ECCE in Uganda - camb-ed.com

ECCE in UgandaGood potential, yet more to do

National ECCE Symposium19-20 July, Protea Hotel, Kampala

Session 2: Evidence on the status of ECCE in Uganda

1Importance of topic, Ugandan context, nature of studies

3Over-arching statistical and qualitative “story”

4Resulting policy implications

2Some detailed statistical and qualitative findings

July 2018ECCE Symposium | Evidence on the status of ECCE in Uganda 2

Brain development

• Consequences into middle age

• Brain development takes place in a short window that includes pre-primary years; limited catching up

• Investment should better track brain growth

Economic impact

Long term

• The longer you have to recover an investment, the higher the rate of return. Plus, knowledge is built on knowledge. 7% to 10% ROI to ECCE investment.

Short term

• Fiscal savings from improved school flow-through to completion: approx. US$ 274 per completer, or $274 million per million completers.


Importance of ECCE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 5 10 15 20

% e

d. b

ud

get p

er c

hild

in p

op

Kgs.

Approx. brain weight gain andapprox. school spending* by age

Brain weight gain Spending

Sources: Adapted based on Debakan and Sadowsky 1978 under Creative Commons license; Estimation based on World Bank EdStats datase. *: LI Countries

Demographics

• Growth of 4-5 age group down from 3.7% in 1990 to 2.6% now, slowing fast: reap the dividend?

Comparative system capacity

Inefficiencies in spending in Uganda

• Current cost per completer is $274 higher than it needs to be, representing a waste of 43% of the budget, or approx. US $140 million per year.


Uganda’s context

Enrolment Uganda Sub-Saharan

Africa

Pre-primary 15% 32%

Primary 115% 100%

Primary completion 53% 70%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Pre-prim. enr. Prim. enr. Prim. comp. (%)

Per

cen

tage

Comparative Enrolment

Uganda SSA

Cambridge Education• Over 500 interviewees• 23 Organisations at National Level• 5 Teacher Colleges• 10 Districts• 30 Parishes• 143 ECD Centres surveyed – 69% rural, 31% urban

Ark• Mapping pre-primary services in 19 sub-counties in West Nile• 218 ECD Centres recorded• 114 ECD Centres surveyed

RTI• Nationally representative, all regions• Random sampling with formal statistical properties• 1440 Primary 1 pupils randomly selected from 120 schools

across 24 districts• 1439 interviews with their specific teachers, 1318 with

parents/guardians• 50% girls; 50% boys• Even coverage of wealth segments


Statistically and qualitatively significant

Results

Headline findings - access

Uganda’s access to pre-primary is ½ of what it is in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCO).

1Around 30% of

children attend some

form of pre-primary

Official statistics

around 10-15%:

under-registration?

For more see here

2Over 70% of ECD

Centres rely on fees

for their operating

income

3The poorest have

least access

Those with low

income attend ½ as

much as those with

higher income

62% of parents who

do not use pre-

primary: finances are

the barrier

4Only 13% of ECD

Centres care for 1-3

year olds

5Enrolment is

increasing over time,

but hard to say by

how much

EMIS statistics show

increases, but may

partly simply

represent increased

registration


Headline findings - quality

Quality was found to be highly uneven. There are some good practices, but no real quality

assurance and standardisation across the system.

1No districts have

dedicated ECCE

staff or budgets

Effective quality

control

essentially

impossible

2Around 40% of

caregivers had no

appropriate

qualification

3More than 50% of

ECD Centres

don’t meet MoES

criteria

Further data on

compliance here

4While there are

many models, no

one model clearly

emerges as best

practice in terms

of quality

No effective

quality assurance

and quality

tracking

5In majority of

ECD Centres: no

appropriate

learning materials

40% had no play-

based learning

Corporate

punishment

observed in many

ECD Centres

6Vast majority of

ECCE providers

self-report as not

proficient in

handling children

with disability

Around 9% of

children have

some form of

disability (RTI)


• Access to ECCE is low and biased against the poor

• Little evidence of quality assurance; quality highly variable

• On quality: staffing, budget, and lack of/unclear/unrealistic standards (especially outcome standards) seem an issue; even mere registration is a problem

• Lack of and low-quality ECCE encourages repetition in early grades

• Repetition and over-enrolment in early grades undermine system efficiency: 2 years of effort for every grade advanced


Summary of main findings

Emerging recommendations - access

Consider targeted subsidies for poor

Build on provision platforms that already exist

Simplify registration

Improve data on

access by registering

and counting non-

registered


Emerging recommendations - quality

Simplify

classification

system

Dedicate budget

and staff to quality

support at district

level

Invest in quality

assurance

especially with

focus on

outcomes

Clarify, simplify

standards, focus

on outcomes,

including private

sector regulation

Set up systemic

quality

observation and

reporting, spread

lessons: best

practices and best

models emerge

Clearer, simpler

quality standards

communicated to

ECCE Centres

Prizes and

excellence

awards to

emerging best-

practice ECCE

Centres

Enhance role of

parents and

parenting in

ECCE and

foundation years


Emerging recommendations – system efficiency

Improve consistency of

ECCE and foundation

years’ policies

Control repetition and

age-for-grade once

more ECCE options are

available

Early years curriculum

should “ramp up”

children more gradually

into Primary 1

Improve quality of

foundation years in line

with improved ECCE


• Targeted subsidies, based on improved selection from existing platforms – can it work?

• Simplification and clarification of quality standards, and more focus on outcome standards?

• Spend more to provide and train staff who can create quality assurance and induce better models to emerge?

• Better line up policies and quality of delivery between pre-primary and foundation years in primary?


Policy questions

• Use this evidence in ongoing policy dialogue

• Discuss practical limits of the findings and suggestions

• Ensure that emergent policy is as evidence-based as is possible and practical


Possible next steps

Cambridge Education

http://www.camb-ed.com/intdev

Kate Martin [email protected]

Derek Nkata [email protected]

Laura Garforth [email protected]

Ark

http://www.arkonline.org/epg

Richard Graham [email protected]

Jacklyn Makaaru [email protected]

RTI

http://www.rti.org

Tara Weatherholt [email protected]

Luis Crouch [email protected]


Further information

http://www.camb-ed.com/intdev

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.arkonline.org/epg



http://www.rti.org/



Annexes

Cambridge Education found that almost 50% of ECD Centres were neither licensed nor registered.

In Ark’s sample, more than 60% of Centres were not registered.

When Centres are unregistered, this leads to skewed educational data and an underestimate of the total number of children accessing ECCE. It also indicates that a large proportion of Centres that may be unsupported, uninspected and unregulated.

ECCE Symposium | Evidence on the status of ECCE in Uganda

Why is registration impacting on data?

While the majority of ECD Centres surveyed met with standard infrastructure requirements, aspects of quality that relate to ‘deeper’ aspects of child stimulation and wellbeing are less often catered for.

Overall, Cambridge Education’s research showed that 58% of ECD Centres did not achieve a score that would enable them to pass the MoES minimum requirements for operating.

ECCE Symposium | Evidence on the status of ECCE in Uganda

What compliance tells us about quality

July 201820

ECCE in Uganda - camb-ed.com

Documents

Transcript of ECCE in Uganda - camb-ed.com