Impact Assessment of the GGU Program on Former Speed School Learners in and Outside School

In October 2022, Geneva Global commissioned an impact assessment to analyse the ways in which the Speed School programme translates into enduring educational advantages.

The evaluation utilised a quasi-experimental design to compare the performance of three cohorts of learners: (i) former Speed School (SpS) learners who transitioned into conventional P3 or P4 classes of formal schools in 2018; (ii) formal school learners from the same P3 and P4 classes in 2018 but who had completed their early primary lessons in conventional classes of the link schools1 (LS); and (iii) formal school learners who had similarly begun in conventional P1 classes and were in P3 and P4 in 2018 but in “virgin” schools (VS), that is, in districts where the programme had never been implemented. Under normal academic progression, all these learners were expected to be in P7 in 2022. Three of the original five Speed School districts and an equal number of non-SSP districts were selected for the evaluation. The selected SSP districts were Nwoya and Amuru (to represent the rural schools) and Gulu city (to represent urban schools). The non-Speed School programme districts were selected from the neighbouring Lango sub-region which has similar socio- economic characteristics as the Acholi sub-region where the Speed School programme has operated since 2016. This was done to minimise the introduction of large biases in the data as a result of major differences in socio-economic characteristics between SSP and non-SSP districts. The non-SSP districts that were selected and included in the sample were Kole, Oyam, and Dokolo.

The research instruments, including English and Mathematics tests, were administered to the primary target population who were the learners. However, other key stakeholders were also interviewed, including headteachers, teachers, centre coordinating tutors (CCTs), District Inspectors of Schools (DISs), and caregivers of former Speed School learners. In addition to the written tests, focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with guardians and headteachers while interviews were conducted with P6 class teachers and the tutors of Year 2 students in PTCs, to gain a deeper understanding of the contextual factors and how these influence learning.

Key Findings

Performance of former Speed School learners

The majority of teaching staff and parents generally considered former Speed School learners to be performing academically better than the conventional learners. Only a small fraction of teachers and parents felt that former Speed Schools learners were not performing any better than their peers, attributing this mainly to the two-year school closures due to

COVID-19. Indeed, results of the tests administered to all P7 learners and the analysis of the 2022 UNEB PLE data seem to confirm the minority view because no statistically significant differences were found in the performance between the former Speed School learners and the conventional school learners.

About a half of the teaching staff rated former Speed School learners as having better learning skills (such as problem-solving skills, consulting with classmates to complete tasks, completing tasks correctly and on time, etc.) than the conventional school learners, and about a third rated the two cohorts of learners as being at par. This implies that former Speed School learners carried forward their improved learning skills from Speed School, deploying these even in classes with many more classmates and mostly teacher-centred instruction.

In terms of school attendance rates among former Speed School learners were statistically significantly higher than among conventional learners, according to the data collected from the P7 class registers. Some teaching staff also reported that attendance rates among the conventional learners had improved due to the influence of the former Speed School learners.

The effect of COVID-19 on children’s return to school

Altogether, the strongest effect of the pandemic, according to the study participants, was some girls’ and boys’ failure to return to school following the long stay out of school and the attendant social changes. Instances of parents losing their jobs and, thereby, their capacity to pay for their children to continue their education, led to their children’s dropping out of school. Dropout was due also, reportedly, to the desperation or failure of some children to cope with peer pressure, idleness or embarrassment over being overaged. Desperate to survive during the pandemic, some children went into employment or started their own businesses and could not leave work to go back to school. Elsewhere, influenced by unruly peers, some boys joined bad groups and fell into criminal behaviour or married while some girls married or got pregnant. Some children who felt they had grown much older than their peers were teased into leaving school.

Speed School pupils’ ability to integrate into life in and outside of school

In terms of the Speed School pupils’ ability to integrate into life in and outside school, overall, the majority (72%) of the teachers rated the leadership skills of former Speed School learners inside the classroom as much or somewhat higher than those of other learners. Teachers explained that former Speed School learners supervised themselves, were never chaotic in class, worked independently, and presented their work to teachers with clear explanations, unlike their counterparts from the conventional Link School classes and virgin schools. In terms of discipline, 77% of the parents/caregivers of former Speed School learners rated their children’s ability as much or somewhat higher compared to that of other children who did not attend the Speed School programme. Parents emphasised that the former Speed School children had a greater ability to plan activities and to follow them through with action. Overall, parents and guardians also confirmed that former Speed School learners demonstrated somewhat or much higher levels of confidence and self-esteem compared to other children who had not attended the programme or others within the same age range.

Impact of the Speed Schools programme on the host schools’ teaching and learning

This study sought to understand if specific Speed School teaching methods were adopted and employed by the teachers within the conventional classes. Through interviews, the team found that, daily, over 44% of conventional teachers from Link Schools in Amuru sit learners in small groups to work together as did 23% and 13% in Nwoya and Gulu, respectively. It was also evident that 44% of teachers in Amuru, 50% in Gulu, and 41% in Nwoya regularly gave projects to learners to complete together. The Speed School programme has also been instrumental in the overall improvement of the classroom environment across all the programme districts and has improved the life skills of the learners, enabling them, for example, to ask their teachers questions about classwork, tell their parents about their school experiences, manage their time, and organise peers. In addition, the Speed School programme has positively affected the levels of teachers’ efforts to motivate their learners using praise, positive reinforcement, and rewards for exceptional behaviour. This has helped learners understand the expectations of the classroom.

Cost effectiveness of the two school models

The cost effectiveness of the two school models – the Speed School and conventional school classes – was determined on the basis of the average unit cost per learner approach, the calculation of cost effectiveness ratios (CERs), and analysis of wastage in the two models. Calculations compared the costs of covering the full P1 to P3 curricula, meaning one year of spending for Speed School classes compared to three years of spending for conventional classes.

The Average Unit Costs (AUCs) per learner, which entailed the detailed costing of all expenditure activities of the seven sub-components that apply to both models, indicate that the average unit cost per learner per year for the Speed School at the time, was shs.472,355 (USD 131.21) compared to shs.1,036,066 (USD 287.80) for the Conventional School. This means that the Conventional School spent shs.563,711 (USD 156.59) more than the Speed School per learner per year, which represents a marginal benefit for Speed school. This marginal benefit translates into additional resource worth shs. 16,911,330 (USD 4,697.51) that can be used to increase access to education for 36 extra learners in Speed school

The costing of effectiveness ratios (CER) undertaken using costs of educating learners to complete the full P1 to P3 curricula indicates that Speed school model is a lowest cost alternative with a CER of shs.524,844 (USD 145.79) compared to the CER of shs.1,523,700 (USD 423.25) for a Conventional school model.

The costing of wastage manifested in the cost of non-completers/drop out of learners in the two models per class revealed that there was wastage in conventional school worth shs.17,613,360 (USD 4,892.60) compared to shs.1,417,068 (USD 393.63) for Speed school, hence lower wastage in Speed school.

In summary, the findings reveal lower average unit costs, lower cost effectiveness ratio and lower wastage for Speed School model, signalling that the model is more cost-effective than the conventional school model, holding other factors constant.