rewrite the future global evaluation nepal midterm country ... · therefore, the save the children...

Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation

Nepal Midterm Country Report

March 2009

Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation: Nepal Midterm Report

The International Save the Children Alliance March 2009 For more information: http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/index.html

i

Evaluation Team

Dr. Mahesh Nath Parajuli Lead consultant Nepal (report coauthor) Dr Ruth Naylor Global Researcher (report coauthor) Gopini Pandey Rewrite the Future national coordinator Tarun Adhikari Lead agency focal person SC Norway, Nepal office Shailendra Sigdel Monitoring and Evaluation Team Leader SC US Nepal office Ajaya Kanta Rewrite the Future focal person, SC Japan Nepal office Samarna Bajracharya Researcher Manorama Sunuwar Researcher Harischandra Yadav Researcher Cynthia Koons Save the Children Alliance support Inguun Nakkim Save the Children Alliance support Bijaya Karanjit Logistic support

Acknowledgements The evaluation team would like to thank all those who contributed to the research design, data collection and review process of this report. We would especially like to thank the communities who welcomed us into their schools; the children, teachers, parents and other community members who shared their experiences and insights with us. We are indebted to Save the Children’s local partner organisations in the research districts; namely GYC (Baglung), JMC and BES (Palpa), BASE (Kailali), Tuki (Sindhupalchowk) and Aasman Nepal (Mahottari), for managing the field visit logistics, enabling us to access the schools and sharing with us about their work and experiences. We would also like to thank the regional offices Save the Children in Pokhara, Nepalganj and Kathmandu (Central Region Office) for field level support. Thanks go also to the District Education Offices in Kailali, Palpa, Baglung, Sindhupalchok and Mahottari.

The research design and analysis of the findings benefited from the insights and advice provided by the Country representatives of Save the Children-Norway, US and Japan in Nepal, namely Gunnar Andersen, Tory Clawson, and Eiichi Sadamatsu, and senior Save the Children programme staff namely Udaya Manandhar, Jagat Khadka, Bhola Prasad Dahal, Naramaya Limbu, Rajendra Manandhar, Deergha Shrestha, Sita Ghimire, Shiva Paudyal, Padam Jung Thapa. We would like to thank the country representatives for their overall support of the evaluation. We would also like to thank Dr L.D Awashthi of the Ministry of Education of Nepal and Tapraj Pant from the UNESCO Nepal Office for their involvement in the advisory group. Special thanks also go to the ten child club representatives who participated in the review process. We are very grateful to Barbara Pozzoni for her work on the statistical analysis of the learning assessment data.



ii

Preface Save the Children Alliance members have been working to provide quality education to children around the world for decades. Much of this work was has been carried out in countries affected by armed conflict. In 2005, Save the Children initiated an Alliance wide campaign: Rewrite the Future, intensifying their educational programming in 20 conflict affected fragile states around the world. The overall global goal of Rewrite the Future is: All children affected by armed conflict have an opportunity to fulfil their right to an education that enables them to learn, play and develop. To measure progress towards this goal Save the Children designed and implemented a global monitoring system that collects information on the outputs and outcomes of the four key objectives: Access, Quality, Protection, and Finance. Though the global monitoring system achieves its purpose in measuring annual progress towards the Rewrite the Future targets, further research was needed to understand how and why the Rewrite the Future global program contributes. Therefore, the Save the Children Alliance Monitoring and Evaluation Group commissioned a global evaluation of Rewrite the Future programmes. The evaluation includes two phases, a midterm formative evaluation in 2008 and a final summative evaluation in 2010. This document contains the findings from the 2008 midterm evaluation, which will serve as a reference point for the 2010 summative evaluation to measure change over time of the Rewrite the Future investments in basic education. Information in this report describes how the implementation process has occurred in Nepal. Critical to this evaluation design was the participatory process and the agency learning. Hence, several steps have been made to follow up on the findings: 1) Presentation of findings to the board and task groups of Rewrite the Future, 2) Survey of country offices about the process of the evaluation, 3) Survey of country offices on action plans addressing findings 4) Tracking of evaluation follow up at the global level. This report and the evaluation follow up will all be considered when implementing the summative evaluation in 2010.



iii

Contents

List of Abbreviations and Nepali terms.............................................................................................iii Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................iv Background to the Evaluation .............................................................................................................1 The Global Evaluation Framework ................................................................................................1 Education and Conflict in Nepal ....................................................................................................1 Save the Children’s Response ..........................................................................................................2 Schools as Zones of Peace ...............................................................................................................4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................4 The Research Areas...........................................................................................................................6

The School Level Programmes ............................................................................................................8 How SZOP has contributed to providing a safe learning environment ...................................8 Schools’ experiences of conflict..................................................................................................8 How SZOP was developed at the school level ........................................................................9 Codes of Conduct ...................................................................................................................... 10 Local understandings of SZOP ............................................................................................... 11 Successes of SZOP.................................................................................................................... 11 Difficulties and challenges ........................................................................................................ 14

Facilitating Participation: ............................................................................................................... 16 Improving Teaching and Learning............................................................................................... 17 Teaching and learning in the classroom ................................................................................. 18 Learning outcomes .................................................................................................................... 20

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................... 23 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 24 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................ 26

Annex 1: Logical chain for SZOP........................................................................................... 26 Annex 2: School data................................................................................................................. 26 Annex 3: School hygiene/ health............................................................................................. 27 Annex 4: Teachers ..................................................................................................................... 27 Annex 5: Lesson observations ................................................................................................. 27 Annex 6: Learning assessment: regression results................................................................. 29 Annex 7: Learning assessment results: by gender ................................................................. 29 Annex 8: Learning assessment results: by district ................................................................. 29

List of Abbreviations and Nepali terms

Banda Public strike- may involve one sector (e.g. transport) or more CFS Child Friendly School CRPF Child Rights Protection Forum CZOP Children as Zones of Peace GYC Gaja Youth Club (partner organization) NGO Non Governmental Organisation SMC School Management Committee SZOP Schools as Zones of Peace Terai Plains along the southern Nepal-India boarder VCPC Village Child Protection Committee VDC Village Development Committee (administrative sub-division of

a district)



iv

Executive Summary

Education and Conflict in Nepal

Rewrite the Future was introduced into Nepal in a context of ongoing conflict. Schools continued to operate, but political activities, often targeting schools directly, had a serious negative impact on the quality of education. Teachers were frequently abducted or forced to pay a levy. Schools were forced to close for strikes and other political events. School buildings were used by armed forces and armed groups as sites for recruitment, public meetings and temporary barracks. Further learning time was lost because teachers and students were afraid to attend school or because schools were closed.

Save the Children’s Response

Save the Children introduced the concept of “Schools as Zones of Peace” in order to promote the idea that children’s right to education should be respected and that schools should be places free of fear, violence and political interference. Save the Children has worked both at the national and at the school level to promote this concept. This study looks at how Schools as Zones of Peace (SZOP), operating in conjunction with other Rewrite the Future interventions, has helped to improve the quality of education at the local level. SZOP has been only one of a range of interventions under Rewrite the Future aimed at improving the quality of primary education in Nepal. Interventions have included classroom building and refurbishment, teacher training, advocacy work to reduce the use of physical and humiliating punishment in schools and SMC capacity building.

The Evaluation’s focal intervention: Schools as Zones of Peace

The Schools as Zones of Peace concept was introduced to schools through Save the Children’s local partner organizations, often working together with Village Child Protection Committees set up and supported by Save the Children. Child clubs and School Management Committees were also instrumental in promoting and monitoring the SZOP process. For a school to declare itself as SZOP, agreement had to be reached among the school and the wider community, including local representatives of political groups, on a set of criteria that would be respected by all. The criteria were used as a basis for developing codes of conduct and were displayed in schools walls or on special SZOP boards. Schools were encouraged to establish complaint boxes where students and members of the community could anonymously post complaints about breaches of the SZOP codes of conduct.

Evaluation Framework and Methodology

The evaluation design process took place during a participatory in-country workshop. Workshop participants designed a set of evaluation tools to investigate the process of SZOP. These included focus group discussion schedules for children, parents, teachers and school management. Data was collected in four project schools and two comparison schools in each of four districts.

The overall evaluation process, which has its second phase in 2010, seeks to measure the impact that the combined Rewrite the Future interventions have had on the quality of education. To this end, the evaluation team carried out a learning assessment, lesson observations and collected other quantitative school data at each school visited. At this midterm stage in the evaluation it is too early to speak confidently of the impact on the quality of education, but the findings so far indicate that teaching and learning in project schools is generally of a higher quality than in comparison schools.



v

Overview of Findings

Respondents at project schools that had declared SZOP indicated that the process had greatly contributed to:

• Increased sense of security in schools. Many respondents reported that SZOP had reduced the sense of fear surrounding schools and made parents more confident that their students would not be taken to join armed forces. In Palpa, no children were associated with armed forces and groups in the localities where SZOP had been in place.

• Reduction in school closure and increase in learning time. Project schools on average were open 12 days more in 2007 than comparison schools. Where the conflict was too intense for schools to stay open, child clubs were often instrumental in ensuring that learning continued out of school through peer learning. Where the effects of conflict on school had diminished; the concept of protecting the school from closure due to outside disturbances was being applied to other issues, often by the students themselves.

• Improved student and teacher attendance. Respondents mentioned improved student attendance as one of the outcomes of SZOP in 8 of the 12 project schools in which focus groups were carried out, and improved teacher attendance was mentioned at half of these schools.

• Reduction of corporal punishment in schools. In SZOP schools, corporal punishment of students was largely removed and many schools were now “stick free” areas. Evidence of beating was observed in only one of the 16 project schools and in three out of the eight comparison schools.

• Reduction of political interference in schools. SZOP schools were free from political graffiti and many had remained open during the recent elections. This was not the case with schools that were not declared SZOP.

• Participatory development of codes of conduct for children, teachers and parents. Most of the project schools visited (12/16) had developed their own codes of conduct, whereas only one comparison school had done this. Because the codes were developed by each school community they included locally relevant issues and there was a high level of ownership.

• Reduction in discrimination against girls and marginalized groups (e.g. Dalits). Codes of conduct often included anti-discrimination clauses and respondents reported that discrimination had reduced.

• Improved teacher and student behaviour and mutual respect. Parents reported that they had observed improvements in their children’s behaviour.

• Increased child, parent and community participation in school improvement. The SZOP process provided a common platform for parents, children, teachers and other local actors come together and discuss, plan and act to make the school a better and safer place for children. Children were instrumental in developing codes of conduct, ensuring that they were upheld. In most (11/16) project schools there were child representatives in the SMC of the school, whereas there were only two cases of this being practiced in the 8 comparison schools.



vi

Factors Contributing to the Success of SZOP

Active involvement and support from the parents, children, teachers as well as other stakeholders at the local level were instrumental in making SZOP a success. Other government and non-government agencies’ programs at the national and local levels also contributed to developing the positive environment for SZOP. The successes of the SZOP programme at primary schools can also be attributed to the following internal factors:

• It was implemented through local community based NGOs working as partner organizations with Save the Children.

• It built on existing community structures introduced and supported by Save the Children including Child Protection Committees, child clubs and SMCs.

• It was introduced in conjunction with other interventions aimed at improving school quality including advocacy work, teacher training, classroom building and refurbishment.

The successes of SZOP also need to be considered in the light of the following external factors:

• Primary schools were less of a target for political activities than secondary schools as primary school children were considered too young for indoctrination or recruitment.

• In many cases it was introduced as the peace process was developing so political groups were becoming more open to negotiations and there was an overall reduction in conflict related disturbances of schools.

Continued Challenges

• Monitoring systems for SZOP did not appear to be well established. Even where schools had a complaint box, no complaints were submitted.

• Where the conflict is ongoing (eastern and central terai) the primary challenge is to ensure that SZOP is accepted and respected by the various political parties and armed groups. This means continued promotion of the SZOP concept both at the national level and at the school/ village level.

• In areas that are now enjoying relative peace, there is less incentive and motivation for promoting SZOP. Save the Children needs to develop strategies to ensure that the community interest, participation and contribution to improving the quality of education and protection of schools that has been generated through SZOP is maintained in the post-conflict context.

• It has been difficult to establish and maintain SZOP in contexts where there is limited experience and culture of community participation in school development. These are often the most deprived areas where very few members of the community are literate.

• It was found that a quarter of grade 3 children tested, both in project schools and in comparison schools, could not read a single word from a Nepali text. Ensuring that problems with literacy are detected and dealt with by teachers at an early stage remains a major challenge in promoting quality education.



1

Background to the Evaluation

The Global Evaluation Framework

This midterm report is one of four country case studies conducted as part of the Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation. The Global Evaluation seeks to address two major research questions:

• In general, how have Save the Children’s project level interventions contributed to quality primary education for children affected by conflict? (process)

• Specifically, which project level interventions have had what impact on the education quality of children affected by conflict? (impact)

In considering quality of education, the global evaluation recognizes four key elements, namely:

• Learning

• Relevance1

• Participation

• Safe learning environment

The evaluation focuses on how Rewrite the Future has addressed the issues specific to conflict affected fragile states through interventions designed to improve the quality of education. It considers the particular challenges that working in educational development in conflict affected states brings and the strategies that Save the Children has applied to overcome these challenges.

The evaluation is being carried out in two phases, a 2008 phase (formative evaluation of the process) and a 2010 phase (summative evaluation of the outcomes). The 2008 phase has relied largely on qualitative methods to collect peoples’ experiences of Rewrite the Future interventions at the school level. Quantitative methods have also been applied in order to measure a number of indicators of quality against which progress can be measured in 2010.2 This midterm report gives the findings from the first phase.

For each country case study a focus has been selected to represent an innovative and effective intervention that has been appropriate to a particular country context. For each case study, the research design process took place during a participatory in-country workshop, to ensure that the country specific research questions and research tools were tailored to the country level programming and county context.

Education and Conflict in Nepal

“In Nepal you cannot separate the school from political issues. All parties start their activities from the school.” Headteacher, Baglung3

In the conflict between the Maoists and the state forces and in the ongoing conflict in the terai (plains), schools became highly politicised and were used as key sites for spreading political messages. Teachers and students were often abducted by Maoists for indoctrination or arrested by the State under suspicion of collaboration. Older students were forced to

1 Interventions addressing relevance tend to focus at the national level of curriculum development. Since this evaluation is focused at the school level, relevance has been given less emphasis than the other elements. 2 Given the very difficult working conditions under which Rewrite the Future projects were initiated, baseline data from the launch in 2005 is very limited. 3 Save the Children had only recently started working at this school and had not introduced the concept of ‘Schools as Zones of Peace’



2

become members of political groups. Schools were frequently forced to close during political strikes and rallies. Students were affected both directly and indirectly by the ongoing fighting and violence. School buildings were often used as barracks for armed forces. This made them targets for attacks.4

Even in areas where the violence was less intense, the supply of textbooks and other materials to schools from the Ministry of Education was disrupted. Whist teachers continued to receive their state salaries, schools in Maoist occupied areas became relatively isolated from state support. The Maoists promoted their own curriculum in schools in the areas that they held. This was a highly politicised and militarised curriculum, with the English alphabet taught through “A is for Army”, “G is for Gun” and with terms like ‘enemy’, ‘bomb’ and ‘weapons’ prevalent in the text books.5

Political activities made it difficult for school communities to improve by their own efforts. When some school communities tried to raise funds through community contributions they were castigated for being capitalists and promoting private elitist education. Schools were often daubed with political graffiti and when the school community attempted to clean it they were threatened. Teachers were often forced to pay a levy to the Maoists. They were caught between being accused of being Maoist sympathisers by the government and being Government agents by the Maoists. This climate of fear made parents reluctant to send their children to school and teachers reluctant to go to teach.

Since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord in November 2006, conditions in education have greatly improved, the number of teachers in government (community) primary schools increased from around 72,000 to over 95,000 between the reporting year of 2005/06 and 2006/07. This has helped to bring down pupil teacher ratios, especially in the highly populated terai regions where classes of over 100 are not uncommon.

The National Demographic Health Survey conducted in 2006 reported the primary level net enrolment rate as 86.6%. The survival rate for grades 1 to 5 for 2006-7 is reported as 81.1%. Drop out and repetition is highest for grade 1, with 29.4% repeating and 16.1% dropping out. The figures for subsequent grades are around 10% for repetition and for dropout (DoE 2007).

Whilst much of Nepal is now enjoying peace, education continues to be interrupted by political events. The youth wings of different political parties continue to fight with each other, often bringing their conflicts into schools. Public strikes, commonly known as Banda, in which schools are closed or travel to school is inhibited, remain a common feature of life, especially in the eastern and central terai. Schools are still closed in order to host political meetings and other events. During the visit in June 2008, political graffiti was still visible on many school premises.

Save the Children’s Response

The Rewrite the Future programme in Nepal has built on a long and well established set of interventions in education by Save the Children member organisations. Save the Children works primarily through community based organisations as local implementing partners. The partners have helped to organise and coordinate classroom renovation and building programmes and training seminars for teachers. But a large part of their work is social mobilisation. Members of the local community are employed by the partner organisation to work as social mobilisers to support and facilitate the development of local committees and child clubs. These local bodies (School Management Committees, Child Protection

4 see “Schools in the Crossfire” (2004) Director: Dhruba Basnet. Distributed by Amnesty International UK 5 Nepali Times 20-26th June 2008, reading, writing, arithmetic and revolution pp10-11



3

Committees and child clubs) have served as a framework around which much of the work in education has been structured.

During the conflict there was very limited access to state social services in the areas where armed forces were operating. In response to this, Save the Children set up Village Child Protection Committees (VCPC). They were intended to act as a neutral body that would work to protect children’s rights in the villages. The guidelines were developed by working together with the Ministry of Women and Children and Social Welfare, but in order for them to be able to operate in Maoist held areas it was important that these bodies were independent of the government. According to the guidelines there should be nine members including a local health professional, a teacher, a social workers and a boy and a girl, a women representative, a representation from disable persons, representative from VDC office and two more members from civil society organisations such as those involved in human right, child rights and the media.

Work with School Management Committees (SMC), Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and other community members focused mainly on capacity building of local institutions in the management and governance of school as well as in promoting their active participation and involvement on issues related to the schooling of their children as well as on the school itself. Save the Children has facilitated SMCs to carry out participatory school self assessment leading to the development of School Improvement Plans. Save the Children has also promoted a system of social auditing which has helped to build ownership of the school by the community and to increase accountability of the schools towards the community through maintaining transparency.

The Nepal programme has a strong emphasis on participation of children in improving the quality of education and the safety of schools. Children’s participation in SMCs is one of the quality objectives in the country plan for Rewrite the Future and Save the Children has been working to increase child involvement in the development of School Improvement Plans. Child clubs have been instrumental in promoting children’s rights to education. Students have been oriented on aspects like maintaining their own rights regarding education, maintaining criteria under Schools as Zones of Peace, playing the role for social change and work for maintaining a positive and child friendly environment both in school as well as in the community.

In 2006 and 2007 the emphasis of Rewrite the Future programmes was on improving the quality of primary education. Save the Children has worked with schools in physical infrastructure and classroom improvement programmes. In refurbishment of classes for the lower grades (grades 1-3) they have provided carpets, child-level blackboards and educational wall paintings. This refurbishment has complimented their teacher training programme which includes training teachers in active teaching and learning methods and grade teaching. Teachers have also been trained in child rights and psychosocial counselling. Advocacy work to remove corporal and humiliating punishments in schools has been supported by teacher training in Non-Violent Teaching methods. Schools have been made safer and more child friendly through the provision of latrines, taps and play equipment.

Save the Children is also supporting alternative education classes for out of schools children who are getting opportunity to be mainstreamed into the formal schools after completing these alternative classes. They provide direct scholarship support for vulnerable children to ensure their continued education in school.



4

Schools as Zones of Peace

The concept of ‘Children as Zones of Peace’ was introduced to Nepal by Save the Children in 2001, drawing on experience in Sri Lanka. At the national level, Save the Children has joined together with other organisations6 to form a national coalition for Children as Zones of Peace (CZOP). ‘Schools as Zones of Peace’ was a key component of the CZOP movement that could be practically implemented and monitored. The SZOP concept was introduced and promoted through a wide range of advocacy and consultation processes. Political leaders across the spectrum, civil society, education institutions and security forces were oriented about the SZOP concept, with rallies and dissemination of posters, stickers and booklets and other interactions. Schools as Zones of Peace then became a buzzword across the country including at the grassroots community level. The media and local human rights groups were also involved in promoting SZOP.

At the local level Save the Children has introduced the concept to schools as a platform for negotiation between the school community and political parties to ensure that learning in schools is not disrupted by political activities (strikes, recruitment, political slogan writing), and to ensure that schools are safe, peaceful, non-violent and non-discriminatory.

The evaluation investigates how Save the Children’s SZOP intervention has been implemented in schools in Nepal and how this has contributed to improving the quality of education (safe learning environment, participation, and learning).

Methodology The Nepal midterm evaluation was designed during a 5 day workshop held in Kathmandu in June 2008. The workshop was attended by the research team with additional input from other Save the Children staff. Schools as Zones of Peace was chosen as the focus for the Nepal Rewrite the Future evaluation through a voting procedure that considered how different interventions addressed the problems caused by conflict, and which interventions were most effective and most innovative. The workshop then explored the logical chain for SZOP, looking at goals, actions and expected outcomes (see annex 1). This was used to develop the following research questions:

1. How have Save the Children interventions addressed the effects that the conflict has on the quality of education in Nepal?

2. How do schools declare SZOP and why?

3. How does SZOP contribute to improving education quality in areas where conflict is ongoing?

4. How does SZOP contribute to improving education quality when the immediate conflict is no longer on going?

5. What changes are seen in Save the Children schools undergoing the SZOP process?

The team then developed research tools to investigate these questions. The participants also adapted some generic tools for the global evaluation to fit them to the Nepal context and to include items related to SZOP. These included a school data collection survey, a lesson observation checklist and a student learning assessment (Nepali and Mathematics).

Following the workshop the design was presented to an advisory group consisting of senior Save the Children staff and a Ministry of Education representative. The tools were then tested

6 Other founding member organisations of the coalition include Child Workers in Nepal Concerned Centre (CWIN), Institute of Human Rights Commission, Nepal (IHRICON).



5

during a 2 day visit to Sindhupalchowk district. Following the piloting, the team made further adaptations to the tools.

Data collection was carried out in four districts with teams of four to five spending around a week in each district. Two districts were visited in June, immediately after piloting and just before the schools closed for the monsoon break. Due to the early arrival of the monsoon rains, schools were closed earlier than expected which meant that not all of the data collection planned could be carried out in Baglung. Data collection was carried out in a further two districts in August once schools had reopened.

To investigate the process of SZOP the evaluation team carried out focus group discussions with students, teachers, parents and SMCs in at least two schools per district. Further interviews and focus group discussions were carried out with Village Child Protection Committees, older child clubs, partner organisations and village level leaders of political groups. The peace process and the legitimisation of the Maoists through the electoral process meant that respondent groups were more accessible and open than would have been the case in previous years.

Since the major aim of this phase of the evaluation was to investigate the process of Rewrite the Future school level interventions, the design was aimed more towards collecting in depth qualitative data with multiple respondents across a range of contexts where Save the Children was working. Four districts were selected to represent this range (see below) and six schools were visited in each district, four project schools and two comparison schools.

The evaluation team was aware that much of what took place in schools and in lessons during the visits was in part a ‘performance’, with teachers behaving in the way that they felt the team would think of as good practice. The fact that project schools would be more aware of what Save the Children’s ideas of good practice than comparison schools accentuates the influence of this observer effect. The findings must therefore be understood more as a demonstration of teachers’ understanding of good practice than an accurate representation of typical practice.

Student reading and mathematics were evaluated in all the schools visited in order to see if there were any differences between project and comparison schools and to provide a baseline for measuring the impact of Rewrite the Future on student learning in 2010. An oral test administered on a one to one basis was chosen in preference to a written test as it would enable us to distinguish between the lower levels of literacy. The disadvantage of this type of test was that it took a long time to administer, so the sample size was relatively small. Also, reading out loud to a stranger can be a very intimidating experience for a young child. Whilst every effort was made to reassure them, the results need to be interpreted as not just measuring ability, but also measuring confidence with strangers. Actual reading levels, i.e. a child’s ability to read with a familiar adult, may be higher than the results imply.

The first draft of the report was compiled by the two lead researchers and then it was reviewed through a participatory process involving representatives of child clubs from the five districts involved. The findings were presented in Nepali and the children were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the findings, whether they were based on reality and what they found to be missing or overemphasised in the report. They were also asked to comment on the relevancy of SZOP in post conflict Nepal and whether they would recommend it to other countries experiencing conflict. It was further reviewed through discussions amongst the national evaluation team and consultation with the advisory group. This review process helped to validate the main findings, put other findings into a clearer context and generated new data that has been incorporated into the report.



6

The Research Areas

The original selection of districts for the evaluation was made to include the three main different geographical zones of Nepal (terai, hill and mountain) and to include the three Save the Children member programmes (Japan, Norway and US). The districts selected were Baglung (hill, Save the Children Norway), Mahottari (Central Terai, Save the Children Japan), Kailali (Western Terai, Save the Children USA) and Jumla (mountain, Save the Children Norway). Following the selection on Schools as Zones of Peace as the focus it was decided that Jumla should be replaced by Palpa. Palpa, like Baglung is a hill district where Save the Children Norway operates but it was selected because it was one of the first districts in which Save the Children introduced the concept of Schools as Zones of Peace.

Baglung and Palpa are in the hill ecological zones of Nepal. The terrain is often very steep and schools are difficult to reach. Some Save the Children project schools in Baglung are 3 days walk from the road. Given the scattered population and the difficulties of the terrain, primary schools tend to be small with an average of around 120 students per school. Observed class sizes were generally below 20. Palpa and Baglung have a relatively high number of community managed schools.

Baglung and Palpa, were highly affected by the conflict with the Moaists. From 2003

to 2004 the Maoists in general would not allow foreign funded NGOs/CBOs to operate in Baglung and Gaja Youth Club, Save the Children’s partner in the district, had to negotiate with them in order to be allowed to work. Work on SZOP started in 2004, whilst the conflict was going on, but the implementation of SZOP coincided with the development of the peace process. Save the Children started work on SZOP in Palpa in 2003 and so the process was more advanced during the main conflict period.

The other two districts in the evaluation, Kailali and Mahottari, are in the terai, population density in the terai tends to be greater than in the hills. Schools are generally larger, with larger class sizes. Most of the classes observed in this evaluation had more than 40 students present. Schools are relatively easily accessed by road, except in the rainy season.

Political related violence has continued in the terai since 2006, though more localised and less intense than the Maoist conflict prior to the peace process. The central terai, where Mahottari is located, has been especially badly affected in 2007 and 2008 with many strikes and security incidents linked to opposition groups. According to one headmaster, the conflict experienced there currently was worse than anything that they had experienced prior to 2006. The SZOP process in these districts has been introduced more recently. Many schools visited in Mahottari had only just started undergoing the process.

Piloting of the tools was carried out in Sindhupalchowk, a district consisting of hill and mountain areas a few hours drive to the north-east of Kathmandu. Whilst the quantitative data from the pilot stage has not been included in the analysis, qualitative data has been included where relevant.



7

Table 1: school data for districts covered in the evaluation

Baglung Palpa Mahottari Kailali National Geographical zone Hill Hill terai terai Net enrolment rate 95.9 95.9 73.4 85.2 89.1 Survival rate to grade 5 (2006-07) 96.6 98.2 53.2 92.0 81.1 Repetition rate grade 1 (2006-07) 30.2 34.8 23.3 18.2 29.4 Pupil teacher ratio (community schools) 35.3 32.7 66.6 73.4 42.3 Source: Ministry of Education and Sport (2007) Flash I report 2064 (2007-2008) Annexes, Government of Nepal, Bhaktapur

In terms of education, Baglung and Palpa were more developed than Mahottari and Kailali, with net enrolment rates and survival rates to grade 5 above the national average. The reported enrolment rates for Mahottari and Kailali are below the national average, and the survival rate to grade 5 in Mahottari is well below the average (see table 1). Teacher pupil ratios, whilst having decreased in recent years, are still high in Mahottari and Kailali.



8

The School Level Programmes

How SZOP has contributed to providing a safe learning environment

This section of the report explores how the processes of Schools as Zones of Peace were carried out at the school level, focusing on how the local people understood and interacted with the concept SZOP. It looks at how school communities visited in this evaluation experienced the conflict, how they implemented SZOP, and the benefits and challenges that they experienced.

Schools’ experiences of conflict

As noted above, schools in Nepal were often sites of violence and serious human rights abuses during the conflict. The effects of conflict on primary schools were less intense than secondary schools. As noted by a partner representative in Sindhupalchok, “Primary classes were less disturbed because of smaller children. Maoists generally would not organize their programs in primary schools and as the children were too small they would not take primary level students to participate in their programs.” Similar information was also given by the partner representative in Mahottari, “Despite occasional closure for few days, schools in our areas always remained open.”

Even so, all schools visited had suffered to some extent during the conflict. Sometimes the effects were limited to school closure and teachers being forced to pay a levy, but, as illustrated by the quotes below, the conflict was often brought directly into the classroom.

One day when the school was open, Maoist arrived to lock us up. But fortunately one of the parents informed us about the Maoist's plan and we were able to escape. Teacher, Mahottari

Children were afraid to see security forces and Maoists with gun. Often they would come to the school, enter into the classroom and would start giving lectures to the students about their ideology, ignoring our request to not do so. Teacher, Mahottari Maoists used to run their programs during school hours. Students and teachers were taken for their rallies. Schools would remain closed during those days. If someone tried to ignore them, Maoists would threaten them that they would kill them and place a bomb inside the school. Schools would close once or twice in a week for conducting their programs. We feared so much that some of us even thought about leaving our village. Student focus group, Kailali

Even when schools remained open, the atmosphere of fear surrounding them was a great barrier to education.

During the time of the conflict we were afraid to send our children to school because anything could happen on their way to school, they could be abducted. Parent, Sindhupalchowk After the beginning of the conflict we were not able to teach with fresh and peaceful mind. We were not feeling secured and the administration was unable to do anything. Head teacher, Mahottari

.



9

Frequent school closure or banda was another critical problem faced by many schools. According to a partner representative in Mahottari “whenever a general banda was announced schools were automatically closed down.” Banda was ubiquitous problem mentioned by many respondents.

It was not easy for partner NGOs to work and implement activities during the conflict. This was particularly so for NGOs like BASE (partner organization in Kailali) as their activities were supported by the Save the Children US. Maoists would often try to obstruct partner representatives, claiming that people did not need imperialist American money. A BES (partner NGO in Palpa) representative remembered those days as “Maoists were a major barrier for our activities. Some of them were so rigid towards us that they would abduct and give mental torture to our staff, threatening them to leave the job or face serious harm. They even locked our regional office for a month.” Partner NGO staff in Baglung and Sindhupalchowk also recalled cases of abduction and being locked out of their offices.

Partners adopted a range of strategies to continue with their activities. Approaches like ‘do no harm to anyone’, maintaining transparency and neutrality in their activities and financial matters through the practices of social audit, advocating for peace, children’s rights and school safety, extensive interaction and working with the local people, and developing staff security policies were some of the approaches that partner NGOs adopted in order to continue carrying out their activities. As one respondent explained:

Maoists were complaining against NGOs, saying that they come from outside. But we pointed out that Tuki [SC partner NGO] were part of the local community. They were very committed, so even the Maoists had no complaint. Their financial transparency and close supervision made all agree that they were the right ones to do the work. There was no need for any negotiation with the different groups due to their transparency. All the local people knew what they were doing. VCPC Chairperson in Sindhupalchok.

How SZOP was developed at the school level

The national coalition for Children as Zones of Peace had worked to promote and popularise the concept of SZOP since 2002. Many local communities became engaged in efforts and dialogue to protect their schools from violence. Save the Children partners, either directly or via the local Child Protection Committees, presented schools with a systematic approach to declaring themselves as SZOP. Where schools indicated an interest in undergoing the process, the partner NGO would facilitate a needs analysis through interaction with parents, teachers, students and SMC. Meetings were held for sensitisation of theses groups and they worked together to develop codes of conduct. They then organized a public meeting attended by all actors, including local representatives of political parties. A discussion took place, and once all objections had been dealt with, a unanimous decision was made to declare their school a Zone of Peace. The declaration was marked by noting it in the SMC minutes and announced through the erection of notice boards schools or writing on the walls of the school building and, in some communities, distribution of leaflets.

The process could often stretch over two years from the initial introduction of the concept to the declaration Gaining acceptance from local political parties often took a long time. A school in Baglung noted how the Maoists staying there had initially rejected the idea. But as they became more integrated into the community and saw that it was very much the wish of the community, they allowed the school to declare itself SZOP. Another school had only been able to declare itself SZOP after agreeing to include local representatives of political groups into its SMC. A local violent event would sometimes motivate a school to declare themselves SZOP immediately, without the prolonged interactions that were normally



10

undertaken. This was observed in a school in Palpa. A school in Kailali was able to declare their school as SZOP within a few weeks and after three meetings.

Codes of Conduct

Most project schools visited (13/16) had a code of conduct displayed on a notice board erected at the school gate or painted on the wall of the school building. It was reported that a large number of people had participated in the process of development of codes of conduct. No standard code was prepared by Save the Children, so schools and their communities were free to decide what to include, based on their local situation and requirements. In some schools separate codes of conduct were developed for students, for teachers, for parents and for the school.

Generally codes of conduct included clauses banning armed activities, conflict, and weapons in the school; use of children in political activities; political activities like meetings and mass gatherings, graffiti, and activities other than organized by school itself in the school; arrest, abduction and torture of children and teachers; school closure; corporal punishment, use of inappropriate language, fighting, alcohol, tobacco, playing cards or other similar games in the school; unnecessary intrusion by anybody into the school; cattle grazing and vehicle parking in the school. An example of a code of conduct from a school in Palpa is given below.

During the time of peak conflict, armed political groups were often strongly opposed to the development of codes of conduct that they felt would interfere with their activities. Incorporation of local issues into codes of conduct like cattle grazing, no drinking and no outsiders without permission in the schools maintained the neutrality of the codes of conducts and helped to gain the acceptance of the armed groups.

Code of conduct for a School as Zone of Peace in Palpa (translated from Nepali)

• Teachers and students should not take part in any slogan chanting or processions in school time without the prior approval of the school.

• No political party or any other organization may conduct a program within the school compound without approval.

• Teachers and students should not be punished and scolded in the school for any personal reason.

• No corporal punishment of students within the school compound that might result in physical mishap is allowed.

• No person, group may enter into the school with weapons and explosives.

• Use of sound making devices like tape recorder, deck, mill, equipments, etc. is not allowed within the school compound during the school time affecting students’ learning.

• Use of alcohol, tobaccos, and drugs is not allowed within the school time and compound.

• No person should enter into the classroom while the class is going on without the approval of the teacher.

• Cattle grazing within the school compound is not allowed.

• No abduction and arrest of teachers and students is allowed from the school premise and within the school time.

• Vehicle movement is not allowed during the school time within the immediate vicinity of the school.



11

Local understandings of SZOP

A variety of understandings were found among different groups of people at the local level about SZOP and its role in making school a safe place. Most of the respondents in project schools had heard about SZOP but some of them, particularly parents and community members had not experienced or participated in the SZOP process. According to a group of parents in Baglung, SZOP was: “making teachers attentive towards children and making them regular in school”. Older child club members in Kailali explained SZOP as: “a means of disciplining oneself and others, no political activities, supportive environment, etc.” A focus group discussion with child club members in Mahottari however revealed that they had heard about SZOP but did not know what it meant.

A mixed response was given by SMC members on understandings SZOP. During focus group discussions some members would express a clear understanding while others would remain silent. The chairperson and members of the SMC of a primary school in Palpa which was declared SZOP about three years ago expressed ignorance about SZOP. In this school, codes of conduct were written on a board just outside the school gate but the members had no idea what was written on it. This SMC was recently re-structured, and many of the members had joined the SMC well after the declaration of SZOP. The Chairperson and most other members of the SMC were illiterate, which was why they did not know what was written on the board. Turnover of SMC membership, especially in communities with low levels of literacy, presents a challenge to sustaining the SZOP status of schools.

Teachers were the best informed about SZOP. Some of the expressions of teachers on SZOP were: “no mass gatherings, no alcohol, no political activity and graffiti inside the school” (Palpa), “making the school a free place, no political interference, honouring child rights, regular and timely arrival of children and teachers” (Mahottari), and “no political activity in school, no corporal punishment of children, better teaching learning environment” (Kailali).

Respondents were thus found to have different levels of understanding on SZOP. Some could show a good understanding while others could not. Their understanding depended upon their level of participation in the process.

Successes of SZOP

Enhanced safety and security in the school was one important outcome of SZOP noted by respondents. A VCPC member in Palpa said, “With SZOP our school has a safe learning environment for children without having external interferences in any activity.” Even the hoarding boards of SZOP and codes of conduct have contributed to enhanced safety in the school. According to child club members in Baglung, “Once some people from political parties came to write slogans on the school wall, but when they saw the SZOP hoarding board they went away.” No political graffiti was observed in project schools that had declared SZOP, whereas in some non SZOP schools visited graffiti could be seen on the walls of school buildings. In one such school “School is Zone of Peace” had been written next to a political slogan. The management at this school was not in favour of pursuing the SZOP process, although there was clearly support for it within some parts of the school community.

SZOP helped to reduce the atmosphere of fear surrounding schools. According to teachers in Baglung, “Since declaration of SZOP, access of students was ensured as parents felt secure in sending their child to school. There are no violent activities in school now.” According to a female teacher in Kailali, “SZOP contributed to make our schools free from fear. Unlike during the conflict period, these days neither do we fear coming to school nor do parents feel fear in sending their children to school.” Parents in Mahottari said, “Though some fear is still



12

there with ongoing conflict, we feel safer than earlier and also do not feel fear while sending our children to school.”

According to Partner representative in Baglung, SZOP made people feel more secure, “they knew there was a mechanism” to bring them hope. They negotiated with the Maoists to not using children in their political activities and to respect children’s rights. “The Maoists at first were not happy with the SZOP campaign but the communities argued with them to allow us to work here. We renegotiated and were able to restart work as an NGO.”

In Palpa, the partner NGO recently identified 78 children associated with armed forces and armed groups (CAAFAG). These children came from 32 of the 65 VDCs in Palpa, but there were none from the nine VDCs where the partner had been working on the SZOP concept and promotion of child clubs for a long period. This could indicate that the SZOP movement had reduced the risk of children being recruited into armed groups.

One strategy that partners used to persuade children back to school was through making schools more enjoyable places to be. Sometimes this involved cultural programmes:

Once, several teachers of a school had been beaten by Armies, so the children stopped coming school due to the fearful environment. In this situation, we organized an entertaining cultural program, only then were we able to create a friendly environment for students.’ Partner, Palpa

During the time of violent conflict people were often afraid to talk about the problems that the community was facing. Cultural programmes helped to bring the people together and provided a forum where they felt confident to discuss their concerns and plan community actions such as the re-opening of a closed school.

Students reported that the changes brought about by SZOP, in combination with other interventions, had changed their attitudes to school and greatly increased their motivation to attend schools. They commented on the improved attendance of teachers, reduction in corporal punishment and improved learning environment.

The expressions of children were also supported by their parents. According to a parent focus group in Palpa: “instead of staying at home our children prefer going school, they go to school daily and happily.” Parents in Mahottari also expressed similar opinions: “now the teachers are punctual and they are regular too”, “parents who were not willing to send their children to school earlier now have started to send their children to the school”, and “the numbers of students in the school have increased.” Respondents mentioned improved student attendance as one of the outcomes of SZOP in 8 of the 12 project schools in which focus groups were carried out.

Students were particularly happy that their teachers no longer beat them. In SZOP schools, corporal punishment of students was largely removed and many schools were now “stick free” areas. Earlier, beating children was considered a necessary means to control and discipline children and make them study. Teachers and students were now practicing violence-free teaching and learning. Most child focus groups in the project schools in this study reported that beating had been a feature of school life in the past but the practice had stopped. Parents also recognised this change. A parent group in Palpa reported: “instead of beating children, teachers now support and counsel them.” This reduction in corporal punishment cannot be solely attributed to SZOP as there are many other interventions by Save the Children and other organisations that have contributed to it. But through SZOP, schools have publicly formalised a ban on corporal punishment by incorporating it into their



13

codes of conduct. Evidence of beating was observed in one of the 16 project schools and in 3 out of the 8 comparison schools.

Some students and parents reported occasional mild beating by some teachers. Interestingly, it was also expressed by some students, parents and teachers that gentle beating and shouting are not harmful but even necessary for disciplinary purpose as well as to make students focused on their study. A male teacher who participated in Aasaman (partner in Mahottari) training pointed out “some daant-phatkar (shouting) is not unusual. Some fear must be there in children. If there is no fear they could not be controlled and they would not be able to concentrate.”

Teachers in one school in Baglung saw improvement of children’s behaviour as an important part of SZOP and mentioned how in SZOP schools children should not use abusive language. Parents at three of the project schools visited in Baglung mentioned that one of the changes that they had seen since Save the Children had started working there was an improvement in their children’s behaviour in comparison with other schools. This was frequently linked to the change in teachers’ behaviour, especially with regard to corporal punishment and treating children with respect.

At this school teachers treat the children with respect so now when they go home, if adults are disrespectful they say “why don’t you address me with respect like my teachers?” Parent, Pallopakha School, Baglung

Children also reported an improvement in student behaviour. One child club member from Mahottari reported “After declaration of SZOP in our school, students also have become disciplined; earlier the students used to fight with each other and even break the benches and chairs.”

Teachers were very enthusiastic in describing the positive outcomes of the Save the Children interventions. According to them, the different trainings they had received had taught them about child protection, activity based teaching, alternatives to corporal punishment, child friendly schools, school as zone of peace, codes of conduct and child rights. Along with enhancing teachers’ skills and practices, interventions have helped equip teachers to help their students, and other community members, to get relief from their feelings of pain, risk and stress. Psycho-social training to teachers was important for this. According to a teacher in Sindhupalchok, training on child friendly schools and training on psycho-social aspects were very important for teachers not only to support children and parents but also to learn to cope with the stresses of conflict themselves.

A key element of SZOP that was often incorporated into the codes of conduct was preventing discrimination against marginalised groups by teachers and fellow students. Students in Kailali observed: “BASE [Save the Children partner] has made our school a better place to go. No one hates you now even if you are poor and Dalit. Unlike the earlier days teachers and other friends care and support and encourage you. ”

Schools had adapted the SZOP concept to their local situations. The point that SZOP has contributed to check cattle grazing in the school compound was raised in many of the schools. Respondents also indicated aspects like no entry to the school compound without permission, no alcohol and smoking, no arguing and fighting in the school and no dangerous implements in the school (e.g. sickles) as the contribution of SZOP, indicating how problematic these issues have been to Nepali schools. Some of these points were included in codes of conduct. Thus local people were found to be adding new dimensions and having extended understanding and application of SZOP, going beyond the original SZOP concept. This is a good example of the contextualization of a development intervention, and also



14

shows how SZOP can contribute towards ensuring safe and quality schooling when the immediate risks of conflict are reduced.

Perhaps the most important success achieved with SZOP was that it contributed to develop the concept of children’s right to quality education, developing behavioural changes among teachers, parents, community members, and among students themselves toward creating a more supportive teaching learning environment in the school. No disturbance to teaching learning process, no school closure due to political or other reasons and no use of school facilities, premises, and resources for reasons other than education were some of the understandings of SZOP now well established among all school actors including political parties.

Difficulties and challenges

SZOP was introduced in a context of ongoing violence. The peace accord signed between Maoists insurgents (now in the government) and the then government changed the whole political context in the country and created a more peaceful environment. As a consequence, armed activities and resulting interferences in schools were largely stopped and in most cases schools became safe from direct political armed conflict. Referring to the changed political context, some respondents raised doubts as to whether SZOP alone would have checked the armed activities and related interferences in the school. Such doubts were supported by the present day reality that if a general strike was called, schools, even some of the SZOP declared schools, would remain closed. This shows that the ‘commitment’ shown by political parties while agreeing on codes of conduct and while declaring the schools as zones of peace was sometimes superficial.

A challenge arising as a result of the changed political context was the risk of slackened importance to SZOP. Some schools in Sindhupalchok, all set for SZOP declaration, had not yet declared it. In Baglung, a head teacher pointed out that, “GYC [partner NGO] came up with the idea of SZOP only at the end of the conflict period. Conceptually we adopted SZOP but made no formal declaration.” Though not explicitly mentioned, respondents in other districts also would refer to the changed political context. The challenge was thus to make the SZOP more responsive towards local problems and issues related to child protection and promoting and strengthening safe, peaceful and child friendly school environment.

Refusal to accept the SZOP concept and codes of conduct was a challenge faced during the implementation phase of SZOP. Respondents in some schools said that it was quite difficult to bring political groups within the concept of SZOP and make them agree to accept the codes of conduct. Before the peace agreement they were suspicious about everything and would not accept any suggestion that would ‘interfere’ in their activities. As mentioned by one VCPC member in Palpa, “Unable to convince them [Maoists] even after prolonged and big arguments, we had to get the help of human rights activists”. Respondents in some schools shared that it was difficult to convince Maoists even after the peace agreement because they would oppose the SZOP concept by bringing in issues like social discrimination and political change. One local Maoist representative in Kailali claimed, “We can not ignore the political rights of the students.” Some other armed groups, though localized, are still active in the terai districts, including Mahottari, and they are yet to be brought into the dialogue process on the concept of SZOP.

The protection offered by SZOP was only partial and did not always extend to higher grades. One VCPC member in Palpa recalled, “I was in grade 8. The school was recently declared as SZOP. Some Maoists entered in the school and we were taken to attend their one day program.” The respondent went on to explain that the Maoist had been trying to organize



15

their programme in the school itself. Due to strong resistance and a request by the school to maintain SZOP criteria, they decided not to organize their programme in the school. However, some older children from classes 8-10 were taken to join their programme which was organized outside the school compound.

The idea of SZOP is yet to be transformed as a spontaneous local process. That is, it is yet to be developed as a process initiated, designed, implemented and monitored by the local actors. Until now it has been basically an NGO guided activity. Few non-project schools (schools that do not receive any support from the Save the Children) have been prompted on their own to declare themselves as zones of peace. Even among the project schools, not all were declared SZOP. This indicates that many local school actors either did not know about SZOP or they perceived little benefits with it.

The findings raised issues of school management and governance. In the absence of a formalised space for active partnership and participation, people would not come forward to support the school. It was thus important to create such an environment. A negative or unsupportive attitude of some people was also a challenge for successful implementation and sustainability of SZOP. One SMC member in Mahottari blamed village people for their lack of interest towards supporting the school for maintaining the codes of conduct by saying “they are not supporting the school to fence the school compound.” Similar concerns were expressed by members of other school communities, especially those in the more deprived areas where literacy rates were low and where a tradition of community participation in development was not well established. Instead of blaming people for their lack of interest, it was necessary to assess why people were not interested.

Some school staff felt that it was beyond the power of an individual school to control interference from outside. A head teacher in one of the study districts said, “We are not going to make an individual school a zone of peace. We are after declaring all schools in the country as zones of peace. Declaring an individual school as a zone of peace will not be that effective because a school can do little to check interferences. We need to understand that SZOP is a very broad concept and thus its value should not be limited to declaring a school as a zone of peace on paper and posting that paper on the wall.”

Whilst many parents expressed satisfaction with improvements in their children’s behaviour, this was not always the case. Some parents in Palpa said, “Our children go to school regularly (we believe so) but the problem is they are not disciplined. They often quarrel with each other and do not fear with anybody. Sometimes they even show weapons (knife), even to their teachers. We are very shamed by their behaviour.”

It was found that aspects like monitoring, documenting, reporting and responding to violation of codes of conduct and SZOP were not priority activities in many of the project schools visited. Some schools had developed a monitoring and reporting system, often involving children directly. Committees like SZOP Monitoring Committee or Village Child Protection Committee were there but they were not very active in most cases because there were very few or no cases of reported and documented violations. A partner NGO representative in Baglung noted, “There is no formal reporting procedure of violations of SZOP. Our response depends upon the seriousness of violations. For a serious violation there must be an immediate response. At the local level we talk to the VCPC to find out more about the breaches.”

A functional complaint box was not found in many of the project schools visited. The general understanding was that in the case of a serious violation, committees like the SMC and VCPC would respond and when students needed to report violations they could simply go to their teachers or head teachers. Where schools did have complaint boxes they reported that no complaints had been posted there. This raises the critical question of whether there



16

really were no cases of violations or were they just not reported and documented. Given the low levels of literacy among parent and school children (see below) a system relying on written complaints may not be very effective.

One critical challenge of the SZOP process was related to its institutionalization and sustainability. There was very little involvement of the District Education Office (DEO) and its representative School Supervisor in the SZOP process. Partner NGOs did not give much importance to efforts towards institutionalization and sustainability of the SZOP process. During the intense conflict it may have been necessary to avoid overt collaboration with government institutions in order to gain the acceptance of opposition groups. However, within the new political context there is a greater need to integrate SZOP into the formal school management structures. None of the respondents mentioned any program or activities that would link the SZOP process with the traditional local practices of making dialogue and interaction and building peace in the community. Efforts towards this direction would greatly enhance the sustainability and institutionalization of the SZOP process.

Facilitating Participation:

The SZOP process contributed to enhancing the active involvement of children, their parents and other community people in school development. Children and parents got new roles and responsibilities as they were made members of the different committees formed for facilitating the SZOP process. Those who were not members of committees and groups were able to raise their concerns and issues by participating in general gatherings organized in the village. The successful implementation and maintenance of SZOP depended upon the active involvement of the whole community.

Central to the SZOP process was full school participation in the development of a code of conduct for students, teachers and parents. Most of the project schools visited (12/16) had developed their own codes of conduct, whereas only one comparison school had done this.

As parents and children actively participated in the SZOP process they also contributed to issues related to school governance. The SZOP process thus provided a common platform for parents, children, teachers and other local actors come together and discuss, plan and act to make the school a better and safer place for children. This contributed to develop a cooperative relationship between the school and the community. In most of the schools, respondents were of the opinion that enhanced parental participation means enhanced quality of teaching learning and the discussions with the parents showed their interest and willingness to participate in the school processes. It was found that SMCs tended to meet more frequently in project schools than in comparison schools (10 times a year on average, compared with 7 times a year) although it should be noted that in 3 of the project schools the SMC had not met even once during 2007. Teachers in Sindhupalchok were of the opinion that “The Tuki [partner NGO in the district] program of interaction with community people greatly helped to raise parental interest and participation in their children’s education as well in school activities.”

Enhanced child participation in school activity was another important contribution of the SZOP process. As part of Save the Children’s wider interventions, children were organized in child clubs which were either school or community based. Children were active in contributing to SZOP processes like developing codes of conduct, declaring SZOP, monitoring, documenting and reporting violations of codes of conduct. They were the ones who were very active in disseminating the SZOP concept to community people, particularly to those who showed an indifferent or negative attitude towards SZOP.



17

Children’s participation was not limited to SZOP, but extended to other areas of school development. Because of their active involvement in school management and governance it has now become a customary practice not only to invite them into the School Management Committee meetings but also to treat them as a regular member of the committee. In most (11/16) project schools there were child representatives in the SMC of the school, whereas there were only two cases of this being practiced in the 8 comparison schools.

By participating in child clubs and remaining active in activities like SZOP, school governance and development, children were also contributing towards their own development. Save the Children provides training in areas like organization, leadership, public speaking, child rights and child protection for those children who participate in child club activities. Participation and sharing in group activities together with training have provided them with the strength, commitment, and zeal to stand up for their rights. A parent in Kailali observed, “child club has contributed to build confidence among students and they are now more verbal of their rights.” Though there were issues related to child clubs that need to be addressed, children, through their activities and participation in child clubs, have established themselves as an important resource and power in educational and social development not only in their own localities but in the whole country.

Improving Teaching and Learning

One of the key objectives of SZOP was to promote a common understanding that the learning process in schools should not be interrupted by political activities. All schools reported disruptions to teaching during the conflict. One school in Palpa had been used as a shelter by the army and was closed for over a month. Most schools had closed for occasional bandas in the past. Loss of teaching time due to school closure was one of the major negative impacts of the conflict on learning in primary schools.

Project schools on average were open 12 days more in 2007 than comparison schools. In Baglung two of the project schools had not missed any days in 2007 and the other two project school had missed 9 and 11 days. By comparison one non-SZOP school had closed for 19 days and the other for 22 days. Parents at SZOP schools clearly appreciated schools being kept open.

This school has more open days than other schools. I heard that this was a good school and that my child would be safe here so I transferred my child here. Parent, Project School, Baglung.

It was suggested by one student focus group that teachers and parents often tacitly welcomed school closure:

Sometimes it seems that some parents become happy when there is school closure as they can use the children to assist them. Similarly, some teachers also become happy as they get a good rest during the closure period. Therefore, sometimes it seems like both parents and teachers are indirect supporters of the school closure. As a result school remains closed even for a minor rumour of banda announcement. older child club member, Palpa.

The challenge of SZOP was therefore to change this mindset to one that saw school open time as something that should be valued and actively protected from disturbance. This mindset change was evident in that where the effects of conflict on school had diminished; the concept of protecting the school from closure due to outside disturbances was being applied to other issues, such as wedding parties:

Since it is a common practice to let school to be a place for wedding reception (Bariyati) in the village, now we have realized school should not be interrupted by any



18

means. Thus, we are thinking of constructing a block (Dharamshala) in our locality so that such functions can be organized over there. Child rights protection forum member, Mahottari

One child club member in Palpa described how a school event had been cancelled so that teachers could attend a wedding. This had prompted the child club to complain and to pressurise the school to prepare a code of conduct.

The child clubs were often active in ensuring that schools stayed open:

A few months back there was school closure everywhere when the text book was not available in market. But we did not let the school close in our villages. We collected old text books from the graduated students and continued our education. Older child club member, Palpa

Where the conflict was too intense for schools to stay open, child clubs were often instrumental in ensuring that learning continued out of school. Child club members in Kailali reported how they had run Milli Julli Padhau (let's learn together) sessions during periods of school closure. They would gather together younger children, both school going and out of school, and conduct classes for them, consulting teachers when they had difficulties. Child clubs in Mahottari also carried out peer learning sessions during times of school closure.

In half of the project schools where focus groups were carried out, respondents mentioned an improvement in teacher attendance as one of the changes seen. This improvement was reported by SMCs (in 4 out of 12 schools), parents (in 3 schools), children (in 2 schools) and teachers themselves (2 schools). Like with school closure, the central tenet that learning should not be interrupted was being applied to other causes of teacher absence. Some school communities had applied the principle to Save the Children and their partners, requesting that teacher training should not take place during term time.

Teaching and learning in the classroom

An overall goal of SZOP was to improve students learning through increased instructional time and create protective learning environment in school. However, it is not possible to isolate the effects of SZOP on learning from the other Save the Children interventions such as teacher training and classroom improvement. The following section looks how Rewrite the

Future interventions as a whole have influenced teaching and learning in the classroom.

Save the Children has focused its teacher training mainly on teachers of grades 1 to 3. Most lesson observations therefore focused on these lower grades. Most (23/38) of the teachers observed in project schools had received some training from Save the Children. In Mahottari, where Save the Children’s schools work is at an earlier stage, only 3 of the 10 teachers observed at project schools had received



19

training from Save the Children. In Baglung and Palpa, Save the Children had supported carpeting of classrooms and educational wall paintings. The carpeting gave teachers more freedom to organise classes into circles or small groups, and so they were enabled to practice the new techniques that they had been trained in. In most classes observed (40/52), children were seated in rows, but in smaller classes with carpeted floors the class was often sat in a U shape around the sides of the classroom, or in a circle around the centre.

Not all project schools enjoyed such learning conditions. In some schools classrooms were found bare or with very little teaching learning materials in the room. In Mahottari, some of the observed classrooms had nothing for children to sit on. Some of the children would bring a piece of plastic with them to protect them from the dusty floor. A Baglung class was observed as “very small and dark and children were sweating with only one door for ventilation.”

The quality of teaching in the classroom, as measured by the lesson observation tool developed for this evaluation, was, on average, significantly better in classes taught by Save the Children trained teachers than in classes taught by teachers who had not undergone Save the Children training. Differences between trained and untrained teachers were not particularly marked for any individual item on the lesson observation (see annex 5). A greater proportion of Save the Children trained teachers than untrained teachers were observed addressing students by their names (14/23 compared to 11/29), giving questions to individuals (16/23 compared to 14/29) and using materials other than the textbook (13/23 compared to 10/29). However, there was little apparent difference in the types of questions that were asked. In both groups only a minority of teachers asked open questions and questions that required thinking skills beyond repetition.

Differences in behaviour between teachers in project schools and teachers in comparison schools were more marked than differences between those who had received training from Save the Children and those who had not. When all of the lesson observation items were considered the difference was not significant, but when only the teacher behaviour items were scored, and the classroom environment items omitted, there was a significant difference between the total scores of teachers in project schools and the scores of those in comparison schools. A greater proportion of classes observed in the project schools had evidence of regular marking of their work by the teacher (17/38 compared with 2/14). In project schools, more teachers were observed to make eye contact with their students than in comparison schools (35/38 compared to 10/14). Given that the teacher training profiles of the teachers (Save the Children courses excepted) at the project schools and comparison school was similar (see annex 4), the differences indicate a difference in overall school ethos going beyond the individual teachers trained by Save the Children.

Child club members had noticed behaviour changes among their teachers since Save the Children partners had started working in their schools. A group in Kailali said that one of the changes that they had noticed since the declaration of SZOP was that teachers had started marking their exercise books. Students in Palpa described how relationships between teachers and pupils had improved.

Four of the teacher focus groups and four of the student focus groups reported that there had been an improvement in the way teachers taught as a result of Save the Children’s interventions, and that teaching methods had become more participatory. Despite teachers’ claims of active and participatory teaching learning in the classrooms some of the classes were observed dominated by teachers and their lectures. The following excerpt from a lesson observation gives a picture of the type of teaching observed in many classrooms:

Teacher begins a call and response lesson, holding up a plastic or paper animal and asking what it is and where it is from. The majority of the students (seated in circle)



20

answer in chorus. There is no individual interaction between teacher and the student. The children on the periphery of the circle do not participate in the call and response lesson. No effort is made to involve them. Grade 3 class lesson observation, teacher with Save the Children training in a project school.

During group work and individual work activities in observed lessons it was noted that the teacher often concentrated on the more active students and students with exercise books and pens. Teachers were found supporting only those who would come to them and who would respond to them. They would rarely approach girls and boys sitting silently and inactively in a corner in the class, and try to know the reasons for their silence. This problem was found as a general trend and even the teachers who had participated in programs like active teaching learning showed this sort of behaviour. It was not simply a characteristic of large classes, even in classes with 12 students or fewer, some children were ignored. There was thus a high risk that those neglected children would always remain neglected, and eventually would leave the school with little learning. Other forms of exclusion on the basis of gender, caste/ethnicity, were not observed.

Learning outcomes

In terms of the learning outcomes in schools, it was found that the average reading and comprehension scores of students at the project schools were higher than those recorded at comparison schools. The difference was found to be significant when other variables were controlled for in a multivariate analysis (see annex 6). No statistically significant difference was detected for maths learning outcomes.

Girls scored lower than boys in all three indicators (reading, comprehension and maths) and the differences were always statistically significant. Dalit children scored lower in reading level and maths and the differences were statistically significant. There was a higher proportion of Dalits in the project school sample than in the comparison school sample. Given that typically these children performed less well than other children, learning outcomes in project schools may be underestimated and the difference with comparator school may be larger than these results suggest.

The differences in reading and comprehension scores between project schools and comparison schools may be due to improved quality of education in the project schools, although it could also be due to project schools having started at a higher baseline. For evidence that links the interventions with the higher reading levels it is necessary to wait until the 2010 phase of the evaluation.

Differences between project and comparison schools in the current distribution of reading levels (an index based on their reading and comprehension) can give an indication of the changes that Save the Children interventions may be bringing to students’ learning. Looking at the overall distribution of reading levels, a significantly7 higher proportion of students at the project schools reached the upper reading levels at which they could demonstrate reading with a reasonable level of comprehension (getting at least 2 out of 4 questions correct). In project schools almost 60% (57/97) of students scored at this level compared with only 42% (19/45) at comparison schools. However, there was very little difference between comparison and project schools in the proportion of students who could not read at all. In both cases around a quarter of students were unable to read any words from the passage (12/45 in comparison schools, 22/97 in project schools). The pattern of findings suggest that Save the

7 Statistically significant at the 10% level, as measured by Pearson chi squared test.



21

Children project interventions as a whole may be improving learning outcomes for the middle range and more able students but are having limited effect on the lowest quartile.

Reading levels of girls

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4

Reading level

% of girls tested

project

comparison

Reading level of boys

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4

Reading level

% of boys tested

project

comparison

Key to reading levels 0 cannot read any words from the story 1 can read less than half of words 2 can read most words but little comprehension (1 or no comprehension questions correct) 3 can read most words and some comprehension (2 or 3 comprehension questions correct) 4 can read passage and shows good comprehension - all correct

Differences in learning outcomes were also found between districts. In Baglung around two thirds of students tested (23/35) were able to read the whole passage and answer two or more questions correctly. In Mahottari only a quarter of students could reach this level (9/36). This can, to a large degree, be accounted for by the fact that the reading test was conducted in Nepali and the mother tongue of most students in Mahottari is Maithili. Mahottari students scored higher on average than students from Palpa and Baglung in the maths learning



22

assessment test (see annex 8), indicating that the difference in reading scores is due to differences in language.

The most striking finding for this phase of the evaluation is that there are a considerable number of students who do not appear to have learned to read during the first 2 years of schooling, both in project schools and in comparison schools. Combined with the observations above, that unresponsive children were often ignored by the teacher, it presents the worrying scenario that children who do not pick up reading in the early years will not tend to be given extra help and assistance in lessons in later years that assume a reasonable level of literacy. Hence these children are likely to fall further behind.



23

Conclusions

As the conflict was ongoing at the start of Rewrite the Future, interventions were taking place during a very politically sensitive time, often within Maoist controlled areas. Maoists frequently blocked organisations from working if they considered them to be closely associated with international organisations or with the Nepalese Government. Save the Children’s community participation approach was vital in ensuring that interventions and development were seen as community-led activities. Respondents in this study also pointed to the importance of transparency as a key feature of Save the Children partners’ mode of working that enabled them to gain acceptance by the local community, and local political bodies in particular. This enabled them to continue to work in the areas highly affected by conflict.

Though the school system in the country remained functioning during the decade long armed conflict, teaching learning in schools was largely disrupted. SZOP was implemented so that children’s right to quality education in a safe and child-friendly environment could be ensured and promoted. It relied on whole community negotiations at the village level for its implementation. Whilst the concept of SZOP was generally introduced to school by the partner NGO, it was developed and sustained through the activities of child clubs, SMCs and Child Protection Committees. In this way a relatively small intervention from the NGO was often multiplied to give a range of far reaching outcomes, including increased security in schools, increased instructional time and reduced violence and discrimination in schools. It led to a greater commitment towards education not only among students, teachers and parents but also among the wider community and political parties. It needs to be noted that the people’s own efforts and their active involvement were instrumental to developing such a positive environment. Likewise, policies and programs of other government and non-government agencies implemented at the central as well as at the local levels were also important to developing a positive environment for the success of SZOP.

One important outcome of Save the Children interventions was the enhanced participation and involvement of children and community not only in SZOP processes but also in the management and governance of schools. Children, organized in child clubs, were becoming an important resource not only in the SZOP process but also in school and community development as well as in their own development. Such participation made preparation and maintenance of codes of conduct and declaration and maintenance of SZOP comparatively easy and there were very few reported cases of breaches of codes of conduct and SZOP.

In Baglung and Kailali, SZOP was often being implemented as the conflict was lessening. Whilst there were many examples given of the effectiveness of SZOP in terms of reducing political interference in schools it is difficult to establish to what extent these changes were simply due to the changing political context. The introduction of SZOP itself was in part reliant on local political leaders’ willingness to engage in discussions, which may not have occurred had the conflict continued. What is evident is that it has helped to promote the importance of instruction time within the school community. It has raised the awareness and commitment to teacher attendance, students’ attendance, reduction of violence in schools and protection of the school from outside interference.

The process and outcomes of SZOP cannot be treated in isolation from other interventions by Save the Children, both within and beyond the schools. Successful implementation relied on active Child Protection Committees, child clubs and SMCs. Corporal punishment was unlikely to have been reduced through codes of conduct alone, but was supported through training for teachers in non-violent teaching methods. Attendance by pupils and teachers was not only encouraged through reducing fear through SZOP but also through making schools



24

attractive child friendly areas, with play facilities, latrines and water supplies. Instructional wall paintings may have served as an added deterrent to political graffiti writers, complimenting a ban on graffiti displayed on an SZOP notice board. Active support and participation of teachers, students, community members and other school stakeholders were also instrumental in making these changes a reality.

In terms of the overall impact that Rewrite the Future has had on learning outcomes, it is still too early to say. Whilst there is some evidence of improved teaching practices and higher learning levels in project schools, there is also evidence that many children in schools are still being ‘left behind’. Around a quarter of children are not picking up basic literacy skills within the first two years of primary schooling. These children are then effectively excluded from lessons that rely on reading. The causes of this may be due to basic shortages, such as the lack of an exercise book and pen, but may also be due to neglect from the teacher. Teachers do not appear to be equipped with the skills necessary to identify and assist such children in the classroom.

Recommendations

On the SZOP process

The SZOP process has multiple potential benefits even during times of peace and stability, but as peace develops the incentive to undergo the process will fall. It is important not to lose the lessons learned and to consider how the beneficial aspects can be included in programmes under different names. These aspects include reducing violence in schools, involving the whole community in protecting schools from disturbance, developing codes of conduct for students, parents and teachers. In many cases the broader concept of ‘Child friendly schools’, which Save the Children is promoting, is covering these aspects, and involving similar processes. The idea that education should not be disturbed by cattle grazing, wedding parties, drunkenness, political activities or other events and that teaching should be as uninterrupted as possible could also be incorporated into the Child Friendly School concept.

In districts like Mahottari, where conflict is ongoing, schools need to be fully supported in declaring themselves as Zones of Peace. Save the Children could investigate mechanisms through which understandings of SZOP could be shared between different districts and different partner NGOs. Child clubs with experiences of promoting and maintaining SZOP during the Maoist conflict in districts like Palpa could be used as ambassadors to promote and support the process in districts where new conflicts have emerged. In addition to the school level support, it is vital that pressure is maintained at the national level through the coalition for children as zones of peace. Partners should also be encouraged to work more closely with district education offices in promoting SZOP.

The ‘complaint box’ mechanism for reporting breaches of SZOP and the code of conduct did not seem to be operating effectively. This may be because children feel afraid to post complaints or because they find it difficult to put complaints into written form. Save the Children needs to consider alternative reporting mechanisms for school level monitoring of SZOP. Children should be consulted to ensure that monitoring systems are child friendly.

The evaluation team found very little documentation relevant to SZOP, with few written accounts describing the process. Without clear documentation it could be difficult to introduce the concept to new programme areas, and there is a danger that knowledge of SZOP will be lost through changes in personnel. In order to facilitate the promotion of SZOP in new schools, a guide could be developed in Nepali for school communities and partners wanting to introduce SZOP. It is important that the guide should avoid being prescriptive. As noted above, the adaptability of SZOP to local conditions is one of its key



25

strengths. The guide could take the form of a number of case studies, giving examples of the different meetings held, different strategies employed and codes of conduct developed.

Local contexts are major determinant of the success of SZOP processes. SZOP was found to be highly effective in some schools but less so in others. Emphasis must thus be given to explore different contextual factors and partner NGOs must be motivated to develop their strategies accordingly. For example, some communities, teachers, SMC members might need additional support in terms of awareness and empowerment regarding SZOP in particular and their roles, responsibilities and rights in general.

On the wider aspects of Save the Children’s work in addressing the Quality of Education

Teacher training courses need to include training that provides teachers with strategies to ensure that all children are involved in classroom activities. With active teaching learning methods there can be a tendency for a minority of more confident, active students to dominate the lesson and monopolise the teacher’s attention. Promotion of active teaching learning methods without training teachers in skills of differentiation can inadvertently lead to a reduction in the involvement of the less able or less confident children in the classroom. One basic cause of exclusion from learning activities was lack of an exercise book and pencil. Save the Children need to support schools to be able to ensure that all children have access to these.

In 2008 the emphasis of Rewrite the Future has moved to reaching the most vulnerable groups and the poorest of the poor. Given the huge disparity in the quality of education noted by this evaluation between different districts, different schools within districts and even between different children within the same classroom, this move is a very timely one.



26

Annexes Annex 1: Logical chain for SZOP Goal SZOP: Children learn in a safe, protective, supportive environment. Objectives SZOP: 1. Children’s learning activities not disturbed by political activities 2. Schools free of all forms of violence 3. Schools free of all forms of discrimination Activities Outcomes

• Awareness raising (community, children, parents, local leaders, SMC, VCPC)

• Interaction between students, parents, teachers and political parties

• Workshop on child rights, SZOP, peace education

• Meetings and lobbying with armed force/groups

• SZOP Notice board

• Developing Code of Conduct

• Developing reporting system

• monitoring

• More school days open

• Less political activities in schools

• Less corporal punishment

• Less drop out

• Less discrimination

• No weapons/arms in school

• Less violence

• Children articulate their issues

• Enrolment rate increases

• Increased parent and child participation.

Annex 2: School data Project schools

(n=16) Comparison schools (n=8)

School Improvement Plan Available 16 3 (see note below) Code of Conduct posted 13 3 Code of conduct written by school 12 1 Schools with student members in SMC 11 2 Average number of SMC meetings in 2007 10 7 Instructional wall paintings 13 0 First Aid box 12 2 Complaint box 7 1 SZOP board 10 1 Evidence of beating 1 3 Average days school open in 2007 (out of 220) 193 181 Note: the SIP is mandatory for every school, and is necessary to get funds from the government. It is therefore unlikely that only 3 have prepared a SIP out of 8 control schools. However, it could have happened that the SIP was not available in the school, and informants (teachers, SMC) may not have known about it. It implies that few individuals participated in the development of the SIP in these schools.



27

Annex 3: School hygiene/ health Comparison schools (n=8) Project schools (n=16) Latrines 5 15 Latrines for girls 2 8 Water available for washing 5 16 1st aid kit 2 12

Annex 4: Teachers Project

schools Comparison schools

total number of teachers 112 45 Female teachers 37 17

certified 57 22 6 month 8 4 short course 12 4

Highest training level reached no training 35 15 Annex 5: Lesson observations Project

schools Comparison group

Number of lesson observations 38 14 Number of teachers with Save the Children training

23 0

Average class headcount 38 31 Range of class sizes 7-135 6 - 61

Project schools Comparison

schools Item

With SC training

Without SC training

total

Sample size n=23 n=15 n=38 n=14 1 The teacher is dressed appropriately 23 15 38 14 2 The teacher smiles frequently and speaks in a

friendly tone. 19 12 31 9

3 The teacher listens attentively to children. 20 13 33 10 4 The teacher makes eye contact. 21 14 35 10 5 The teacher calls children by name. 14 5 19 6 6 The teacher praises the children. 12 5 17 6 7 The teacher treats all children with respect. 20 12 32 10 8 The lesson includes small group activities. 7 3 10 5 9 The teacher moves around the class 16 11 27 9 10 During group work the teacher talks to

different groups. 9 5 14 3

11 The teacher uses teaching materials other than the text book.

13 6 19 4

12 The teacher gives the children questions and exercises that make them think about the information the teacher has given them, not just repeating it.

11 7 18 4



28

13 Individual children are asked questions, not just chorusing

16 6 22 7

14 The teacher asks questions that can have different correct answers

8 4 12 7

15 The teacher includes all children (girls, boys, able, weak etc.) in the lesson

20 13 33 9

16 The teacher has marked children’s work 9 8 17 2

17 Children treat each other with respect. 21 11 32 12 18 Children treat teachers with respect. 23 15 38 13 19 Children are involved in the lesson, not

private conversations 18 10 28 8

20 Children spend more time in class doing things than they do waiting, or listening to the teacher.

11 6 17 5

21 Children in all areas of the classroom make individual contributions

6 5 11 4

22 Children express their own experiences and ideas

7 3 10 1

23 Children are given a chance to ask the teacher questions

8 7 15 2

24 Children have their copy books and pens out 16 10 26 11 25 Children have their textbooks out 15 10 25 5 26 Children are arranged in groups or rows 7 2 9 3 27 Girls and boys sit mixed together 14 8 22 9 28 Different castes sit mixed together 22 12 34 13 29 All children can see the board clearly 20 15 35 12 30 There is enough space for the teacher to

move around the class 20 9 29 13

31 The floor is clean 22 10 32 10 32 The classroom is well lit 21 14 35 10 33 The classroom is well ventilated 23 15 38 13 34 It is difficult to hear the teacher due to noise

from outside 3 2 5 4

35 Is there any evidence of violent punishment? 0 1 1 3 36 Does the teacher shout at children? 4 4 8 5 For scoring: Overall score: score for items 1-33, minus score for items 34-36. Max score = 33 Teaching score: sum of items 2-23, 26-28, minus score 34,35 Max score =25 Teachers

without SC training

Teachers with SC training

Teachers in project schools

Teachers in comparison schools

Number of observations 29 23 38 14 Average overall score for lesson observations (maximum score =33)

18.7** 22.0** 21.1 17.6

Average score for items focusing on teaching process (maximum score 25)

12.4** 15.2** 14.4** 11.6**

** Differences between scores are significant at the 5% level



29

Annex 6: Learning assessment: regression results

Multivariate analysis using ordered probit for reading levels and comprehension questions correct, and ordinary least squares for maths score. Outliers for pupil teacher ratio have been omitted. Explanatory variables Reading Level

(index combining reading speed, accuracy and comprehension)

Comprehension (questions answered correctly out of four)

Math Score (questions answered correctly out if 15)

Dummy for project school 0.49** 0.50** 0.55 Dummy for girls -0.43** -0.44** -0.84** Dummy for dalit children -0.50* -0.38 -1.15** Teacher training index -0.30 -0.46 -0.31 Days the school was open in 2007 0.01* 0.01** 0.00 Pupil teacher ratio 0.04** 0.04* 0.06 Pupil teacher ratio squared -0.00** -0.00** -0.00 Blackboards -0.31 -0.25 0.37 Total number of observations 136 136 136 (Pseudo) R-squared 0.063 0.070 0.0142 Note: * significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%. Annex 7: Learning assessment results: by gender

Annex 8: Learning assessment results: by district Number

of students tested

Mean score for reading level (0-4)

Mean score for maths (max= 15)

Baglung 35 2.5 12.3 Kailali 35 2.6 12.4 Mahottari 36 1.4 12.3 Palpa 36 2.4 11.8

Mean score for reading level (0-4)

Mean score for maths (max= 15)

project comparison project comparison N=97 N=45 N=97 N=45 female 2.00 1.77 12.1 11.2 male 2.67 2.10 12.7 12.3

rewrite the future global evaluation nepal midterm country ... · therefore, the save the children...

Documents