dr. clement adamba school of education and leadership ......felix asante1, elisabetta aurino2, irene...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Evaluation of alternative school feeding models on children’s educational outcomes: preliminary findings from a cluster
randomised control trial
GHANA EDUCATION EVIDENCE SUMMIT 2017
28 March 2017
Dr. Clement AdambaSchool of Education and Leadership,
University of Ghana
2
Other colleagues
Felix Asante1, Elisabetta Aurino2, Irene Ayi1, Kwasebena Bosompem1, Gloria Folson1,
Lesley Drake2, Aulo Gelli3, Meena Fernandes1, Edoardo Masset4, Isaac Osei-Akoto1 ,
Getrude Ananse-Baiden2
1University of Ghana, Ghana 2 Imperial College London, UK3 IFPRI, US4 3ie, UK
3
School feeding
Education
Nutrition and health
School feeding as a policy linking education, health and agriculture
3
Agriculture
SME development
• Simple idea but programmes are complex!
– Managing complexity and trade-offs across objectives is not straightforward
Figure 1:
What we do know so far about school feeding and education is that ….
Overall weighted average effect Number of studies
ACCESS TO SCHOOLING
Enrolment 0.14* 7
Attendance 0.09* 6
Dropout –0.06* 3
Completion 0 2
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Language arts
scores
0.09* 8
Math scores 0.10* 10
Composite test
score
0.14 3
4
Source: Snilstveit and others 2015.
The Ghana School Feeding Programme
• Launched in 2005
• Hot, cooked meal to children in public schools
• 2012: 1 in 3 children enrolled in public schools
were beneficiaries
5
First rigorous evaluation of school feeding in Ghana
•Theory-based impact evaluation designed around scale-up of GSFP in order to expand the linkages between the programme and local agriculture in high food insecurity areas
•116 schools across all regions of Ghana
•Randomisation58 school feeding schools29 SF standard GSFP model
29 HGSF+ pilot (GSFP + agriculture/nutrition package)58 no school feeding (pure controls, get SF after year 3)
• 3 year study in partnership with Government of Ghana, University of Ghana, Partnership for Child Development at Imperial College and IFPRI
•Baseline in 2013 and endline in 2016
6
58 districts(116 schools)
29 HGSF+districts
(58 schools)
29 GSFPdistricts
(58 schools)
29 HGSF+ schools
(725 HH)
29 control schools
(580 HH)
29 control schools
(580 HH)
29 GSFP schools
(725 HH)
1st stage randomisation
2nd stage randomisation
Randomisation
Figure 2:
Main educational outcomes
8
Indicator Metric
Educational access Children’s enrolment, attendance, grade
repetition and drop out
Attention and cognition Digit span, Raven matrices: 12 questions
Learning achievement Scores on literacy and maths tests: 15
questions each
Descriptive statistics
9
Arm School level 2013 2016
Control KG 78.2 51.4
Primary 97.6 101.0
JHS 46.5 71.4
GSFP KG 81.0 57.5
Primary 101.7 111.0
JHS 49.4 66.0
GHSF+ KG 81.8 62.1
Primary 98.6 102.4
JHS 50.2 71.1
Table 1: Gross enrolment
10
Figure 4: Net Enrolment at the Primary School level
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Control GSFP GHSF+
Baseline Endline % Change
11
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Control GSF HGSF
Baseline Endline Change
Figure 5: Net Enrolment at the Junior High School level
12
Figure 4: Percent that missed a school day
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
2013 2016 2013 2016
Female Boys
Control GSFP
13
2. Mixed effects models
• Mixed-effects models (multi-level regression models) account for the hierarchical nature of the data.
Impact evaluation analytical approach
Two main approaches:
1. Difference-in-Differences (DD) estimator
Design group Baseline Follow-up Difference
Treatment A B B - A
Control C D D - C
Difference A - D B - C DD = (B - A) - (D - C)
14
• The school feeding increases the likelihood of enrolment by about 2%**.
Impact on School enrolment
• Net enrolment at Kindergarten level increased by nearly 13% and 11% in regular GSF & HGSF schools respectively
15
Table 2: Impact results of GSF and HGSF on Schooling outcomes
Estimate Repeated grade Missed a day Dropped out
GSF/HGSF (Control) -0.183 0.137 -0.005
(0.126) (0.216) (0.453)
HGSF (GSF) 0.017 -0.781** -0.101
(0.190) (0.304) (0.652)
Reduce the chance of missing a school day by 6.87%
16
Impact on learning and cognition
Table 3: Impact results of GSF and HGSF on learning outcomes
Estimate Literacy Maths Raven test Digit span
GSF+HGSF (Control) 0.040 0.051 0.039 -0.030
(0.039) (0.041) (0.032) (0.029)
HGSF (GSF) -0.010 0.054 0.076 0.035
(0.111) (0.103) (0.087) (0.068)
17
Table 4: Impact results of GSF on learning outcomes, by sex
Estimate Literacy Maths Raven test Digit span
HGSF (GSF)
Boys 0.013 0.064 0.113 0.066
(0.136) (0.105) (0.096) (0.083)
Girls -0.037 0.042 0.033 0.001
(0.119) (0.127) (0.096) (0.070)
18
• Girls (6-12 years) in Primary school that received the GSF/HGSF performed significantly higher in Literacy and Maths test.
Table 5: Impact results of GSF and HGSF on learning outcomes by sex of child
Estimate Literacy Maths Raven test Digit span
GSF+HGSF (Control)
Boys -0.031 -0.004 0.008 -0.069*
(0.055) (0.056) (0.044) (0.040)
Girls 0.127** 0.120** 0.079* 0.017
(0.057) (0.059) (0.046) (0.043)
19
This translates to:
• Language art -13.5%
• Mathematics - 12.7%
• Raven test - 8.2%
• Conversely, SF appears to have a negative impact on
boys’ reasoning ability. Reduced boys reasoning ability
by about 7%.
• This requires further investigation to unravel the cause
of this unintended negative outcome.
20
Time-Use SF Control Diff
Hours spent on care or chores1.66 1.60 0.06
Hours spent at work in farm or
for pay0.62 0.69 -0.07*
Hours spent in leisurely
activities 2.10 2.11 -0.01
Hours spent at school or
studying 6.39 5.96 0.43***
Observations 5124
•One of the pathways to the improvement in learning
outcomes, we think, is the changing time use by children
in school feeding schools
Table 6: Children time use
21
• This points to a somewhat protective role of school
feeding for children.
• Reduced time spent at work and 25.8 additional
minutes per day spent at school or studying.
• This was strong for girls in school feeding areas, who
spent 31.8 additional minutes per day at school or in
study as compared to boys (19.8 additional minutes).
Concluding remarks
22
• In-school meals have positive impact on enrolment and on girls learning and
reasoning outcomes.
• Reduces or eliminates delayed enrolment and encourages enrolment at the
appropriate age.
• There is need to take measures;
enhance the nutritional value of the meals provided
sustain the gains made in increased enrolment by paying attention to retention
and completion.
23
Thank you