School-Classroom Processes
Key evaluation questions are raised in this area and these questions may, themselves, inform the development of indicators of key classroom processes and understandings. Such questions include:
• What are the factors that make for differences between schools?
• What is perceived as a 'good school' by the community?
• How do teachers evaluate a 'good school' and what do teachers see as factors in school improvement?
• Do physical facilities have an important effect on school improvement?
• How are the effects of training shown in practice in the classroom, i.e. what does the teacher do that is different?
Answers to the first question would be desirable (world-wide!), and it is important to establish first what different stakeholders perceive to be a 'good' school. Only the last two issues are strictly relevant here, and the first has already been considered in another section (on the use of appropriate building/construction technologies).
Hypothesised indicators of a link between training and the classroom include:
• actions indicative of activity-based and participatory learning;
• use of resources and materials, especially those in local environment;
• lessons conducted in a gender sensitive way; and
• effective multigrade teaching - e.g. evidence of differentiated learning.
The Evaluation of Learning Achievement and Teaching-Learning Materials (i) Non-Cognitive Learning Achievements
One of the biggest challenges under APDPEP is the broadening of the concept of what constitutes learning achievement. Children achieve many things in school; in a good school many of these achievements are in the psycho-motor or affective domain. Already Indian education places greater emphasis on citizenship, social awareness and parity within a secular state. How these aspects of children's learning can be integrated into learning improvement and progress measures, thus giving them validity and
importance in the eyes of parents and the community will be an ongoing concern throughout the project.
The 'ground work' for these studies is not yet in place. A sweep of primary school practices in the non-cognitive domain is required. At the beginning of the textbook development component of APPEP, teachers were asked to send from their Teachers' Centres (TCs) examples of their work in Class 1. The response was overwhelming and substantially informed the work on the Class 1 textbook. A similar request for
information about non-cognitive activities: craft work, work-related studies, e.g. agriculture, weaving, drawing, gardening, music, dancing, cultural studies and contingent activities such as scouts and bulbuls, might reveal a wide range of interesting activities.
Short studies using photographs, video and participatory discussion would suggest what is going on in these areas. It is unlikely that a measure of non-cognitive achievement could be devised, but teacher assessment or assessment by the community and
reference to them in the teaching/learning materials would at least illustrated that there had been some impact of these activities.
(ii) The Development of Indicators for Learning Improvement and Progress
Indicators of progress at Class 2 and Class 5 are to measured by tests of literacy and numeracy. These measures will not be without difficulty. For example, a true measure of literacy must include primary children's ability in writing and oral language.
The development of assessment procedures for writing have been incorporated as part of training developments to include teachers learning about the processes of writing, and children being given the opportunity to develop writing so that it can be used to effectively express their own ideas and understandings. Practise in writing in the classroom, moderation of writing across schools at the TC and children learning to assess, edit and improve their own writing are an integral part of this process which will need to be supported by practical, experiential training for the teachers. Oral language, like writing, needs to be assessed on other criteria than 'correctness' and will be part of the same training package involving teachers and children in awareness of the
importance of communication rather than correct copying and repetition.
Table 8: Project Specific Indicators for the Participation Objective in APDPEP 2. Making The Community Participate in the Affairs of the School 1. Involvement of the community in the planning process - Evidence of education agenda as per record of meetings - Training of village core group in microplanning and school mapping process - Study involvement of women/SC/ST in planning exercise - Analysing the constitution of the VEC in social terms. 1. Analysis of 5% statistical sample of schools through trained DIET Evaluators to seek evidence of participation. 2. Participant
observations by NGO representative followed by report through the Block group to the DPO. 3. BRC/CRC Co-
ordinators to evaluate social composition of core group involved in the planning process and also analyse the
- Presence of women in VEC 2. Support of the community to the school - Evaluate financial support provided by community to the school in materials and labour - analyse donations received from community - time spent by parents in school during school activities - support extended to the school teacher
1. BRC/CRC staff can evaluate on the basis of VEC records
2. Process observation by resource persons
involved in training VEC members. There should be a standardised
reporting format.
3. Record perception of school teacher regarding assistance from community by interview method. It may be conducted by a DIET faculty/BRC/CRC staff. 3. Participation of the community in the enrolment of children Participation of community annually in the preparation of the Village Education Register along with the Teachers and the children of Class IV and V
1. Women's Self Help Group Leaders, Dwera volunteer to report on this activity to the Block Resources Group.
2. Women's
Development Office in DPO to conduct some field studies in sampled villages.
3. This activity should be evaluated by CRC at their level and report on good and bad cases sent to BRC. BRC should share these findings with DPO. Some villages not doing well should be subject of an intensive study by external agency.
Study to suggest remedial measure. 4. These studies to
concentrate at the time of enrolment but there must also be a review every quarter at the CRC level. 5. Effective enrolment to be calculated by
subtracting the number of children not attending school on 50% working days, from those shown as enrolled as per school register. School
headmaster should make comparison with village education register to find out actual number of non enrolled children
4. Participation of the community in the activities of the school
- Number of functions held in school when parents were invited
- Number of parents who attended these functions
- Assistance provided in
organising school sports, cultural meet, Bel Mela
1. School headmaster to submit report in format every six months to CRC Head.
2. CRC to visit school on function days and submit report to BRC.
3. Participant observation by resource persons in teachers' training for non cognitive areas. Their reports should be sent to DIETS.
4. DIET faculty to make comparative study of these reports.
5. Formation of representative VEC
- Analyse process of VEC formation - Number of the core group members who took interest in the initial planning phase who have become members - Number of women, SC, ST represented.
1. BRC level resource persons involved in VEC training should be used as process observers. They should report in design format to DIET. DIET staff to undertake analysis of these reports and send small report every 3 months to the DPO in tabular form.
6. Involvement of the school community in the school construction programme. - Number of active members visiting school site during construction and recording their names in the site book.
- Level of maintenance of accounts and its sharing in meetings.
1. Junior Engineer who visits site must check site book and report to Block Resource Group/DPO 2. School head master to report to CRC regarding school construction. 3. Retired teacher to make site visit and report to DPO.
4. Engineer belonging to another department to make site observation (he is external to activity)
2.3.6 Conclusion
This section has shown how, at a micro, evaluative level, it is possible to elaborate very large numbers of performance indicators. In principle, these could be modified by local communities to reflect their own concerns. But, there is clearly a danger that they will be taken far too seriously by the level immediately above the community, thereby distorting the local community's energy into meeting the performance indicators rather than achieving their own targets which are perhaps not easily expressed in such
definitive terms. It might be better to experiment with the development of a pilot set of indicators covering only one aspect of community participation before extending to
cover the wide range of issues potentially involved.
1 Revised and updated version of this section has been published in DFID India (1998)
Evaluation in Primary Education - a Handbook for getting Started, New Delhi, and in McKay and Treffgarne (1999, eds.), Assessing Impact, London, DFID. The focus here, however, is on the development of the design rather than on any specific performance indicators.