyze
and reflect on the daily lessons. During observation, teachers randomly assigned students
from each group to share their ideas with other groups.

The classroom arrangement was suitable for group work. Teachers arranged the desks
in a Horseshoe/U-shape style which encourages students to be active in class and participate
in group work. Using a one-to-five network (see section 5.2.9), students sat together in teams
for the group work exercise. Teachers give similar or different questions to each team and all
students have to contribute to provide answers. In each group, there is one team leader and
one note taker. Teachers also register class attendance using the one-to-five network teams.
Each group is provided with a green, yellow or red flag. The teachers put a flag on the desks
of each team considering the number of students present in class. Red means a team where
most members are not in class, yellow refers to a team with some absentees, and green refers
a team with all members present.

68
 Classwork and homework are given to students and teachers follow up on their work.
Students were asked if they are given class work and homework. They answered that
classwork and homework are frequently given in all subjects. A teacher from School C said:

We give classwork and homework to students, but it depends on the intensity

and characteristics of the subject. For example, we give more exercises in
mathematics than in other subjects (Interview, March 7, 2017).

Students' homework is collected and marked by the teacher in the following class
session. Teachers clarify difficult questions in the homework, i.e. questions which most
students did not answer in the homework. During observation, teachers selected questions
from the homework, provided answers and clarification. In the interviews, students were
asked if they like classroom and homework given by the teachers. Most students responded
that they really like it because it helps them construct their own knowledge and remember
what they are taught in class. However, they do not like difficult exercises.

Students sit for mid-term and final examinations. Mid-term exams are given eight
weeks after the semester start and the final examination at the end of the term. Questions for
the exams are formulated based on the objectives of the subject.

ICT Supported Learning

ICT plays a significant role in improving the quality of education. It enhances

“presentation, demonstration, drill and practice, interaction and collaboration – that are more
interactive and participatory than traditional modes” (Haddad and Draxler cited in UNESCO,
2015, p. 212). The interview and observation results show that School A and B sometimes
use Interactive Radio Instruction where teachers and students interact verbally based on
broadcast instruction. Radio programming is a successful example of technology use, in
particular for children in isolated or underserved settings (Ho & Thukral, cited in UNESCO,
2015).

Teachers would like to have more ICT facilities, such as a TV and computers. But lack
of electricity and finance prevent the utilization of ICT in school. Teachers believe that ICT
supported learning could enhance student motivation for learning and improve the quality of
education. Similarly, the students noted that the use of radio instruction enhances their

69
motivation for learning. In School C, there is no Interactive radio instruction because the
school has no digital radio and they experience signal problems.

The fifth quality inclusion component is special needs education. It has two indicators:
special needs education; and teacher training on how to deal with students with disabilities.
The social justice perspective emphasizes special needs education stressing the importance of
access to basic education for students with disabilities and ongoing teacher training on how to
deal with them (Tikly & Barrett, 2009, 2011). However, the QLE substandard indicators do
not identify this quality inclusion component.

5.2.1.5 Special Needs Education

According to Tikly and Barrett (2013), primary school students with disability must
benefit from targeted resource inputs, such as complementary extra-curricular programs.
Lack of support for special needs students is one of the quality constraints (UNESCO,
2015a). The interview and observation results show that the schools teach students with
disabilities together with the other students. This supports the social model of disability
which stresses including children with disabilities in mainstream education rather than
segregating them in separate institutions (UNESCO, 2015a).

During interviews, teachers were asked if they give special support to students with
learning difficulties. They asserted that they are trying their best to support special needs
students. Students with disability receive extra support, such as tutoring. In school A and B,
most teachers receive special trainings by SC to help special needs students in the learning
process. A teacher from School B said:

I have one student with hearing difficulties. SC has provided much support to her
to make her competent in the teaching and learning process. I received special
training by SC on how to treat her in class (Interview, February 23, 2017).
In school C, teachers have not been trained in how to deal with students with
disabilities. Some teachers claimed that they lack knowledge on how to provide extra support
for students with learning difficulties. According to classroom observation in School A,
teachers encourage students with disabilities to participate in class activities to their fullest
potential. Students with hearing difficulties are seated in the front desks so that they can
better follow the lessons. Teachers provide oral instructions and lesson notes for students
with vision impairment. They repeat words, questions and answers. Teachers use audio-visual
teaching aids that are convenient for students with certain disabilities. The school also creates

70
awareness among students about how to deal with students with disabilities. In School A and
B, teachers provide 30-45 minutes tutorial sessions for special needs students after normal
class sessions and on weekends.

Another quality component of the inclusion dimension is teacher training and

motivation. The indicators are teacher pre-service and ongoing in-service trainings, teacher
salary, respect and reward. The QLE framework stresses the importance of teacher training
but does not specify teacher motivation.

5.2.1.6 Teacher Training and Motivation Mechanisms

Teacher education, training, continuous professional development and teacher morale

are key quality issues to improve learning and enhance equity. Creating an effective system
of professional support for teachers is important for quality improvements of disadvantaged
learners (SC, 2013; Tikly & Barrett, 2011).

Teacher Pre-Service and ongoing In-Service Trainings

According to the schools' QLE sub-standard indicator 3.2 score, teachers have
specialized training and national qualifications. School A exceedingly achieved sub-
standard indicator 3.2 with a score of 4 whereas School B and C achieved the indicator with
a score of 3. The QLE results of School A and B also showed that teachers are provided
with continuous support to improve practice in key areas specific to their roles. The two
schools exceedingly achieved the QLE sub-standard indicator 3.3 with a score of 4. School
C partially achieved this indicator with a score of 2. The interview and observation data
support the result.

According to interviews in School A and B, teachers noted that they receive in-service
and pre-service training that contribute to improve the teaching and learning process. They
receive pre-service training by the Amhara regional state education bureau before they enter
into teaching service. They also receive short-term in-service training organized by SC,
focusing on introducing the updated ways of interactive teaching methods. SC also provides
special training that enables teachers to support low performing students, such as how to
understand and address the causes of students' poor academic performance, how to deal with
the issue with parents and how to provide tutors. Summer trainings are organized in
collaboration with the schools and the district education office. A teacher from School A
mentioned:

71
 I have been well trained, special thanks to SC. The school has a strong platform for
teacher training with the help of SC. I benefited from this platform. I have been
working in the school since its inauguration. The trainings contributed a lot to my
professional development (Interview, February 15, 2017).

In relation to teacher training, the school director of School B said:

In our school, SC and the district education office have strongly supported teacher
training. It has provided short term training for teachers 5-6 days annually
(Interview, March 1, 2017).

The interview results in School C show that teachers receive pre-service and annual
in-service summer training by the district education bureau. But they never received
additional training by SC and other NGOs. Teachers expressed their concern because they are
not receiving enough training. They would like to receive more training in order to enhance
their skills and competence.

Teacher Salary, Respect and Reward

According to the interview results, teachers are not satisfied with their salary because
it is not enough to meet their basic needs. Some teachers give private tutoring to students in
order to increase their income. Salaries have a direct impact on the motivation and prestige of
teaching. In several sub-Saharan African countries, teachers do not earn enough to lift their
families above the poverty line (UNESCO, 2015a).

Incentives given to teachers are good considering the location of the schools. To
enhance teacher motivation, the schools provide annual incentives for top performing teachers.
But School C did not reward top performing teachers in 2016 because of financial problems.
During the interviews, teachers stated that the annual rewards enhance the motivation of
teachers to provide the best teaching for the students. Teacher interests are protected by the
directors and respected by students, directors and the community. This also enhances the
motivation of teachers. The director of School A said:

The teachers do not have an input problem. When they need something, they get an
immediate response. We work with SC in this regard. For example, teachers asked to
get additional training this year. With the help of SC, they were provided training last
week (Interview, February 14, 2017).

72
 The director of School C said:

The school is concerned about teacher interests. I work with the district office
and SC to fulfil the teachers' needs because it enhances their teaching motivation.
Most of the teachers asked for water and guide books. I know that water is a
problem not only for teachers, but for students, teachers and other staff. Teachers
noted that they sometimes lack motivation to teach afternoon classes when they feel
thirsty.

5.2.2 The Relevance Dimension

The framework of analysis for the study conceptualizes the relevance dimension of
quality as related to the use of the mother tongue and relevance for national educational
goals. The indicators are: education to meet national educational goals; and teacher use of
mother tongue for teaching. The QLE framework identifies teacher use of the mother tongue
as part of the quality of the learning environment. It does not indicate relevance for national
educational goals which, according to Tikly and Barrett (2009, 2011), is important to
improve quality of education and ensure that education meets personal and societal needs.

5.2.2.1 Use of the Mother Tongue

Tikly and Barrett (2009) state that from a social justice perspective, “there is
significant evidence that learning in the mother tongue at least in the early years is critical for
cognitive development” (p. 16). It facilitates children's learning of a second language in the
later years (Tikly & Barrett, 2013). In Ethiopia, using the mother tongue in primary education
is mandatory, and teachers are recruited from the local area to ensure mother tongue
proficiency (MOE, 2015).

The QLE results of the three schools show that teachers use the mother tongue of the
learners. School A exceedingly achieved sub-standard indicator 3.6 with a score of 3. School
B and C also exceedingly achieved the indicator with a score of 3. During classroom
observation, teachers used the Amharic language for teaching except in the English subject.
Amharic is the mother tongue of all students in the schools. Teachers provided notes and
daily lessons and question and answer sessions in the Amharic language. Students noted that
learning in their mother tongue contributes to better understanding of the lessons. It
encourages them to participate in class, freely asking questions and explaining their ideas.

73
 Teachers sometimes use English to explain some concepts. A teacher from School A
said:

I always use Amharic. But I mention some important words in English which I
think students use in higher grades. Even when I mention these words, I first say
them in Amharic before translating them into English (Interview, February 15,
2017).
A teacher from School B said:

I teach all subjects in the students' mother tongue except for English. But when I
teach science, I translate important words from Amharic into English. For example,
words like sanitation, water cycle, evaporation, plants, fruits and vegetables
(Interview, February 23, 2017).
Some students seemed unhappy when teachers mentioned words in English. They
claimed that they are confused when words are in English. According to the interviews, all
students preferred to be taught in their mother tongue because it enables them to easily
understand what is taught in class. They believe that it improves the quality of education.

During classroom observation, teachers experienced difficulties in teaching the whole

lesson in English because of language difficulties. They tended to use Amharic to explain
English grammatical structures. Teachers said words and sentences in English and then
translated them into Amharic.

5.2.2.2 Relevance for National Educational Goals

Quality of education must address the purpose of education, i.e. the learning process
should reflect national educational goals (Tikly & Barrett, 2009; UNESCO, 2014). The ESDP
V program outlines the contemporary education goals in primary education. It starts with fair
treatment of all children regardless of socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, and disability
(MOE, 2015). As stated earlier, all students are treated equally in the three schools.
According to ESDP V all children must have teachers who are trained and motivated. School
principals and supervisors must be supported through a professional development programme
(MOE, 2015). Teachers in School A and B receive ongoing training but School C teachers
receive insufficient trainings. School directors also receive training by the district education
office and SC.

74
 The findings of the study show that the schools reflect certain national educational
goals, for example teachers' use of relevant teaching methods, student centred pragmatic
teaching, and use of the mother tongue. Teachers use the mother tongue and provide
pragmatic teaching, i.e. link theory to practice by providing examples from everyday life,
local history and culture. According to Cummings and Blatherwick (2017), education is
relevant when teachers set students in context and provide examples in class in relation to the
students’ lived experiences. Tikly & Barrett (2013) also stress that the school curricula should
recognize socio-cultural identities and include the histories and knowledge of indigenous
communities.

ESDP V suggests that ICT supported learning should be integrated into the teaching
process, including in rural schools. This helps teachers and students develop the skills and
technologies that Ethiopia needs in its future workforce (MOE, 2015). The study shows that
ICT supported learning is poor in the schools. The national educational program further
stresses that adequate efforts must be made to improve education for students with special
needs. The study findings show that students with disabilities receive special support by their
teachers. As implemented in the schools, the ESDP V suggests the importance of
strengthening the participation of parents, students, teachers and the community in school
activities (MOE, 2015). ESDP V also emphasizes that school environments must be safe
and healthy, focusing on all schools, have a supply of portable drinking water, an appropriate
play area and gender-specific sanitation facilities (MOE, 2015). The study shows that the
water supply is poor in School B and C and that none of the schools have an appropriate play
area. But the three schools have gender-specific toilet facilities because there are separate
toilets for males and females.

5.2.3 The Democracy Dimension

In the framework of analysis for the study, the democracy dimension has two quality
components and three indicators. The two components are school code of conduct and
school, parent and community links. The indicators are code of conduct for learners and
teachers, the use of the code of conduct in school, and the voice of students, teachers, parents
and community in school decision making processes. Both the social justice approach and
QLE put much emphasis on school, parent and community links to improve the quality of
education. The QLE framework extends the component of the democracy dimension by
adding the school code of conduct which is not discussed in Tikly and Barrett (2009, 2011,
2013).

75
5.2.3.1 School Code of Conduct
Creating an orderly atmosphere in school is a key to ensure quality of education.
Having a clearly defined code of conduct is one of the strategies to create an orderly and safe
environment in school. The code of conduct applies not only to students, but to all
stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, and other staff members. It governs the
relationship among all stakeholders of the school community and contributes to educational
processes (SC, 2013; UNESCO & Unicef, 2007).

According to the schools' QLE results, School B and C achieved QLE sub- indicator
1.1 (code of conduct for learners and teachers) with a score of 3. This indicates that the code
of conduct is positive for teachers and learners in terms of a safe and protective environment.
Teachers and learners reported that they are aware of and use the code of conduct. The code
of conduct is visible to learners and teachers and documented. School A partially achieved
the indicator with a score of 2. It means that the code of conduct exists but is not used
consistently.

According to the interviews and observations, there is a code of conduct for learners
and teachers in the three schools. The code of conduct creates expectations among students,
teachers and administrators and is regularly followed. It is written down and posted in the
school compound and inside classrooms. Students were asked if they are aware of and follow
the school code of conduct. All students answered that they are. For example, a student from
School A said:

Yes I know it. For instance, all students must attend class with their textbooks
and learning materials. Students have the right to ask any questions and teachers
have to provide answers. If students do not follow the code of conduct, the
school administration takes disciplinary measures (Interview, February 17,
2017).
In this respect, a student from School B answered:
Yes, I know it. To mention some: All students must attend and stand up during
the flag raising ceremony. Students must appropriately use schools materials,
such as desks, toilets, blackboards, tables and textbooks. Most students in our
school have to follow the rules written in the code of conduct. When students do
not abide by them, they are advised to correct their mistake. If they do it again,
they are asked to bring their parents, then the parents will be informed about the
situation. If they frequently do something that is not according to the code of
conduct, they are dismissed (Interview, February 21, 2017).

76
 A student from School C also said:

Yes, I am really aware of the school code of conduct because it is written and
posted in the school compound. For example, asking questions in class and
playing games during break time are among student rights. Protecting school
infrastructure, not being late or disturbing in class are among student
responsibilities. All students have to follow it (Interview, March 5, 2017).

Some students in School C noted that they are not happy with the code of conduct rule
six: a student is not allowed to enter class five minutes after class has started. They claim
that some teachers do not allow students (whose homes are far from the school) to enter
class after they have started teaching. They deduct 3-5 marks when students are late.

According to interviews, teachers and directors responded that there are different
codes of conduct for students and teachers in the schools. The schools use SC's code of
conduct manual as a platform to design their own code of conduct. All stakeholders are
responsible for ensuring that the code of conduct is followed in the school. The unit leaders
with the help of the director, teachers and students work together to ensure that the school
code of conduct is followed, using the one-to-five network.

5.2.3.2 School, Parent and Community Links

According to the social justice perspective, accountability is linked to increased
parental and community voice aiming at improving the quality of education (Tikly & Barrett,
2013). Tikly and Barrett (2013) consider the “community as a site within which wider
economic, political and cultural inequalities are produced and reproduced in relation to local
cultural norms and practices ” (p. 203). Schools can challenge and address these inequalities
in school by working together with parents and the community.

The QLE results from the three schools show that teachers and parents collaborate on
key issues affecting the children's learning process, such as absenteeism, sickness etc. School
A exceedingly achieved the QLE sub-standard indicator 4.2 with a score of 4. School B and
C achieved this indicator with a score of 3. The interview results in the three schools reveal
that teachers, students and parents participate in school decision making concerning teaching
and learning and other school activities. This is guaranteed by the one-to-five network for
students and teachers and the PTA. Each has its own tasks to ensure the participation of
teachers, learners and parents in school decision making. The one-to-five network is typically
called 'Ande Leamist Aderejajet' in Amharic which is a platform for dividing students and

77
teachers into smaller groups of six members. Each group has one team leader selected by
group members. The main aim of this platform is to integrate the voice of students and
teachers through group team leaders.

The one-to-five networks organize meetings every week and evaluate their activities
monthly based on their plan. Using the one-to-five network, students and teachers discuss the
overall challenges in the teaching and learning process and group team leaders provide
monthly reports to the administrators. To encourage students to participate in the network,
best performing student teams are awarded annually in front of the parents. According to
observations, students in the schools are also encouraged to participate and speak about their
problems during the flag raising ceremony. Students actively participate in school activities
and their contributions are valued in the decision making process. Student participation
enhances their self-confidence, problem solving and communication skills (Heijnen-Maathuis
& Christensen, 2016).

The schools have a PTA to include the voice of parents and teachers in the school
decision making process. The main aim of the PTA is to improve the quality of education,
to decrease the dropout rate by creating safe and conducive learning environments, and to
address student problems in the learning process. The contribution of parents in school
activities is significant. Most parents regularly attend the PTA meetings and freely express
their ideas. They provide feedback and evaluate the teaching and learning process. The
parent-teacher relationship seems to be strong, parents and teachers share their ideas freely
in PTA meetings. Teachers respect parental opinions and solutions and vice versa. They
work together in order to find solutions to student problems. Solving student problems is
very important. According to the QLE, teachers and parents must collaborate to address key
issues affecting children's learning process (SC, 2013).

During interviews, a parent from School A said:

In the PTA, we have a tea and coffee meeting every month. The school posts meeting
schedules for each month, but often on the 12th of each month. We often discuss
about how to deal with students with disciplinary problems and absenteeism,
dropout rates, how to improve quality by addressing the challenges in the teaching
and learning process. SC supports the tea and coffee program during the PTA
meetings. It provides annually 5 kg of coffee and 8 kg of sugar for the PTA
(Interview, February 27, 2017).

78
 A parent from School B said:
I regularly participate in the PTA meetings. Most of the parents have a poor
educational background. But the teachers encourage us to share our ideas on school
activities. They say that our ideas contribute to improve the quality of education.
This enhances my motivation to participate in the PTA. Although I have work to do,
I would not miss PTA meetings. In the meetings, we often discuss the challenges in
the teaching and learning process (Interview, February 24, 2017).
In school A, in addition to the PTA, they have a meeting every semester of directors,
supervisors, teachers, students and parents to incorporate their voice in the decision making
process. They also have a female parents’ association to encourage the participation of
females in school activities. Best performing female parents in this association are awarded
annually by SC. In School A, the community participates in various activities, such as
fencing, gardening and tree planting. The QLE results of the three schools show that the
PTAs include representatives from the community. The three schools achieved the QLE sub-
standard indicator 4.1 with a score of 3. During interviews, parents suggested to create a
monitoring and evaluation mechanism of the PTA activities in order to have better ties
between the school and the community. In general, most students, teachers and parents stated
that the strong link among students, teachers, parents, and the community is one of the
important factors to improve the quality of education in the schools.

The similarities and differences among the three schools in terms of the three core
concepts of quality, inclusion, relevance and democracy, have been examined. The results
show that there is variation with respect to the inclusion dimension. For example, concerning
basic school infrastructure, School A is much better than the other schools. In ICT supported
learning, School A and B are better than School C. But in light of relevance and democracy,
the variation is less and all schools performed well on all indicators. Examining the three core
dimensions of quality in the schools also provided administrators, parents and teachers with
the opportunity to express their perception of quality of education.

5.2.4 Administrator, Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Quality of Education

The quality of education was perceived differently among the teachers, administrators
and parents relating variously to quality as input, process, or outcome.

Quality as Input

Some teachers and parents understood educational quality as related to the availability
of human and material resources and infrastructure which is found in the inclusion dimension.

79
The administrators mentioned inputs as part of the quality of education but believe that
educational processes contribute more to quality improvement than inputs.

For instance, a parent from School B said:

From my perspective, I understand quality of education in terms of human

and material resources. In this regard, the school has done a great job. I believe
that the availability of teachers, textbooks, teaching aids, and other learning
materials are adequate in the school (Interview, March 7, 2017).
Some teachers from School A and C mentioned that the availability of infrastructure
in the school, such as classroom, library, desks, chalkboards, teaching aids, water tank and
playgrounds, play a pivotal role in the improvement of the quality of education. They also
noted that the availability of teachers matters for quality of education.

Quality as Process
The three interviewed school administrators and most teachers and parents understood
quality as related to educational process. They understood educational processes in terms of
pedagogic process and teacher training, particularly emphasising the use of active teaching
and learning methods, continuous assessment and ongoing training opportunities, as reflected
in the inclusion dimension. For instance, the school director of School B said:

Teachers' quality is very important; without trained teachers, no quality of

education. To ensure quality, schools must create more training opportunities
for teachers considering their educational level and experience (Interview,
March 1, 2017).
A parent from School B said:

I understand the quality of education in terms of the teaching and learning

process. The school has been improving over time in terms of quality. My child
is very happy in school. She likes the learning process, especially the teachers.
The teachers provide quality teaching for students. They encourage
students to participate in class and group work exercises (Interview, March 6,
2017).
Teachers agreed that the teaching and learning process matters to improve the quality
of education. They stressed that teacher' quality is important. Teachers are required to
improve their capacity through training and should provide essential support to students. In
addition to this, some teachers believe that a safe and conducive school environment is
important to improve the quality of education. A teacher from School A said:

80
 Quality starts from a safe and conducive school environment, such as proper
desks, windows, doors, blackboards etc. The school environment must be
attractive to students. For instance, look at the garden and trees of this
school, they are really attractive. The classroom environment is also safe for
students. For example, we do not punish students when they disturb in class
(Interview, February 15, 2017).
Quality as Output
During the interviews, most of the parents believed that academic achievement
and literacy define the quality of education. For example, a parent from School C said:

I understand the quality of education in terms of students' academic achievement. I

can say that the school quality is improved when students' academic performance
increases. For instance, I have a child in this school. For the past two years, he
has scored better in many subjects than my other child in another school. They
are at same grade level (Interview, March 8, 2017).
A parent from School B said:

Students' ability to read and write defines the quality of education. My child
was not able to write and read before enrolling in this school. But now, she can
read and write fast. She has improved a lot (Interview, March 6, 2017).
Most teachers and administrators noted that the quality of education must improve
student literacy. SC has invested much in the schools to improve student literacy.

5.3. Summary

The analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data shows that there are similarities
and differences in the quality of the learning environment across the SC supported primary
schools. Schools in the Amhara region are better in terms of the quality learning environment
and student literacy scores than schools in the SNNPR region. From the sampled SC
supported primary schools, three schools have an average QLE score higher than 3. The
length of time for SC intervention matters for the schools' quality of the learning
environment. The proportion of schools that achieved all QLE guiding principles was higher
in schools that had received SC support for more than 2 years. The results also show that the
schools that achieved the four QLE guiding principles have a higher literacy score than
schools that did not achieve them.

According to interviewee responses and observation result, particular factors

contributed to the quality of the learning environment in the three best performing schools

81
with some difference among the schools. The factors which are common in the schools are:
(a) pedagogic processes; (b) teacher motivation; (c) special needs education; (d) textbooks
and other learning materials; (e) the use of the mother tongue and the code of conduct; and
(f)school, parent and community link. The factors which are not common in the schools are:
basic school infrastructure (School A); and teacher training (School A and B).

Among the common factors, the interviewees stated that pedagogic processes, the
availability of textbooks for each subject and school, and links with parents and the
community are the most important factors to improve the quality of education. As presented
in the analysis, these three factors are present in all three schools and all of their indicators
were met.

The concluding chapter elaborates on these findings by answering the research

questions in light of the framework of analysis. The implications of the findings for SC and
MOE are also discussed in view of their understanding of quality.

82
 CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The study has examined quality improvement in early primary education in SC

supported schools in Ethiopia. This chapter summarizes the research findings and their
interpretation in view of the framework of the analysis for the study. It also discusses the
implications of the study for SC and the government as related to their understanding of
quality. It, finally, makes suggestions for further research mostly seen in light of the study’s
own limitations.

6.1 Summary and Interpretation

The study findings are presented and interpreted in view of the two research
questions.

6.1.1 Research Question No. 1

Concerning the first research question (What are the similarities and differences of the
quality of the learning environment in the SC supported schools in the Amhara and SNNP
regions?), the results show that there is variation in QLE results between SC supported
schools in the Amhara and SNNPR regions. Schools that had received SC support for more
than 2 years have a better QLE than schools which received less support. According to the
2015 SCN education dataset, 38.4% of the sampled schools received SC support for more
than 2 years against only 6.8% in the SNNPR region (SCN, 2015). On this basis, it can be
argued that one of the contributing factors for the lesser performance in QLE in SC supported
schools in the SNNPR region is time of SC intervention.

The other finding is that students in schools that achieved all QLE guiding principles
have a higher literacy score than students in schools that did not achieve them. This shows
how student learning outcomes and quality of learning environment are related. Literacy is an
important component in learning outcomes as part of improving the quality of education.
Good academic achievement, literacy and numeracy improve the quality of education
(Unicef, 2000).

83
6.1.2 Research Question No. 2

The analysis of the second research question (What are the particular factors
contributing to the quality of the learning environment in the selected primary schools?) was
preceded by a discussion of the concept of quality in different traditions. The understanding of
quality in this study is based on the three core concepts of inclusion, relevance, and
democracy as defined in social justice thinking (Tikly and Barett, 2009, 2011). They were
understood in view of the QLE framework and the MOE concept of quality. Indicators for the
study were identified based on commonality and difference amongst them. They are listed in
Table 6.1.

Inclusion

The components for quality in the inclusion dimension include: basic school
infrastructure and human resources; safe and healthy learning space; pedagogic processes and
ICT supported learning; textbooks and other learning materials; teacher motivation; special
needs education; and teacher training. While most were apparent in all schools, the study
shows that basic school infrastructure was important only in School A and teacher training
only in School A and B.

Concerning pedagogic processes, all schools performed well in all quality factors. The
findings show that the teaching and learning process was remarkable in all three schools.
According to the interviewee responses, the pedagogic process is one of the important factors
for the quality of the learning environment in the schools. Teachers give instruction,
explanation of lessons and respond to questions based on the students' background and
cultural context. They use interactive teaching methods, prepare annual and specific lesson
plans, and regularly use teaching aids. Informal and formal learning assessments are used to
evaluate student performance. Based on the SCN education dataset, the student literacy
scores in the three schools are good and one of the reasons for this could be the teaching and
learning process. According to the social justice perspective, structured pedagogy plays an
important role in improving educational quality and contributes to student literacy and
numeracy (Tikly & Barrett, 2013). The QLE framework also emphasizes pedagogic
processes as part of the quality indicators.

84
 Table 6. 1 Factors affecting Quality in School A, B and C

Quality School
Dimension Component Factor A B C
Inclusion Basic school Standardized classroom and library ✓  
infrastructure and Water supply ✓-  
human resources
Electricity supply   
Availability of teachers for each subject   
Adequate administrators, supervisors, other staff ✓+ ✓ ✓
School environment free from abuse and violence ✓+ ✓
+ ✓
+
Safe and healthy learning
Teachers interact with learners in a positive manner ✓+ ✓
+ ✓
+
space
Access to clean water  
+ 
+
Access to safe and clean toilet ✓- ✓- ✓-
Access to menstrual hygiene products  ✓ 
Adequate access to recreation facilities  ✓ 
Textbooks and other Textbook for each subject ✓ ✓- ✓
learning materials Students have adequate learning materials ✓ ✓ ✓
Pedagogic processes Teacher use of annual and specific lesson plans ✓+ ✓ -
✓
and ICT supported Interactive teaching methods ✓+ ✓
+ ✓
+
learning Formative and continuous assessment ✓+ ✓
+ ✓
+
Interactive Radio Instruction ✓- ✓-+ 
+
Other ICT facilities   
Special needs education Special needs education ✓ ✓ ✓
Teachers receive training on how to deal with
students with disabilities
✓ ✓ 
Teacher training and Teachers regularly receive in-service trainings ✓ ✓ ✓
motivation mechanism
Teachers receive in-service training ✓+ ✓ ✓
-
Teachers are satisfied by their salary  
+ 
+
Teachers are respected ✓+ ✓ ✓
Teachers are rewarded ✓+ ✓+ ✓+
Relevance Use of mother tongue Teacher use of mother tongue for teaching ✓+ ✓++ ✓+
Relevance to meet
national education goal
Relevance to meet national education goal ✓ ✓-
++ ✓-
+
✓+ ++✓ ✓
Democracy School Code of conduct Code of conduct for learners and teachers
Code of conduct is applicable ✓+ ✓
+ ✓
+
School, parent, and School includes the voice of students, teachers, parents ✓+ ✓ ✓+
community links and community in decision making + +

Key: ✓+ = Factor is available and good

✓ = Factor is available with some shortcomings
✓– = Factor is available with significant shortcomings
 = Factor is absent Factor is absent
=

85
 The schools receive strong pedagogic support from the government and other
stakeholders. As stated before, there is no variation amongst the schools in terms of the
pedagogic process indicators. However, despite the QLE emphasis on pedagogy, the SC
interventions in the schools focused more on improving the school-teacher-community link
and fostering a safe and conducive learning environment, whereas its pedagogic support to the
schools was found to be weak. In the broader academic discussion of quality, pedagogic
aspects are core to improve the quality of education (Alexander 2001, 2008a, 2008b; Tikly &
Barrett, 2013). The MOE (2015) minimum standard states that teachers should use interactive
teaching methods, use the students’ mother tongue and implement a competency-based
continuous assessment process in order to assess student performance as related to minimum
learning competencies, such as literacy.

Another important factor that contributes to the quality of the learning environment in
the three schools is textbook and other learning materials. The provision of appropriate
textbooks to teachers and students is pivotal particularly in disadvantaged contexts (Tikly &
Barrett, 2013). But, as discussed in Chapter 3 and 6, the QLE does not clearly stress the
importance of textbooks for the quality of education. The MOE concept of quality stresses
that an adequate supply of textbooks for learners and teachers is a prerequisite for effective
learning. The study shows that the availability of textbooks contributes to a better teaching
and learning process. All three schools achieved the MOE minimum standard - a student to
textbook ratio of 1:1 was achieved in all schools, except for the Amharic book.

Teacher motivation is also important for the quality of the learning environment in the
three schools. The study shows that the schools provided annual incentives for top
performing teachers. Teachers are respected by students, directors and the community. The
social justice perspective has put much emphasis on teacher motivation as opposed to the
QLE framework and the MOE definition of quality. Without a motivated teacher, there is no
quality of education (Tikly & Barrett, 2007). As regards special needs education, the study
shows that students with disabilities receive special support to enhance their capabilities. The
social justice perspective states that the “learner with a disability may require a different or
slightly modified capability set than each able bodied learner” in order to ensure access to
quality of education for all learners (Tikly & Barrett, 2009 p. 8). Neither the QLE framework
nor the MOE/GEQIP emphasize special needs education in their understanding of quality.

86
 Two factors that had a different impact in the three schools were teacher training and
basic school infrastructure. The study shows that teachers in School A and B received
ongoing trainings as opposed to teachers in School C. The need for teacher training is
emphasized both in social justice thinking and in the QLE framework. Tikly and Barrett
(2013) stress the importance of teacher training to enable teachers to make their teaching
more active and participatory. Teacher training is, therefore, important to improve the quality
of education. The MOE understanding of quality also emphasizes the importance of teacher
training (MOE, 2015).

Concerning basic school infrastructure, the findings show that School A had
standardized classrooms and a good library with sufficient textbooks, supplementary reading
materials, and water supply. This was not the case in the other schools. Basic school
infrastructure is not particularly emphasized in the QLE framework (except for water and
toilet facilities). However, in social justice thinking lack of basic school infrastructure is one
of the significant barriers to the improvement of quality of education in poor countries (Tikly
and Barrett 2009, 2011, 2013). The MOE understanding of quality also states that basic
school infrastructure is important. For example, all schools should have the minimum
standard of classrooms, a library and a supply of portable drinking water (MOE, 2015).
According to the ESDP IV evaluation report, 60% of primary schools in Ethiopia have no
access to water and about 50% have no standardized library (MOE, 2015). School B and C
are far from achieving the targets of adequate supply of portable drinking water, and basic
school infrastructure.

In terms of the importance of a safe and healthy learning space which is emphasized
in both social justice thinking and in the QLE framework, most of the factors were not met in
the schools. The schools' environments are free from abuse, bullying and corporal
punishment, but they do not have access to clean water and toilets, adequate access to
recreation facilities or to menstrual hygiene products (School A and B). According to MOE
(2015), all primary schools should meet minimum standards set by the government, such as
creating an effective teaching and learning process in a safe and conducive environment. But
it does not mention the importance of clean water and toilets, and menstrual hygiene
products.

87
 In terms of ICT supported learning, the study shows that all three schools were poor.
The ESDP V minimum standard suggests that the teaching and learning process should be
supported by ICT, at least by interactive radio instruction, including in schools where there is
no access to electricity (MOE, 2015). The study shows that in School A and B signal and
electricity problem significantly affected the interactive radio instruction and there is no radio
instruction in School C.

Relevance

The components for quality in the relevance dimension are the use of mother tongue
and relevance to meet national education goal.

The use of the mother tongue for teaching contributed to the quality of the learning
environment in the three schools. The study shows that teachers used the mother tongue of
learners, and learning in their mother tongue contributes to better understanding of the
lessons. Students noted that they are happy being taught in their mother tongue which helps
them participate better in class. The social justice framework and QLE stress that learning in
the mother tongue improves the quality of education, notably in early grades (Tikly & Barett
2009, 2011, 2013; SC, 2013).

Relevance to meet national education goal is also important for the quality of
education. The schools reflect certain national educational goals, such as student centered
pragmatic teaching, and use of the mother tongue. But none of the three schools met all
expectations set by the MOE. The national education plan to support ICT learning and
provide access to an appropriate play area is not met in any of the schools. School A and B
are poor in terms of water supply and basic school infrastructure, and teachers in School C
receive insufficient trainings. The use of the mother tongue is important for both QLE and the
social justice perspective, but only the social justice perspective relates relevance to
education to meet national education goals.

Democracy

The components for quality in the democracy dimension included: school code of
conduct; and school, parent, community links.

88
 The use of a code of conduct contributes to the quality of the learning environment in
the three schools. The study shows that all schools have codes of conduct for learners and
teachers that are designed based on SC's code of conduct manual. The code of conduct is
applicable in the schools and contributes to prevent bullying and enhance teacher-student
relationship. The need for a code of conduct is emphasized in the QLE framework but not in
the social justice perspective.

School, parent and community links are one of the most important contributing
factors to the quality of the learning environment in the three schools. The schools integrated
the teachers, students, parents, and the community in school activities, using the one-to-five
network and the PTA. School A has a stronger link with parents and the community than the
other schools. The community participates in various activities and female parents are
encouraged to participate in school decision making through the female parents’ association.
Student-teacher-parent-community participation is emphasized in both the QLE framework
and the social justice understanding of quality. The MOE understanding of quality
emphasizes community participation in PTAs to improve the quality of education, and the
community should get a space to participate in school activities to address problems (MOE,
2015).

6.2 Implications of the Study

The findings have several implications for SC and MOE if one accepts the
understanding of quality as applied in this study. The main contribution of the study is that it
has examined the reality of the quality of the learning environment in schools that are public
and supported by SC based on the three core concepts in social justice thinking. It has,
thereby, questioned the underlying understanding of quality in the QLE framework and the
MOE definition.

The quantitative results of the study show that student literacy results differ between
schools that achieved or did not achieve the QLE guiding principles. This could be used as a
practical example in the theoretical discussion of the relationship between quality and literacy.
The findings also show disparity of QLE results between SC supported schools in the Amhara
and SNNR regions. The schools' average QLE score in the SNNPR region is very low. This
indicates that more QLE interventions are needed in schools in the SNNPR region which
could also be supported by the MOE.

89
 It can be argued that the selected schools can be role models for other schools in the
region and even for most urban schools, especially in terms of how the voice of students,
teachers, parents, and the community is integrated in school decision making to address
school problems. However, SC should give more emphasis to pedagogic processes. As stated
earlier, SC interventions focus on providing school materials to the schools, teacher, student
and parent involvement, and teacher training. Since the pedagogic process is highly important
for the quality of the learning environment as stressed by Alexander (2008a, 2008b, 2001) and
Tikly & Barrett (2009, 2011, 2013), more emphasis could be put on basic school
infrastructure, teacher motivation, radio instruction, textbook distribution and special needs
education in the QLE framework. While some of the components form part of SC
interventions, for example SC model classes in School A as part of basic school infrastructure
and special needs education training by SC, this is not indicated in the QLE framework.
Furthermore, the SC interventions and the QLE framework do not address relevance to meet
national education goals which may mean that interventions are not adequately context-
specific.

The findings also have implications for the MOE understanding of quality in terms of
teacher motivation, special needs education, access to clean water and toilet facilities,
menstrual hygiene products, and the use of a code of conduct in schools. These factors are all
important to improve the quality of education but are not addressed in the MOE/GEQIP
understanding of quality.

The other implication for MOE is in light of the major problems that affect the quality
of education in the schools. Attention needs to be given to basic school infrastructure, such as
classrooms, library, electricity and water supply, and teacher shortages. Addressing the water
problem is pivotal to create a safe and conducive learning environment. With respect to
teachers, they are the core in the quality improvement initiative. Therefore, as the study
indicates, ongoing relevant in-service training is important to enhance their professional
competences. Increased salaries are also likely to increase their motivation for teaching
because it enables them to address their basic needs and improve their standard of living.
Paying a sufficient salary to teachers, particularly in disadvantaged contexts, enables them to
focus their full attention on teaching because it helps solve their economic problems.

90
6.3 Suggestions for Further Research

Based on the study findings, further research could be developed to examine the
similarities and differences between schools receiving SC support and schools not receiving
SC or other NGO support. This could aim at examining the variations between the schools in
terms of quality factors (for example, teaching-learning process, safe and conducive learning
environment, and teacher training) that contribute to the quality of the learning environment.
This could help to understand SC's particular contribution to the schools. The similarities and
differences between government supported and SC supported public schools could also be
examined in light of student learning outcomes, particularly as regards literacy.

It could also be worthwhile to explore strategies to address the encountered challenges

in the schools, including basic school infrastructure, teacher shortages, electricity, and water
supply which affect the quality of education. This may mean identifying context-specific
solutions, for instance, by mobilizing and allocating local resources, creating income
generating activities, and strengthening community participation, government and donor
commitment.

As part of addressing one of the limitations in the study, qualitative research could be
conducted to examine the similarities and differences in the quality of the learning
environment between SC supported schools in the Amhara and SNNPR regions. According
to the QLE results, there is significant variation in QLE results between SC supported schools
in the two regions. A qualitative study would seek to unveil the 'why' question, exploring the
causes of the variation.

Further research could also focus on the relationship between quality and student
learning outcomes, such as literacy, as a means for quality improvement in the schools. Of
particular importance would be the presence or absence of factors that contribute to the
quality of the learning environment and impact student learning outcomes.

91
 REFERENCES

Abdeljalil, A.& Lauwerier, T. (2014). The Education Policies of International

Organizations: Specific Differences and Convergences. UNESCO: IBE.

Alexander, R. (2008a). Teaching and Learning for All? The Quality Imperative Revisited.
University of Cambridge, UK.

Alexander, R. (2008b). Education for All, the Quality Imperative and the Problem of
Pedagogy. Sussex: CREATE.

Alexander, R. (2001) Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary

education. Oxford and Boston: Blackwell.

Barrett, A. Duggan, R. Lowe, J. Nikel, J, & Ukpo, E. (2006). The Concept of Quality in 3
Education: A Review of the International Literature on the Concept of Quality in
Education. Ed Qual Working Paper No. 3. DFID. UK

Bekele, T. (2004). ICT Integration at Addis Ababa University. MA Thesis. University of Oslo

Bishaw, A. & Lasser, J. (2012). Education in Ethiopia: Past, Present and Future Prospects.
African Nebula (5): 53–69.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. 2nd Edi. Oxford press.

Coysh, J. (2014). The Dominant Discourse of Human Rights Education. Journal of Human
Rights Practice, Vol.6. Oxford press

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Creswell J. W. & Clark, P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research.
(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

92
Creswell, J. W, & Clark, P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cummings, J. B & Blatherwick, M. L (2017). Creative Dimensions of Teaching and

Learning in the 21st Century, 47–57. Sense Publishers, Boston

ECSA. (2007). Ethiopia Population and Housing Census. Central Statistical Agency.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2017). Pragmatism. A peer Reviewed Acadamic Resource.

Retrieved From: http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/#SH1a

FDRE. (2004). Basic Information. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia. Retrieved From:

http://www.ethiopar.net/English/basinfo/Basicifo.htm

Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World.

Polity Press, Cambridge.

Heijnen-Maathuis, E & Christensen, D. (2016). Save the Children’s Quality Learning

Environment (QLE) framework: What have we learned and how will this inform our
future work. Save the Children

Info Please. (2000-2013). Map: Ethiopia. Retrieved from:

http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/ethiopia.html

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd ed, New Delhi,
India

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd edition). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press

Lasonen, J., Kemppainen, R. & Raheem, K. (2005). Education and Training in Ethiopia: An
Evaluation of Approaching EFA Goals. Institute for Educational Research,
University of Jyväskylä

Lockheed, M.E. and Verspoor, A, M. (1991). Improving Primary Education in Developing

Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.

Marczyk, G. , DeMatteo, D. and Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and

Methodology. New Jersey. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

93
McCormac, M. (2012). Literacy and Educational Quality Improvement in Ethiopia: A Mixed
Methods Study. PHD Dissertation. University of Maryland

MFAF. (2014). Country Strategy for Development Cooperation with ETHIOPIA 2014–2017.
Policy Note

MOE. (2016). Countrywide Quality of Education Evaluation in Primary School, 2016.

Unpublished Raw Data

MOE. (2015). Education Sector Development Program V (ESDP V). GoE Program Action
Plan

MOE. (2010). Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP IV). GoE Program Action
Plan

MOE. (2008). General Education Quality Improvement Package (GEQIP). GoE Plan

Molla, T. (2013). External Policy Influence and Higher Education Reform in Ethiopia:

Understanding Symbolic Power of the World Bank. International Journal of Sociology

of Education, 2(2), 167192. doi: 10.4471/rise.2013.28. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/rise.2013.28

Negash, T. (2006). Education in Ethiopia from Crisis to the Brink of Collapse. Nordiska
Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala

Negash, T. (1996). Rethinking Education in Ethiopia. Vol. 1. Reprosentralen HSC, UPPsala,

Olaniyan, D. & Okemakinde. T. (2008). Human Capital Theory: Implications for

Educational Development: Pakistan Journal of Educational Science. Retrieved From:
http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=pjssci.2008.479.483

Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1996:5). An Investigation of the Nature and Form of

Interactions in Live Interactive Television. Melbourne, Australia.

Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Can Really
be Mixed. Causeway Press

Payne, G. & Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Research. Sage Publications. London

94
Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: rights, capabilities and human capital.
Theory and Research in Education. 4(69), 69-84.

RTI & IRC. Guidance notes for planning and implementing EGRA. RTI International

Sahu, B. (2012). Preschool Education & An Integrated Preschool Curriculum. Dominant

Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, India

Scheerens, J. (2011). Perspectives on Educational Quality. Springer Briefs in Education

Schmider, Ziegler, Danay, Beyer, & Bühner. (2010). Is It Really Robust? Reinvestigating the
Robustness of ANOVA Against Violations of the Normal Distribution Assumption.
Methodology European Journal of Research Methods for the
Behavioural and Social Sciences· Humboldt University Berlin, Germany, Karl-
Franzens University Graz, Austria

SC. (2016). About Save the Children International.

Retrieved From: https://www.savethechildren.net/about-us

SC. (2014a). Education in Ethiopia: Education Brief. Retrieved From:

https://ethiopia.savethechildren.net/sites/ethiopia.savethechildren.net/files/library/Edu
cation%20brief.pdf

SC. (2014b). Learning Environment – Does it Matter?. (Power Point Slides). Save the
Children Norway.

Retrieved From: http://UNESCO.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/p4.pdf

SC. (2013). Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning: 15 Measuring Results in

Education. The Open University

SC. (2012). Moving ahead on education Save the Children’s global education strategy to
2015. An overview for partners, donors, governments and civil society organisation.
Save the Children

SCN. (2015). The SCN Education Dataset, 2015. Unpublished Raw Data. Save the Children
Norway

SCN. (2014). Investing in Children. Save the Children Norway Strategy 2014-2017.
Retrieved From: https://www.reddbarna.no/?hmfile=pLaA5Ao_UzuhLjjaqUy1RQ==

95
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London, Penguin

Smith, A. (2005). The wealth of nations. Introduction by Alan B. Krueger. New York, N.Y:
Bantam Classic.

Stratfor (2016). A Muffled Insurrection in Ethiopia. Retrieved From:

https://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/muffled-insurrection-ethiopia

Strauss, A. & Carbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.

Sudan Tribune. (July 6, 2016). Ethiopia Approves over $ 12 Billion Annual Budget.
Retrieved From: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article59522

Teferra, D. & Altbachl, P.G. (2004). African Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st
century. Kluwer Academic Publishers

Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. M. (2013). Education Quality and Social Justice in the Global
South. Challenges for Policy, Police, and Research. Centre for Education and
International Development, University of Cambridge, UK

Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. M. (2011). Social Justice, Capabilities and the Quality of Education
in Lower Income Countries. International Journal of Educational Development.
University of Bristol

Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. M. (2009). Social Justice, Capabilities and the Quality of Education
in Lower Income Countries. EdQual Working paper, 18. University of Bristol

Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low
income countries. Comparative Education, 47(1): 1–23.

Tomaševski, K. (2004). Manual on Rights-Based Education: Global Human Rights

Requirements Made Simple. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok.

Tomaševski, K. (2003). Education Denied. London, UK & New York, NY: Zed Books Ltd.

UNESCO. (2015a). Education For All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges. Education
for All Global Monitoring Report 2015: UNESCO

UNESCO. (2015b). Education for All 2015 National Review Report: Ethiopia. UNESCO

UNESCO. (2014). Sustainable Development Begins with Education. How education can
Contribute to the Proposed Post-2015 Goals. UNESCO

96
UNESCO (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching The Marginalized. Paris,
UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2006). Literacy for life. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2004). Education for All: The Quality Imperative. Education for All Global
Monitoring Report 2005: UNESCO

UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: Meeting our
Collective Commitments: UNESCO

UNESCO& UNICEF. (2007). A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. Paris.
UNESCO/ New York. UNICEF

UNICEF. (2010). Child-Friendly Schools: Case- Study, Ethiopia. Education Section Program
Division.

UNICEF. (2009). Child-Friendly Schools Manual. UNICEF, New York

UNICEF. (2000). Defining Quality in Education. Working Paper Series. UNICEF, New York

WB. (2014). The World Bank Data. Retrieved from:

http://data.worldbank.org/country/ethiopia

Yodit, M. (2009). The Right to Primary Education in Ethiopia: Progress, Prospects and
Challenges. MA Thesis. University of Oslo

Young, G & Marks‐ Maran, D. (1998). Using Constructivism to Develop a Quality

Framework for Learner Support: A Case Study, Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance and e-Learning, 13:2, 30-37

97
 ANNEXES

Annex I: Interview Checklist

UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Department of Education

Master of Philosophy in Comparative and International Education

1) Interview Guide for Teachers

I. Date and time of interview

II. Name of school
III. Sex
IV. Age
V. Total years of teaching experience in school
VI. Educational qualification
VII. Which grade you teach

Introductory Questions

1. What do you think about the school? Do you think it is a good school?
2. If yes, why is it a good school?
3. Does the school lack anything in order to be a good school?
4. How do you understand quality of education?
5. What is needed to improve the quality of education in your school.

Classroom Environment

6. How many students are learning in the classroom?

7. What is the proportion of boys and girls in a classroom?
8. Do you have special needs students?
9. What makes a good classroom environment?
10. Do you think a classroom environment promotes quality of education? if yes, in what way?

Teaching and Learning Process

11. Describe the type of teaching methods you use for teaching?
12. Do you use annual and specific lesson plans?
13. Do you have textbooks for all subjects? One per student?
14. Do the students all have notebooks and pens?
15. Do you use teaching aids in addition to the textbook? if yes, please describe?
16. Which language do you use in class? If mother tongue, when and how much?
17. Do you use ICT supported learning? How would like to use ICT in learning? Does it help
improve learning?

98
 18. What kinds of management strategies and techniques do you use in class? Are they effective?
Could you think of others?
19. How do you support special needs students or students with learning difficulties?
20. What procedures do you use to assess student performance?
21. What challenges have you experienced during the teaching and learning process?
22. What strategies have you used to address the challenges?

23. Have you received in service and pre-service training? If not, why? If yes, how has it helped
you in the teaching and learning process.

24. Do you receive other support from the school, district office or Ministry of Education?
25. If yes, what kind? How often?
School Environment
26. Do you have a library or a reading room?
27. Do you have extra reading materials for teachers and students? If yes, what type, do you use
them?
28. Does the school have a code of conduct for learners and teachers?
29. If yes, explain what does it say? Is it applied in the school? If yes, how do you ensure that this
is done?
30. What makes a good school environment? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

Participation of Teachers, Students and Parents

31. Do the teachers, learners and parents participate in decision making about issues concerning
teaching and learning and other school activities? if yes, in what way?
32. How are learners and parents encouraged to be involved in school activities? In what ways?
33. Do you have a Parent Teacher Association? if yes, How does it function? What does it do?

2) Interview Guide for Students

Date and time of interview:...............

Name of school……………………….

Sex: ……...

Age……………

Grade level..........

Introductory Questions

1. Do you like the school? if yes/no why?

2. Is there anything you would wish that your school has?
3. What challenges have you experienced in the school? Describe the cause, nature and origin of
the challenges?

Teaching and Learning Process

4. Do you like the teachers? Why?

5. Are the teachers friendly? In what way?

99
 6. Do the teachers encourage students to be active in class ? How?
7. Do the teachers give class work and homework? If yes, how often? Do you like that?
8. Which language do the teachers use in class? If mother tongue, when and how much?
9. Do the teachers use verbal punishment in class? if yes, please explain? Do they use corporal
punishment? If yes, please explain.
10. How do the teachers assess your performance in class?
11. Do you like the assessment methods that the teachers use? Why?
12. Do you get any particular support from the teachers or others if you have a problem?

School Environment

13. Do you have a library or reading room? If yes, Are there reading materials in the library? Do
you use them?
14. Do you have your own text book for each subject? Is it provided by the school or do you
have to buy it yourself?
15. Do you have a notebook and a pen?
16. Is there clean water and toilets in the school?
17. Is there clean water in the classroom?
18. Do you have a play area or other recreation facilities in the school?
19. Do you get food in the school? if yes, what kind, provided and prepared by whom?
20. Do you have a code of conduct for learners and teachers. What does it say? Do you follow it?
Do other students follow it? Do teachers follow it? What happens if anyone does something
that is not according to the code of conduct?

Participation of Students in School Activities

21. Do you and other students participate in decision making on teaching and learning process? if
yes, in what way? Do you participate in decision-making concerning other school activities?

3) Interview Guide for Administrator

1. What is your position at the school?

2. Do you have enough staff at the school and support staff from outside for the different
functions, e.g. administrators, supervisors, inspectors, other support staffs, and teachers?
3. What do you do at the school in terms of management strategies and techniques to facilitate
the teaching and learning process?
4. Does the school have a code of conduct for learners and teachers?
5. If yes, explain what it contains? Who initiated it? Why do you have it?
6. Do you have supervisors/head teachers who observe the teaching and learning process in
classroom? If no why?
7. If yes, how often do the supervisors observe the teaching and learning process ?
8. Describe the mechanisms that the school uses to integrate voice of teachers, learners, and
parents in school activities, governance and decision making?
9. Is there a Parent Teacher Association in the school? If yes, what is its purpose? How does it
function?
10. Does the school do anything to help teacher motivation? if yes, in what way?
11. Do the teachers receive any ongoing training and support from the school or others? If yes,
how? If not, why?

100
 12. Does the school have a school feeding program for students?
13. If yes, when was it established, by whom, who provides the food? how is it run? is it for all
students or only for some?
14. What do you think about the school? Do you think it is a good school?
15. If yes, why is it a good school?
16. Is there anything that you wish the school has which would make it a better school?
17. How do you understand quality of education?
18. What is needed to improve quality of education in this school?
19. Who is involved in making decisions about teaching and learning?
20. Who is involved in making decisions about other school activities?
21. What has been the role of the actors in school activities?
22. What are the main challenges in the school? Describe the cause, nature and origin of the
challenges?
23. What strategies has the school used to address the challenges?
24. What would you suggest as being particularly important to improve the quality of education in
the school?

4) Interview Guide for Parents

1. What do you think about the school? Do you think it is a good school?
2. If yes? Why is it a good school?
3. has the school always been the same or has it changed over time?
4. Is/are your child/children happy during his/her/their stay at school? why?
5. What do you understand by quality of education? Does the school provide quality of
education? How? What else might be needed?
6. Does the school include you as a parent in school activities, governance and decision making?
7. Is there a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) in the school? Do you participate in this
Association?
8. If yes, how does the PTA work, how does it invite parents to participate in discussion?
9. How often do you have a meeting in PTA?
10. Do you have any suggestions for how things could work better in the school and between the
school and the community?

101
Annex II: Observation Checklist

UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Department of Education

Master of Philosophy in Comparative and International Education

Observation Checklist
a) Classroom Environment

1. Desks and chairs for each student

2. The desks are fit for the students

3. Proper doors and windows

4. The Chalkboard/white board visible for all

5. Dust bin and lighting

6. Water container

7. Is the classroom clean?

8. Teacher punctuality

9. The type of teaching methods that teachers use in class

10. Learning objectives are clearly defined and shared with the students
11. Students have opportunities to engage in the learning process
12. Variety of group activities used
13. The type and variety of teaching aids that teachers use in class
14. The type of classroom management that teachers use in class
15. Are the teachers autocratic or friendly with students
16. Do the teachers use verbal or corporal punishment
17. Are all children treated equally
18. The use of the mother tongue during class sessions
19. The use of ICT supported learning
20. Are there posters on the wall
21. What kinds of teaching and learning materials are on the walls
22. Are children’s work displayed on the walls
23. Does the teacher use what is posted on the wall
B) School Environment
1. Is the school compound clean?
2. Are there bins for waste?
3. Is there a water tank in the school compound?
4. Is the water clean?
5. Are there Separate toilets for male and females?
6. Can the toilets be locked from inside?

102
7. Is there soap to wash hands after use of toilet
8. Are there play areas and recreation equipments/ facilities: what is available – for
boys and girls?
9. Availability of computer room for teaching purpose
10. Library: Is there 1 textbook per child in all subjects? Are there reading materials
apart from textbooks? Are they used?
11. Class size
12. Conduct for learners and teachers: Does it exist? Is it posted on the wall of school
compound/ in the classroom and teachers’ staff room? Is it used?

103
104
Annex III: Assumptions of Independent Samples T-test

A. Checking two categorical, independent groups

There are two categorical, independent groups, namely schools that achieved/did not achieve
a QLE guiding principle.

B. Dependent Variable with a Continuous Scale

The continuous dependent variable is student literacy scores.

C. Normality Test

Schools achieved and not achieved distribution in relation to student literacy scores
are sufficiently normal to conduct a T-test, with Skew is less than /2/ and Kurtosis is less than
/9/ (Schmider, Ziegler, Danay, Beyer, & Bühner, 2010).

D. Homogeneity of Variance

The assumption of homogeneity of variances is tested by Levene's F-Test (see SPSS

results).

105
Annex IV: Normality Test, Skewness and Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error

Aver Mean 2.4163 .04600
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.3246
Mean Upper Bound 2.5080
5% Trimmed Mean 2.4246
Median 2.4286
Variance .154
Std. Deviation .39300
Minimum 1.39
Maximum 3.32
Range 1.93
Interquartile Range .61
Skewness -.250 .281
Kurtosis -.054 .555

106
107
Annex V: Test of Reliability

Reliability Statistics/QLE
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.940 .942 28

Reliability Statistics/Literacy

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.833 8

108
Annex VI: Consent Form
Request for participation in a research project

My name is Michael Wondemu, a Master student at the University of Oslo, Norway studying
Comparative and International Education. I am presently writing my thesis on “Quality Improvement
of Early Primary Education in Ethiopia: A Mixed Methods Study of Save the Children Norway
Supported Schools in the Amhara and Southern Omo Regions”.
The purpose of this study is to examine quality improvement efforts of early primary
education, specifically in Save the Children supported schools in Ethiopia. It employs a mixed method
design combining qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data is collected using in-depth
interviews. Hence, the interview guide and the interviews I wish to do will be used to gather
information for the thesis in order to complete my Master degree.
The study will only be used for an academic purpose and your responses to the questions will
be kept confidential. Therefore, your identity will not be known to anyone but me. Your participation
in the research is voluntary. You may withdraw and discontinue participation at any time without any
restriction. Only I, the researcher, has access to all the data collected from the interviews and direct
observations. If you agree, I would like to record the interviews using an audio recorder which is only
used for the thesis. After recording, all data will be securely saved and not distributed to others. Upon
completion of the field work and data analysis, all audio records will be deleted. All direct personal
data and indirectly identifiable data will also be deleted. The project is planned to be completed by 30
May 2017. After completion and grading at the University, all data collected will be destroyed.
Throughout the entire research process, I receive supervision from my academic supervisor
who also adheres to confidentiality.
The study has also been notified to the Data Protection Official for Research, Norwegian
Social Science Data Services in order to fulfil all ethical requirements.
If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact me or my supervisor.
Contact information for the researcher: Name: Michael Y. Wondemu, Tel. +4741177246. E-mail:
michaeyw@student.uv.uio.no
Contact information for the Supervisor: Name: Professor Lene Buchert, Tel. +47-22855985. E-
mail: lene.buchert@iped.uio.no
Consent for participation in the study
I have received information about the project and I am willing to participate:
_____________________________________
Signature over printed name of the participant
_____________________________________
Date
_____________________________________

109
Annex VII: Average Score on the 28 QLE Sub standards, by School
Rank School ID Region Average Score
1 School A Amhara 3.32
2 School B Amhara 3.18
3 School C Amhara 3.04
4 School D Amhara 2.93
5 School E Amhara 2.93
6 School F Amhara 2.89
7 School G Amhara 2.89
8 School H Amhara 2.86
9 School I Amhara 2.86
10 School J Amhara 2.86
11 School K Amhara 2.86
12 School L Amhara 2.82
13 School M Amhara 2.82
14 School N Amhara 2.79
15 School 0 Amhara 2.75
16 School P Amhara 2.75
17 School Q Amhara 2.75
18 School R Amhara 2.71
19 School S Amhara 2.71
20 School T Amhara 2.64
21 School U Amhara 2.64
22 School V Amhara 2.61
23 School W Amhara 2.61
24 School X Amhara 2.61
25 School Y SNNP 2.61
26 School Z Amhara 2.57
27 School A1 Amhara 2.54
28 School B1 Amhara 2.54
29 School C1 Amhara 2.54
30 School D1 Amhara 2.54
31 School E Amhara 2.5
32 School F Amhara 2.5
33 School G SNNP 2.43
34 School H SNNP 2.43
35 School I Amhara 2.39
36 School J SNNP 2.39
37 School K SNNP 2.39
38 School L Amhara 2.36
39 School M Amhara 2.36
40 School N SNNP 2.36
41 School 0 Amhara 2.29
42 School P Amhara 2.29
43 School Q Amhara 2.25
44 School R SNNP 2.25
45 School S SNNP 2.25
46 School T SNNP 2.25

110
47 School U Amhara 2.21
48 School V Amhara 2.21
49 School W SNNP 2.21
50 School X Amhara 2.14
51 School Y SNNP 2.14
52 School Z Amhara 2.11
53 School A2 SNNP 2.11
54 School B2 SNNP 2.11
55 School C2 SNNP 2.11
56 School D2 SNNP 2.07
57 School E SNNP 2.07
58 School F SNNP 2.07
59 School G Amhara 1.96
60 School H SNNP 1.96
61 School I SNNP 1.96
62 School J SNNP 1.93
63 School K Amhara 1.89
64 School L SNNP 1.89
65 School M SNNP 1.86
66 School N SNNP 1.82
67 School 0 SNNP 1.54
68 School P SNNP 1.5
69 School Q SNNP 1.39
70 School R SNNP 1.38
71 School S SNNP 1.37
72 School T2 SNNP 1.37
73 School U2 SNNP 1.36

111