Login
Login

APHRC Online Microdata Library
  • Home
  • About APHRC
  • Datasets
  • Collections
  • Citations
  • Resources
  • How to use it?
  • Why sharing data?
  • Contact us
    Home / Central Data Catalog / HUMAN_DEVELOPMENT / DDI-KEN-APHRC-TSRP-2016-V01
Human_Development

Impact Evaluation of Tayari School Readiness Program in Kenya 2016-2017

Kenya, 2016 - 2017
Human Development (HD)
Moses Ngware
Last modified June 27, 2023 Page views 231471 Documentation in PDF Metadata DDI/XML JSON
  • Study description
  • Documentation
  • Data Description
  • Get Microdata
  • Identification
  • Version
  • Scope
  • Coverage
  • Producers and sponsors
  • Sampling
  • Data Collection
  • Data access
  • Disclaimer and copyrights
  • Metadata production

Identification

IDNO
DDI-KEN-APHRC-TSRP-2016-v01
Title
Impact Evaluation of Tayari School Readiness Program in Kenya 2016-2017
Country
Name Country code
Kenya KE
Abstract
This was an external evaluation of the Tayari pre-primary school programme. Tayari is an early childhood development and education (ECDE) intervention in Kenya funded by the Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). The intervention is implemented by the RTI International, in partnership with the Kenya Ministry of Education (MoE), and evaluated by the African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC). The programme, which ran from November 2014 to July 2018, aimed to develop a cost-effective, scalable model of ECDE that would ensure that children who are prepared to join primary grade 1 are cognitively, physically, socially and emotionally ready to start, and succeed in primary school. The programme focused on improving learners' knowledge and skills in literacy, numeracy, health and hygiene as well as psychosocial skills; it targeted pre-primary school children in ECDE centres in four counties in Kenya: Laikipia, Nairobi, Siaya and Uasin Gishu. Both public and Alternative Provision of Basic Education and Training (APBET) ECDE centres were targeted in Nairobi while only public centres were targeted in the other three counties. As the programme's external evaluator, APHRC's role in Tayari was mainly to assess the impact of the programme on preparing children for primary school; and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the programme.
The evaluation, which adopted a randomized control trial (RCT) design, involved three separate treatment arms and one control arm for each type (public and APBET) of ECDE centre or school. The first treatment arm (T1) received two components of the intervention - teacher training and classroom instructional support; the second treatment arm (T2) received the two components in the first treatment plus an instructional materials component (consisting of learner workbooks, teachers' guides, and other instructional materials); the third treatment arm (T3) received all the three components in the second treatment arm, plus a health component. The control arm received no treatment but would receive the components proven to work after completion of the piloting phase in 2018.
In order to examine the effects of duration of exposure to the Tayari intervention, and because of limitation of funds, half the number of schools required to detect the required effect size were added in the study in 2016 (referred to as “Phase 1” schools), and the other half was added in 2017 (referred to as “Phase 2” schools) - meaning that the 2017 endline study covered in this report had a full sample needed to detect the stipulated mean effect size based on study estimates. This also means that Phase 1 schools were exposed to the intervention for two years while Phase 2 schools were exposed for one year, before the end term evaluation was conducted.
In the paragraphs below, we provide a summary of the answers to the key evaluation questions. Detailed answers to these questions are provided in the final chapter of this report.
Research question 1: What is the impact of (i) classroom instruction model (T1&2), and (ii) classroom instruction combined with health component (T3) on learner achievement?
The two packages involving teacher training and classroom instruction components (also referred to as “classroom instructional model”) plus an instructional materials component - T2 and T3 - improved overall school mean scores by 0.34 and 0.31 standard deviations respectively in public ECDE centres, and by 0.52 and 0.42 standard deviations respectively in APBET centres. On the other hand, the T1 package, which involved the classroom instructional model only (that is, without the instructional materials component), improved school mean scores by 0.30 and 0.08 standard deviations in public and APBET centres respectively.
Research question 2: Does the effect of the interventions vary by public versus APBET, length of exposure to the intervention and learner sex?
a) Overall, the magnitude of the impact of the intervention was bigger in APBET schools that were in T2 and T3 than in public schools. The impact was least felt in T1 APBET.
b) The impact of the intervention on school mean scores was practically significant even after stratifying by phase. However, the impact of the intervention was of greater significance among Phase 2 schools than among Phase 1 schools, which seemed to contradict the notion that longevity of exposure to the intervention would have an additional advantage. However, it is reasonable to argue that the lower impact on Phase 1 schools may be due to teething problems at the start of the programmme and exposure to change - teachers were encouraged to operate outside their comfort zones.
c) The intervention did not seem to impact differently by learner sex in APBET schools. However, in public schools, there seem to be some better results for girls than for boys, especially in T1 and T3.
Research question 3: Are health interventions together with classroom instruction models more effective in improving learning outcomes than classroom instruction model alone?
The impact of the packages involving classroom instructional model and provision of instructional materials plus the health component (T3) on school mean scores did not differ much from that of the package involving classroom instructional model and provision of instruction materials only (T2). Hence, the health component did not seem to offer additional advantage in terms of improved school readiness overall score.
Research question 4: Are interventions cost-effective? What are the costs of the interventions and their incremental effects on assessment scores?
Research question 5: Which aspects of Tayari worked well, and what didn't?
By and large, this question pertains to process evaluation and thus it is handled in a separate report. Nevertheless, based on the quantitative analyses carried out in this report, it would seem that the teacher training and classroom instructional support package (T1) worked better if accompanied by provision of instructional materials (T2).
To get children ready to transition to primary school, the Tayari programme seeks to strengthen the existing ECDE model in Kenya through the following four key intervention components:
i. Training for DICECE officers (supporting public centres) and instructional coaches (supporting APBET centres) in the use of tablet-based technology to supervise and mentor ECDE teachers in improved pedagogy approach;
ii. Teacher training component to increase active learning and instructional time. This component also focused on development of child-centred instructional materials (eg. charts, flashcards, counters and other materials developed by teachers using low cost locally available resources), and utilization of books and teachers' guides;
iii. Books and teachers' guide (also referred to as “instructional materials”) component involves providing each learner with low-cost instructional materials (workbooks) on a 1:1 ratio. The teachers' guides developed through the Tayari programme are aligned to the national curriculum and are linked to the learning materials, which contain activities that are matched to the lessons. The teachers' guides further facilitate the teaching of the official ECDE curriculum developed by the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD);
iv. Health support component that integrates health and hygiene to support the holistic development of the child. Health support is provided to ECDE centres by Community Health Assistants/Volunteers (CHA/Vs) to improve key health and hygiene aspects such as hand washing, latrine use, and point of use water treatment. This component also includes strengthening the documentation and use of child health data for decision making. It was anticipated that this component would reduce the frequency of illnesses among learners, and thus, improve school attendance by reducing absenteeism caused by health related issues. Evaluation of this component involves determining improved school readiness score for health-support exposed ECDE centres compared to the control group and T2 group.
Tayari implementation
The Tayari intervention components were implemented in selected public and APBET ECDE centres within each of the four targeted counties through the three treatment packages described below:
a) Treatment 1 (T1) intervention arm - or T1 treatment package - schools receive two components (i) DICECE training and (ii) teacher training and support. Teachers are supported to use existing ECDE instructional materials and develop their own materials. The T1 package is also referred to as the “classroom instructional” package in this report.
b) Treatment 2 (T2) intervention arm schools receive the classroom instructional components as in (a) above, plus the instructional materials component (which includes teachers' guides, learner workbooks, and other materials).
c) Treatment 3 (T3) intervention arm schools receive the components in (a) and (b) packages above, in addition to health support component.

Version

Version Date
2020-08-24
Version Notes
NA

Scope

Keywords
Keyword Vocabulary
APBET Alternative Provision of Basic Education and Training
TSRI Tayari School Readiness Index
RCT Randomized Control Trial
ECDE Early Childhood Development and Education
DICECE District Center for Early Childhood Education

Coverage

Geographic Coverage
One urban area (in one county) and rural areas within three counties
Unit of Analysis
School readiness assessment scores including: including literacy, numeracy and executive functioning
Universe
The study targeted pre-primary school children in ECDE centers in four counties in Kenya: Laikipia, Nairobi, Siaya and Uasin Gishu. Both public and Alternative Provision of Basic Education and Training (APBET) ECDE centers were targeted in Nairobi while only public centers were targeted in the other three counties. Low-fee private schools in Nairobi consider themselves as APBET, though the government does not categorise them as such.

Producers and sponsors

Authoring entity/Primary investigators
Agency Name Affiliation
Moses Ngware African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC)
Producers
Name Affiliation Role
Benta A. Abuya African Population and Health Research Center Responsible for policy review and the qualitative aspects of the evaluation
Djesika D. Amenda African Population and Health Research Center Responsible for cost-effectiveness analysis and supporting health and nutrition aspects
Njura Hungi African Population and Health Research Center Responsible for assessment and quantitative aspects of the evaluation
Elizabeth W. Kimani African Population and Health Research Center Responsible for nutrition and health aspects
Funding Agency/Sponsor
Name Abbreviation
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation CIFF
Other Identifications/Acknowledgments
Name Affiliation Role
Education and Youth Empowerment Unit African Population and Health Research Center Coordination and execution during the evaluation

Sampling

Sampling Procedure
Power calculations were used to determine the number of ECDE centers required to detect a mean effect size of 0.20 standard deviations at the program level. Assuming a school attrition rate of 5% for the evaluation study, this worked out to 300 public schools and 300 APBET schools. The study used half (300) the required total sample of 600 ECDE centers during Phase 1 in 2016, and the other half was added in 2017 during Phase 2. By 2017, the Phase 1 schools and learners had been exposed to the Tayari model for two years while Phase 2 schools and learners had been exposed to the model for only one year. Each phase involved two waves of data collection (i.e. Waves 1 and 2 during Phase 1 conducted in 2016 and Waves 3 and 4 during Phase 2 conducted in 2017). This stepped-wedge like design was adopted to reduce costs of the study and to examine the effects of duration of exposure to the Tayari intervention. Wave 3 was a midline for Phase 1; while Phase 3 was a baseline all Phase 2 schools, and for the leaners in Phase 1 (schools had already participated in a baseline in 2016/Wave 1).
Each wave of the evaluation targeted children in the four counties who were attending their final year of pre-primary school (PP2). In each wave, a total of 16 PP2 learners from each sampled ECDE center were randomly selected for assessment.
Deviations from the Sample Design
If a PP2 class had less than 16 learners, all the learners in that class were included in the study. In ECDE centers with more than one PP2 class, one class was randomly selected to participate in the study. The PP2 teachers of the selected classes and head teachers of the selected ECDE centers were automatically included in the evaluation study.
Weighting
NA

Data Collection

Dates of Data Collection (YYYY/MM/DD)
Start date End date Cycle
2016-01-11 2016-02-03 1
2016-09-26 2016-10-24 2
2017-01-16 2017-02-13 3
2017-09-18 2017-10-18 4
Mode of data collection
Face-to-face [f2f]
Type of Research Instrument
The data covered in this report were collected using three main instruments namely
(a) a learner direct assessment test - covering key domains of ECDE learning including literacy, numeracy and executive functioning,
(b) an ECDE teacher questionnaire, and
(c) a head teacher or teacher-in-charge of ECDE center questionnaire.

Data access

Citation requirement
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download

Disclaimer and copyrights

Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Copyright
Copyright © APHRC, 2017

Metadata production

Document ID
DDI-KEN-APHRC-TSRP-2016-v01
Producers
Name Abbreviation Affiliation Role
African Population and Health Research Center APHRC Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, RTI Evaluation
Date of Production
2020-08-24
Document version
1
APHRC Microdata Portal

© APHRC Microdata Portal, All Rights Reserved. Slot Online