30 APRIL 2015
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Alicia Menendez and Yvonne Cao at NORC at the University of Chicago. 
PERFORMANCE & IMPACT EVALUATION (P&IE) 
OF THE USAID/UGANDA SCHOOL HEALTH AND 
READING PROGRAM: RESULT 1 INTERVENTIONS
Impact Evaluation Report, Cluster 2, Year 1
SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | i 
PERFORMANCE & IMPACT
EVALUATION (P&IE) OF THE 
USAID/UGANDA SCHOOL 
HEALTH AND READING 
PROGRAM: RESULT 1 
INTERVENTIONS
IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT, 
CLUSTER 2, YEAR 1
30 April 2015 
PN 7384; USAID Contract N0: AID-617-C-12-00006 
PRESENTED TO: 
USAID/Uganda 
Joseph Mwangi 
PRESENTED BY:
NORC at the University of Chicago 
4350 East-West Highway, 8th Floor 
Bethesda, MD 20814 
Telephone: (301) 634-9413 
Fax: (301) 634-9301 
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | ii
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 3
A.1 SHRP in 2014 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
B. EVALUATION DESIGN.............................................................................................................................................. 5
B.1 Assignment of Schools to Treatment and Control Groups and Estimation Strategy............................ 6
B.2 Impact Indicators and Data Collection Instruments ...................................................................................... 7
B.3 Sampling .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
C. Data Collection and Final Sample ........................................................................................................................... 10
C.1 Assessor training ................................................................................................................................................. 10
C.2 Data collection ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
C.3 Schools and Learners Sampled ......................................................................................................................... 11
D. Balance at Baseline ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
E. Impact Analysis Results .............................................................................................................................................. 14
E.1 Impact on Letter Sound Knowledge ................................................................................................................ 14
Impact on Letter Sound scores ..................................................................................................................... 14
Impact on zero scores for Letter Sound Knowledge .............................................................................. 16
E.2 Impact on Word Segmenting Score ................................................................................................................. 19
E.3 Impact on Non-Word Decoding, Oral Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension and English 
Receptive Vocabulary ................................................................................................................................................. 20
E.4 Impact on Boys vs. Girls ..................................................................................................................................... 21
E.5 Discussion of impact of school-level intervention ........................................................................................ 21
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
ANNEX A. Balance at Baseline – Treatment Vs. Control .................................................................................... 23
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 3 
INTRODUCTION 
NORC at the University of Chicago, in collaboration with Panagora, is conducting the Impact and 
Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda's School Health and Reading Program (SHRP), implemented 
by RTI. RTI (referred to as the implementing Partner or IP in the rest of the document) is implementing 
SHRP as two separate activities: (1) Activities related to Result 1, Improved Early Grade Reading and 
Transition to English, and (2) activities related to Result 2, Improved HIV/AIDS Knowledge, Attitudes 
and Practice. This report focuses on activities related to Result 1 (early grade reading) and presents the 
findings of the impact of the intervention on Cluster 2 students after one year of intervention.1 
The report begins with a description of SHRP’s Improved Early Grade Reading and Transition to English 
(Result 1) activities, followed by a description of the evaluation design, an analysis of baseline balance, 
and findings from the impact analysis. 
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
For its Improved Early Grade Reading and Transition to English (Result 1) intervention, SHRP focuses on 
the nexus of language, pedagogy, and instructional materials to significantly improve students’ early grade 
reading and literacy scores, as well as bring to scale a “Ugandan led ‘reading policy’” (RTI International, 
2012, p. 1). To this end, the program will build institutional capacity, support policy development and 
help institutionalize the training, support structures and policies necessary for sustainability. The 
intervention works at multiple levels. In early grade reading (Result 1), they consist of the following 
support to the MoES: 
 At the school level, the intervention is comprised of training teachers in early grade literacy
instruction using students’ mother-tongue in P1-P3 and with a transition to English in P4; 
distribution of textbooks and instructional materials and teacher guides in local languages and 
English; support supervision provided to teachers; trainings in leadership for head teachers; and 
reading competitions and community awareness activities (reading awareness days, literacy 
week). 
 At the district level, training for district education officials is raising awareness and building 
district-level support for the new curriculum. 
 At the national level, MoES systems and pedagogical and language frameworks aim to strengthen 
and support mother-tongue based EGR and transition to English. The intent is to support the 
strengthening of policies related to reading; increase advocacy for reading at multiple levels (e.g. 
student, teacher, school, district, and national); and generate and use data for programmatic 
decision making. 
Together, these interventions are expected to improve the instruction and learning environment of
students and eventually lead to improved literacy skills.
Teacher trainings under Result 1 are implemented through Coordinating Center Tutors (CCTs), who 
are school support workers in charge of monitoring education quality within their Coordinating Centers 
(CC). Under the district education structure, each CCT is responsible for a certain number of schools 
1
 At the time of submission of this report, the Result 1 team had collected data for: Round 1 for Cluster 1 (Feb-Mar 2013), Round 2 for Cluster 1 (Oct 
2013), Round 3 for Cluster 1 (Oct 2014), Round 1 for Cluster 2 (Feb 2014) and Round 2 for Cluster 2 (Oct 2014), and the Result 2 team had collected 
baseline KAP data, but no follow-up data. Therefore, this report focuses on the impact of Result 1 on Cluster 2 students, using Cluster 2 Round 1 and 
Round 2 data. The results of the impact evaluation for Cluster 1 students is presented in a separate report. The first impact evaluation for Result 2 will 
only be carried out after the first follow-up data collection scheduled for 2015. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 4 
within a district (one district typically has multiple CCTs). The CCTs selected for the intervention 
receive training directly from SHRP and, in turn, deliver teacher training and program support in their 
schools, thus following a Training of Trainers (TOT) model. 
Teacher trainings at the school level focus on pedagogy with an emphasis on using structured lesson 
plans and learner books. These lesson plans provide teachers with a practical step-by-step process for 
implementing the transitional bilingual approach mandated by the Ugandan EGR policy. In addition, SHRP 
is developing materials to support early grade reading. These materials are being adapted in order to 
take into account the different needs of learners at different stages of cognitive and academic 
development, and the linguistic characteristics of the different local languages, rather than be translated 
directly from one language to another. Furthermore, in order to develop these materials, SHRP works 
with MoES and Local Language Boards (LLBs) to standardize orthographies of the target languages. All 
materials follow the same general pedagogical framework to facilitate guidelines for textbook 
development and teacher training. Teachers receive these instructional materials in their local language 
of instruction and English. Teachers also receive ongoing monitoring support supervision from SHRP 
staff who observe classes and provide constructive feedback. 
Additionally, at the district level, workshops and training for district education officials are serving as a 
forum for raising awareness and building district-level support for the new curriculum. Communication 
campaigns directed at Members of Parliament and district leaders are also organized. 
Finally, at the national level, SHRP is working with MoES and the Sector Policy Management Working 
Group to develop a Uganda-specific reading strategy, which will include policies in the areas of Local 
Language Board development, textbook development, printing as well as Special Needs. In particular, 
SHRP is working to develop a national literacy strategy, national reading standards and benchmarks, as well 
as to harmonize reading assessment efforts with the Uganda National Examination Board (UNEB). SHRP is 
also working to strengthen Local Language Boards (LLB) and to raise awareness about special needs 
education. SHRP is also assisting the MoES in advocating for reading outside the classroom. Together 
with MoES, SHRP aims to raise awareness of local language development, reading instructions and 
special needs learners by using national communication campaigns through mass media and mobilizing 
local communities. 
In total, SHRP will work in 12 local languages, developing instructional materials for each language and 
providing training and in-service support to teachers in areas where these 12 languages are spoken and 
used for mother-tongue based instruction in the early grades. The intervention is implemented following 
a pipeline roll-out, with the intervention targeting the districts associated with the first four local 
languages starting in Year 1 (Cluster 1), then targeting the districts associated with an additional four 
local languages starting Year 2 (Cluster 2), and finally targeting the districts associated with the final four 
local languages starting in Year 3 (Cluster 3). As such, Cluster 1 students will receive the intervention 
for a total of 4 years, Cluster 2 students for 3 years and Cluster 3 students for 2 years. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 5 
Over the 5 years of the project, SHRP will target the following local languages and associated districts: 
Cluster Local Language Region Districts
1
Luganda Central Wakiso, Gomba
Runyankore/Rukiga South West Kiruhura, Bushenyi, Kabale
Ateso Eastern Kumi, Katakwi, Serere
Leblango Northern Apac, Lira, Kole
2
Runyoro/Rutoro Mid-Western Masindi, Kyenjojo, Kbarole
Acholi Mid-Northern Gulu, Pader, Kitgum
Lugbarati West Nile Arua
Lumasaaba Mid-Eastern Mbale, Sironko, Manafwa
3
Lugwere Mid-Eastern Budaka, Pallisa, Kibuku
Nkarimojong North East Nakapiripirit, Napak, Abim
Lukhonzo Mid-Eastern Kasese
Lusoga East Central Iganga and Kamuli
A.1 SHRP IN 2014 FOR CLUSTER 2 
In 2014, SHRP started rolling out the intervention for Cluster 2 students working in the following local 
languages: Runyoro-Rutooro, Lumasaaba, Lugbarati, and Acoli. SHRP developed pupil primers and 
teacher guides for P1 and P2 teachers in all the Cluster 2 languages, as well as in English. All materials 
were distributed on time before the start of the school year in February. A total of 67,338 pupil primers 
in the Cluster 2 languages were distributed. In addition, SHRP delivered trainings through a three-tiered 
cascade model, to master trainers, teacher trainers and teachers and conducted two trainings in 2014, a 
5-day training in January before the start of the school year, and a 3-day refresher training in May 
between the second and third school terms. In preparation for the first training in January, SHRP trained 
more than 100 Master Trainers and almost 300 Teacher Trainers. Overall, SHRP trained 3,012 teachers 
in January (including both Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 teachers). SHRP also conducted a leadership and 
management training in August-September 2014 attended by 3,997 teachers. SHRP continued support 
supervision monitoring to provide in-service support to teachers on Early Grade Reading through lesson 
preparation and classroom observation. SHRP also worked with International Book Bank and Books for 
Africa to select supplementary readers from various publishers and distributed them to schools in 
Kabarole and Kyenjojo districts. Teachers from those schools received training in library management in 
June-July 2014. 
In Year 2, SHRP organized one communication campaign targeted at Members of Parliament and district 
leaders. Field Assistants also organized advocacy meetings in 60 communities. Program staff, education 
officials and field assistants initiated greater community mobilization and advocated for literacy 
instruction at Parent Teacher Association and School Management Committee meetings. 
At the national level, SHRP continued to work on Cluster 2 language orthographies with the local 
Language Boards. The program also supported the Special Needs Education unit of the MoES to develop 
programs and activities, such as development of instructional materials that raise teachers’ awareness of 
special needs students. 
B. EVALUATION DESIGN 
An impact evaluation (IE) is conducted to assess the causal effect of a specific intervention on a set of 
outcomes. It allows us to attribute changes in an outcome to a specific intervention or set of 
interventions by answering the counterfactual question “What would have happened to program 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 6 
participants in the absence of the intervention?” Ideally, this is done by observing the same program 
participants both with and without the intervention at the same point in time. Of course, this is not 
possible; at any given time, a participant either receives the intervention or not. Therefore, we can 
never directly observe the counterfactual and, instead, need to create a comparison group to serve as 
the counterfactual. Identifying a credible comparison group is a critical aspect of an impact evaluation. 
The ideal comparison group stems from the use of experimental methods in which eligible participants 
are randomly assigned to receive the intervention or not. Randomization ensures that, on average, 
characteristics of the treatment and control groups are statistically identical, with the only difference 
being their participation in the intervention. In this case, any measured difference in outcomes between 
the groups over time can be attributed to the program. 
To assess the impact of the SHRP school-level intervention on Cluster 2 students, NORC is 
implementing a randomized controlled trial (RCT). 
B.1 ASSIGNMENT OF SCHOOLS TO TREATMENT AND CONTROL 
GROUPS AND ESTIMATION STRATEGY 
The CCTs are responsible for training teachers and providing follow-up support and assistance in 
implementing the Result 1 interventions. Towards this end, SHRP conducted training workshops 
(training of trainer workshops) for CCTs in different regions. Since each CCT is responsible for several 
schools, randomizing at the school level would imply that a CCT would have to treat schools under his 
or her jurisdiction differently if some were designated as treatment schools and others as controls. 
Therefore, randomization at the school level had a high risk of 'contamination' between treatment and 
control groups. To avoid this potential problem, we opted to randomize at the CCT level, assigning the 
entire cluster of schools under a CCT to either the treatment or the control group. 
Figure 1 illustrates the evaluation design for Cluster 2, i.e. random assignment into the treatment or 
control group within treatment districts. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 7 
Figure 1. Assignment to Treatment and Control Groups 
The difference in outcome indicators between treatment schools (green) and control schools (orange) 
will show the effect of the school-level intervention. We estimate the impact of the intervention for 
each language within a given time period on a number of literacy outcomes using a difference in 
differences model. To evaluate the impact of the intervention package on literacy score, Y, for students 
in grade P1 within a specific language group, we use the scores collected at the beginning of the school 
year 2014 (baseline) and at follow-up (in this case, at the end of one year of intervention, October 2014) 
and regress the individual test score Y of student i on the treatment status T of the school s in district d, 
a dummy variable P indicating period (i.e. 0 or 1 respectively for baseline and endline) and their 
interaction T*P: 
𝑌𝑖𝑠𝑑𝑝 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑇𝑠𝑑 + 𝛽2 𝑃 + 𝛽3 𝑇𝑠𝑑 ∗ 𝑃 + 𝛽4 𝐷𝑑 + 𝛽5 𝑋𝑖 + 𝛽6 𝑍𝑠 + 𝜀𝑖𝑠𝑑
where Xi are individual characteristics of the student i, such as age and sex, Zs are school characteristics 
such as language of instruction, Dd is a vector of dummy variables indicating the districts. As we 
mentioned Tsd is a dummy equal to 1 if school s in district d received the intervention and 0 otherwise, 
P indicates the period –baseline or endline, therefore, our coefficient of interest is 𝛽3, which shows the 
differential effect of the treatment at the endline.
B.2 IMPACT INDICATORS AND DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
Literacy is comprised of multiple skills, both receptive and productive. Successful readers must be able 
to identify letters and their corresponding sounds, segment and blend those sounds to form words and 
SHRP 
Districts District Level
CCT Level CCT 
Randomization
School School School School
School School School School
School School School School
School School School School
Treatment 
CCTs
Control 
CCTs
School Level
Random Selection of Schools for 
Data Collection
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 8 
sentences, master appropriate vocabulary, and make meaning from text, among other skills. They must 
also be able to demonstrate their understanding and engagement with text through writing. To assess 
the effectiveness of the SHRP in reaching its goal to improve early grade reading and transition to 
English, specific key literacy skills were assessed. 
The consensus among the reading research community in the United States is that effective reading 
instruction attends to at least five main reading skill areas including alphabetics (letter knowledge and 
phonemic awareness), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension and phonics (National Reading Panel, 
2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998).2
 Based on this research, the Early Grade Reading Assessment, 
(EGRA) a brief oral reading assessment that tests these skills, is used to measure program impacts on 
literacy (RTI International, 2007). 
EGRA is comprised of multiple sub-tests that focus on the five main reading skill areas outlined above. 
Within each of these five areas, there are multiple sub-tests that can be selected for inclusion, based on 
local needs and the goals of the assessment system. 
No clear benchmarks for the EGRA tool have been established. That is, the EGRA tool provides a 
snapshot of early literacy skills but does not provide guidelines for interpreting which children can be 
considered “readers” or what level of performance should be expected on each sub-test. At the same 
time, EGRA has been used to assess early literacy skills in more than 50 countries around the world; 
thus, performance of students participating in SHRP can be compared with the range of performance of 
other children on EGRA in other low-income countries. 
A notable component of SHRP is its transitional bilingual design. That is, literacy instruction begins in 
one of four mother tongue languages, with English introduced as a subject area nearly simultaneously 
(within 4-8 weeks after mother tongue instruction has begun). The language of instruction will then 
increasingly transition from mother tongue to English over the course of four years. Because of this 
transitional bilingual design, the impact evaluation necessarily requires a heteroglossic3
 approach to 
assessment. Therefore, early literacy skills are assessed in mother tongue and English. 
This transitional bilingual design affected the selection of sub-tests included in the EGRA tool in each 
language. For example, because most grade 1 students cannot be expected to have prior knowledge in 
English language or literacy, the sub-tests that have been selected to assess literacy in English are aimed 
at capturing lower skill levels; in contrast, students are expected to already possess basic linguistic 
knowledge in their mother tongues and the EGRA sub-tests that have been selected aim to capture a 
distribution of literacy skills that include higher level abilities. 
2
 These five skills are not meant to be all inclusive; however, considerable empirical research has been conducted in these skill areas that has 
indicated they are important predictors of reading. 
3
 A “heteroglossic” approach conceptualizes literacy learning in both mother tongue and English as interconnected, co-existing, and mutually 
reinforcing. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 9 
Table 1 describes the sub-tests that are included in English and mother tongue EGRA. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 10
Table 1. Early Literacy Skills, EGRA Subtasks 
Early Literacy 
Skill
Sub-test Measurement English Mother
-Tongue
Alphabetic 
Knowledge
Letter Sound Knowledge Number of letter sounds correctly 
identified out of 100 in 60 seconds
X X
Phonemic 
Awareness
Segmenting Number of words correctly segmented
out of 10 words
X X
Phonics/Alphab
etic Principles
Nonword decoding Number of nonwords correctly decoded 
out of 50 in 60 seconds
X X
Fluency Oral passage reading Number of words in a reading passage of 
approximately 50-60 words read fluently 
(with accuracy) in 60 seconds
X X
Reading 
Comprehension
Oral recall Number of questions (out of five) about 
a reading passage (read by student) 
answered correctly
X X
Listening 
Comprehension
Oral recall Number of questions (out of three) about 
an passage read aloud (by facilitator) 
answered correctly
-- X
Receptive 
Vocabulary
Oral identification of common 
objects
Number of common objects correctly 
identified
X --
In addition to the EGRA, the following data collection instruments were developed and administered: 
 Learner Context interview: to determine learner attendance to pre-school, socio-economic 
status and home literacy environment 
 Teacher interview: to determine language of instruction in the school, teacher qualifications 
(including attendance to SHRP trainings) and the amount of support received from head 
teachers and CCTs 
 Head Teacher interview: to obtain school enrollment information and determine participation in 
SHRP Training and amount of support provided to teachers 
 School inventory: to determine quality of school environment (access to electricity, water, 
functioning toilets/latrines, availability of a school library) 
 Classroom observation: to determine the extent to which teachers are applying SHRP teaching 
practices
B.3 SAMPLING 
The standard approach to determining sample size for analytical surveys is to estimate the sample size 
required to achieve a specified level of power (probability), such as 90 percent, for detecting a change of 
a specific magnitude. This sample size depends on a number of factors including the evaluation design, 
the impact estimate, design of the sample survey used to collect data, the statistical test, and the 
population under investigation. 
An initial group of districts located in the 4 different language areas for Cluster 2 was selected by the IP 
and MoES to participate in the intervention. NORC calculated the number of schools needed in each 
language group and within each group, RTI selected the CCTs to be assigned to treatment and control 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 11
groups and the requisite sample of 56 treatment schools and 56 control schools using random 
assignment. 
For the impact evaluation of the Reading Program, we estimated the sample required to detect a 
double-difference measure of impact of magnitude D = 0.20 with a power of 90%. These calculations 
determined that 14 schools were necessary in the treatment group and in each control group for each 
language, and that 30 students would be sampled for each school, for a total of 420 treatment and 420 
control students per language. With 4 languages, the total sample size required amounted to 3,360 
students from 12 schools per data collection round. Of the 112 schools, half (56 schools) would 
constitute the treatment group, and half the control group. Table 2 shows the target sample size for 
each round of data collection. 
Table 2. Target Sample Size for Each Round of Data Collection 
Language Group Treatment Control Total
Runyoro-Rutooro 14 schools
420 students
14 schools
420 students
28 schools
840 students
Lumasaaba 14 schools
420 students
14 schools
420 students
28 schools
840 students
Lugbarati 14 schools
420 students
14 schools
420 students
28 schools
840 students
Acoli 14 schools
420 students
14 schools
420 students
28 schools
840 students
Total 56 schools
1,680 students
56 schools
1,680 students
112 schools
3,360 students
C. DATA COLLECTION AND FINAL 
SAMPLE 
Data collection was conducted at the beginning and at the end of the 2014 school year by the IP and its 
local partner Center for Social Research (CSR). The data collection was conducted using tablets in 
Tangerine software and consisted of EGRAs in English and 4 local languages (each student was assessed 
in his/her local language and in English), followed by a learner context interview. At each school, field 
teams also administered a teacher and head teacher interview and a school inventory. Finally classroom 
observations were also conducted for a subset of schools (~10%). 
C.1 ASSESSOR TRAINING4
In preparation for data collection, RTI engaged 68 assessors for the Cluster 2 baseline training from 
February 3 to February 11, 2014 and over 100 assessors for the Cluster 1 and 2 follow-up training 
conducted from September 29 to October 1, 2014 and which was preceded by an additional training for 
new assessors from September 24 to September 26, 2014The best assessors were then selected based 
on inter-rater reliability tests (IRR) that were given throughout the week as well as interpersonal and 
leadership skills. Technical training, which was undertaken by School Health and Reading Program staff 
(RTI and CSR), included hands-on practice, where assessors spent one day in a school administering 
the tool to learners and teachers. Trainees were first trained to administer the tools on paper and then 
4
 From RTI EGRA Baseline Report 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 12
introduced to electronic data collection on Nexus tablets so that they could be prepared for both 
circumstances. Four Data Quality Assurance (DQA) Officers who also acted as assessor trainers, as well 
as new assessors were also given an extra day of training. 
C.2 DATA COLLECTION 
Data were collected from February 13 through March 28, 2014 for the baseline round and from 
October 6 through October 24, 2014 for the endline round. Forty-eight assessors in teams of four (each 
of these teams included one supervisor) were deployed to the four language areas. Each of the four 
language area teams was supported by a DQA Officer. This DQA Officer was responsible for 
overseeing all aspects of data collection deployment, observing assessors and providing feedback and 
support, ensuring data were uploaded from the electronic tablets every evening, and observing the 
reading classes. Besides the team supervisors and the DQA Officers, data collection was overseen by 
MoES staff (from the Directorate of Education Standards and from Guidance and Counseling), Uganda 
National Examination Board (UNEB) staff, School Health and Reading Program staff, and staff from the 
external evaluation team from NORC. 
C.3 SCHOOLS AND LEARNERS SAMPLED 
The final sample included in the analysis consists of a panel of 56 schools. In those schools, a total of 
3,240 students were tested at baseline (96.4% of target of 3,360 students) and 3,178 students at endline 
(94.6% of target of 3,360 students). Table 3 presents the number of students included in the analysis; the 
number of schools is indicated in parenthesis. 
Table 3. Final Sample Used in the Analysis 
Treatment Control
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Acoli 390 380 400 375
(14) (14)
Lugbarati 413 408 408 415
(14) (14)
Lumasaaba 416 423 399 400
(14) (14)
Runyoro-Rutooro
402 408 404 377
(14) (14)
Total 1,621 1,619 1,611 1,567
(56) (56)
D. BALANCE AT BASELINE 
In order to explore comparability of pre-treatment characteristics of the treatment and control groups, 
we conducted mean equality tests to test for balance. Because comparisons between languages cannot 
be made given that no benchmarking and psychometric analysis has been performed to assess 
comparability between languages, mean equality tests of local language literacy scores are conducted 
within language subgroup. On the other hand, tests for English literacy scores are conducted on the 
entire sample. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 13
Table 4. English literacy scores, demographics and other characteristics at baseline for 
treatment and control groups. All language groups.
Variable Treatment 
Mean
(SE)
Control 
Mean
(SE)
Difference
(C – T)
Age of student 7.645
(0.051)
7.704
(0.051)
0.059
% of cases with missing age information 0.183
(0.010)
0.199
(0.010)
0.016
Gender of student (female = 1) 0.497
(0.012)
0.490
(0.012)
-0.007
Number of assets (max = 8) 2.464
(0.034)
2.448
(0.032)
-0.016
Lives with both parents (yes = 1) 0.579
(0.012)
0.644
(0.012)
0.065**
Does not live with mother (yes = 1) 0.187
(0.010)
0.173
(0.009)
-0.014
Reads at home (yes = 1) 0.422
(0.012)
0.417
(0.012)
-0.005
Attended preschool (yes = 1) 0.418
(0.012)
0.386
(0.012)
-0.032
Student absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 1) 0.443
(0.012)
0.446
(0.013)
0.003
Teacher absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 1) 0.455
(0.013)
0.491
(0.013)
0.036
Gender of teacher (female = 1) 0.700
(0.012)
0.679
(0.013)
-0.021
Letter sound score (max = 100) 0.913
(0.066)
0.585
(0.044)
-0.328*
Word segmenting score (max = 10) 4.349
(0.041)
4.565
(0.033)
0.216**
Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.035
(0.014)
0.009
(0.005)
-0.026
Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.071
(0.017)
0.045
(0.009)
-0.026
Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.001
(0.001)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.001
Receptive vocabulary score (max=20) 4.807
(0.061)
4.431
(0.058)
-0.376
Overall, our analysis indicates that pre-treatment literacy scores between treatment and control groups 
are balanced. Error! Reference source not found. shows that the treatment and control groups are 
similar in sociodemographic and other characteristics with the exception of the indicator "lives with 
both parents" which is slightly higher among control learners. The baseline scores in English literacy
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 14
differs between treatment and control for the letter sound and the word segmenting subtask. In the 
letter sound subtask the treatment group performs better than the control group while for the word 
segmenting subtasks the inverse is true. 
Literacy scores in local languages, as well as demographics and other characteristics, are similarly 
balanced between treatment and control groups within each language subgroup. Figure 2 provides the 
only example where we find one difference; for the Lugbarati group, treatment students scored 
significantly better than control students on letter sound knowledge. Differences between treatment and 
control groups for R/R, Acoli and Lamsaaba are not statistically significant. None of the other literacy 
scores showed statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups. Annex A 
shows the results of all variables for all language subgroups. 
Figure 2. Local language letter sound knowledge score, by language subgroup
** significant at 5% level 
Overall, the sample at baseline is quite well-balanced between treatment and control, although we have 
found some differences, particularly in letter sound and segmentation in English and in letter sound in 
Lugbarati. In our estimation of the program impact we, therefore, control for these baseline differences. 
**
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
R/R Acoli Lugbarati Lumasaaba
Treatment
Control
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 15
E. IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS 
This section summarizes the results of the impact analysis after one year of intervention for Cluster 2 
schools. Our analysis is conducted for each language subgroup for each of the outcome scores on 
subtasks conducted in the local language. On the other hand, for outcome scores on English subtasks, 
our analysis is applied to the entire sample (pooled sample from all four language subgroups). It is 
important to keep in mind that this evaluation does not allow for comparison of progress and impact 
between languages as the EGRA tools were developed independently for each local language and no 
psychometric analysis has been conducted to determine whether EGRA scores in one language can be 
compared to EGRA scores in another language. Therefore, while we can determine whether SHRP has 
had an impact for a particular language subgroup vs. another language subgroup, we cannot comment on 
the relative magnitude of these impacts between language subgroups, except for the English scores. 
First, we study the effect of the school-level intervention following the model in equation (1). We 
present findings for scores in local language within each language subgroup and in English for the pooled 
sample. In the tables below, we report the average treatment effect on each outcome of interest and for 
each language subgroup using different model specifications to check for robustness. All regression 
models include individual controls (sex and age of the student, a dummy for whether age is missing, 
household asset index, dummies for living with both parents, having someone read to the student at 
home, and language spoken at home)5 and district dummies. For the regressions on English scores using 
the pooled sample, we include dummies for local language subgroups to control for potential differences 
between them. We also test results with and without school fixed effects. All standard errors are robust 
standard errors and allow for correlation in the unobservables between learners in the same class. All 
regressions are Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions. 
E.1 IMPACT ON LETTER SOUND KNOWLEDGE 
Impact on Letter Sound scores 
Each cell in Table 5 shows the average effect of the treatment (SHRP intervention) on Letter Sound 
Score for each language subgroup using 5 different model specifications. Since schools were randomly 
assigned to the treatment and control groups, and mean equality tests show that both groups are well￾balanced at baseline, we start with the simplest model (model (1)) which does not include any controls. 
To reach more precision and to check for robustness, we add controls in models (2) through (5). 
 Model (1) includes no controls. 
 Model (2) is similar to model (1) but includes districts fixed effects. 
 Model (3) is similar to model (2) but adds individual controls. 
 Model (4) is similar to model (3) and also includes school fixed effects. 
 Model (5) is similar to model (4) but only includes the subsample of students 6 years and older. 
We do this because a somewhat considerable proportion of students interviewed at baseline 
and endline reported being 5 years of age even though the official age for starting P1 in Uganda 
is 6 years old. At baseline, more than 9 percent of the students in our sample reported being 5 
years of age and at follow-up, 4.3 percent reported being 5 years old. Although it may be 
possible that some students officially enroll in P1 before the age of 6, it is also possible that field 
teams sampled children who were too young to attend P1 but they attend the class. For this 
5
 With the exception of models (1) and (2) in Error! Reference source not found.. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 16
analysis we decided to include a model that only analyzes the subsample of students who 
reported being 6 years and older, i.e. students officially enrolled in P1. 
With the simplest model (column (1)), we find that, in its first year, the intervention did not have an 
effect on letter sound scores in any local language with the exception of Runyoro-Rutooro. We find that 
results are very similar across all other models; the intervention for this cluster, in its first year, did not 
have an impact on letter sound scores except for the Runyoro-Rutooro subgroup for which treatment 
students scored on average around 2.5 (0.35 standard deviation) letter sounds higher than control 
students. Both groups started with a baseline score of around 2.4-2.5 letter sounds per minute. At the 
end of the academic year, while the Runyoro-Rutooro control group scored only 5 correct letter 
sounds, the Runyoro-Rutooro treatment group averaged 7.5 correct sounds. This difference is 
significant as a percentage however the improvement of both groups during the academic year is small in 
absolute terms. 
In English, we observe a small difference, 0.7 words (0.13 standard deviation), in favor of the treatment 
group which is significant at the 10 percent level. Again the only group that shows a positive effect of 
the program, on the English letter sound subtask, is the Runyoro-Rutooro language subgroup. 
Table 5. Cluster 2 SHRP School Level Effect - Letter Sound Score 
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Language
6 years and 
older
Runyoro-Rutooro 2.484** 2.474** 2.485** 2.403** 2.871***
(0.931) (0.929) (0.985) (0.967) (1.005)
Lumasaaba 0.491 0.487 0.507 0.660* 0.700
(0.405) (0.404) (0.398) (0.384) (0.516)
Lugbarati -0.783 -0.783 -0.943 -0.849 -1.147
(0.616) (0.616) (0.637) (0.622) (0.675)
Acoli 1.450 1.464 1.518 1.641* 1.641
(0.937) (0.938) (0.934) (0.938) (1.025)
English 0.728* 0.727* 0.720* 0.774* 0.722
(0.421) (0.421) (0.428) (0.423) (0.469)
Districts Fixed Effects no yes yes yes yes
Individual Controls no no yes yes yes
School Fixed Effects no no no yes yes
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Individual controls include age and sex of 
learner, dummy for age missing, score on household assets index, dummies for student living with both parents, 
someone at home reading to the student and language spoken at home. Regressions for English scores include 
controls for local language. 
Figure 3 shows the average number of letter sounds identified correctly by treatment and control 
learners at baseline and in October 2014 by local language. As explained above, the only statistically 
significant difference in knowledge change between the treatment and control groups is found in the 
Runyoro-Rutooro language subgroup. The Runyoro-Rutooro is also the subgroup that shows the 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 17
highest average level of letter sound knowledge among learners. In general, we find that the absolute 
performance scores of students for this task is very low, even at the end of P1, with treatment students 
only able to identify 1.9 letter sounds for the Lumasaaba language group, 4.6 letter sounds for Acoli, 5 
for Lugbarati, and 7.6 for R/R after one year of the SHRP school-level interventions. 
Figure 3. Letter Sound scores by language sub-group 
Impact on zero scores for Letter Sound Knowledge 
Figure 4 shows that the percentage of learners that are not able to identify a single letter sound 
correctly remains very high at the end of P1. The language subgroup that shows the worse performance 
is Lumasaaba, were 70% and 80% of the learners in treatment and control groups respectively were not 
able to identify a single letter sound. In the Acoli and Lugbarati subgroups the percentages are 
somewhat lower but still more than 50% of the learners cannot identify any letter sound. The lowest 
percentages were found in the Runyo-Rutooro subgroup where 40% and 30% of the students in control 
and treatment respectively scored zero in this EGRA subtask. 
0.9
2.7
1.4
4.6
1.7
4.6
2.9
5.0
0.3
1.4
0.3
1.9
2.4
5.0
2.5
7.6
0 2 4 6 8
Number of correct letter sounds
Acoli Lugbarati Lumasaaba Runyoro-Rutooro
Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment
Letter Sound Identification
Baseline October 2014
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 18
Figure 4. Proportion of Students with Zero Scores on Letter Sound Subtask
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0
.2 .4 .6 .8
% with zero correct letter sounds
Acoli Lugbarati Lumasaaba Runyoro-Rutooro
Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment
Letter Sound Identification
Baseline October 2014
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 19
Table 6 shows the average treatment effect on the percentage of students who could not identify any 
letters in the letter sound knowledge subtask (percentage of zero scores). The regressions all include 
district fixed effects, individual controls and a constant term; columns (1) and (2) show the results of 
regressions without and with school fixed effects respectively. The intervention had no impact on the 
percentage of students who scored zero in any language. This suggests that the positive effect that we 
observed in the number of correctly identified sounds in Runyoro-Rutooro is probably the result of 
increasing knowledge among those learners that already had some familiarity with letter sounds rather 
than a large reduction in the number of those that do not. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 20
Table 6. SHRP School Level Effect - Percentage of students who scored zero on letter 
sound subtask 
(1) (2)
Language
With school
fixed effects
Runyoro-Rutooro -0.086 -0.078
(0.063) (0.062)
Lumasaaba -0.045 -0.054
(0.050) (0.050)
Lugbarati 0.080* 0.076
(0.046) (0.045)
Acoli -0.066 -0.070
(0.074) (0.075)
English -0.018 -0.031
(0.033) (0.032)
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include district fixed effects, 
individual controls and a constant term. Individual controls include age and sex of learner, dummy for age missing, 
score on household assets index, dummies for student living with both parents, someone at home reading to the 
student and language spoken at home. Regressions for English language include control for local language. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 21
E.2 IMPACT ON WORD SEGMENTING SCORE 
Table 7 shows the average treatment effect on word segmenting scores (regressions include individual 
controls, district fixed effects and a constant term). Students received one point for every word that 
they could segment correctly for a maximum of 10 points. We find a slightly significant small impact for 
the Lumasaaba subgroup for which treatment students scored approximately 0.5 words (0.28 standard 
deviation) better than the control students, although this effect vanishes when using the school fixed 
effect model. No impact is found for any other local languages, nor English word segmenting. 
Table 7. SHRP School Level Effect - Word Segmenting Score 
(1) (2)
Language
With school
fixed effects
Runyoro-Rutooro 0.243 0.224
(0.433) (0.436)
Lumasaaba 0.469* 0.349
(0.276) (0.245)
Lugbarati -0.285 -0.247
(0.445) (0.452)
Acoli 0.297 0.426
(0.290) (0.278)
English -0.006 -0.013
(0.121) (0.120)
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include district fixed effects, 
individual controls and a constant term. Individual controls include age and sex of learner, dummy for age missing, 
score on household assets index, dummies for student living with both parents, someone at home reading to the 
student and language spoken at home. Regressions for English language include control for local language. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 22
E.3 IMPACT ON NON-WORD DECODING, ORAL READING FLUENCY, 
READING COMPREHENSION AND ENGLISH RECEPTIVE VOCABULARY 
In terms of the impact of the intervention on higher level literacy skills, namely non-word decoding, oral 
reading fluency, reading comprehension and English receptive vocabulary, we find no impact whatsoever 
for any of the languages, with the exception of non-word decoding in English for which the positive 
effect is very small (0.15 standard deviation) and only borderline statistically significant. In Table 8, we 
show our findings using the school fixed effect models6. 
Table 8. SHRP School Level Effect - Non-Word Decoding, Oral Reading Fluency, Reading 
Comprehension and English Receptive Vocabulary 
Dependent
Variable
(1)
Non-Word 
Decoding
(2)
Oral Reading 
Fluency
(3)
Reading
Comprehension
(4)
English Receptive 
Vocabulary
Runyoro-Rutooro 0.899 0.818 0.045
(0.564) (0.501) (0.033)
Lumasaaba 0.002 0.042 (a)
(0.004) (0.046)
Lugbarati 0.001 0.022 (a)
(0.055) (0.034)
Acoli 0.090 0.169 0.003
(0.060) (0.108) (0.003)
English 0.207* 0.137 0.003 -0.110
(0.111) (0.102) (0.004) (0.181)
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include district and school 
fixed effects, individual controls and a constant term. Individual controls include age and sex of learner, dummy for 
age missing, score on household assets index, dummies for student living with both parents, someone at home 
reading to the student and language spoken at home. Regressions for English language include controls for local 
language. 
(a) no positive scores reported. 
In Figure 5 below we show the fraction of learners that cannot read a single word in a reading passage in 
their local language at the beginning and end of P1, after one year of the intervention, by language 
subgroup. For all language groups, except Runyoro-Rutooro, close to 100 percent of students cannot 
read even one word in their local language. Even in the Runyoro-Rutooro subgroup, only a few students 
- approximately 10 percent - are able to read at least one word. 
6
 Results are very similar when we do not include school fixed effects. 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 23
Figure 5. Proportion of Students with Zero Scores on Oral Reading Fluency 
E.4 IMPACT ON BOYS VS. GIRLS 
Finally, in general we do not find differences between the performance of boys and girls. However, when 
focusing on letter sound identification, girls show an advantage over boys in Runyoro-Rutooro. This 
advantage is around 0.9 letter sounds over boys on average. We do not observe differences in any of 
the other languages and we do not observe differences in the impact of SHRP by gender. 
E.5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACT OF SCHOOL-LEVEL INTERVENTION 
In summary, these analyses suggest that the 
intervention among Cluster 2 learners, after one 
year of implementation, has only had an impact on 
students from one language subgroup (Runyoro￾Rutooro students) and only on letter sound 
knowledge but not on phonemic awareness or the 
higher level skills – decoding non-words, oral 
reading fluency and reading comprehension. 
The effect is also low in absolute terms. On 
average, after one school year, despite the 
presence of the SHRP literacy project, students 
still only know few letter sounds: 7.5 letter 
sounds for the Runyoro-Rutooro treatment group 
(up from 2.5 letter sounds), for example, while 
the proportion of students who cannot identify a 
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0
.2 .4 .6 .8
1
Fluency - % with zero correct words
Acoli Lugbarati Lumasaaba Runyoro-Rutooro
Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment
Proportion with no correct words
Baseline October 2014
Cluster 2. Impact of school-level 
intervention:
 Positive impact on letter sound in Runyoro￾Rutooro subgroup, in local language and 
English.
 No impact on any other EGRA subtasks in 
Runyoro-Rutooro subgroup
 No impact for any EGRA subtask in any
other local language (Lumasaaba, Lugbarati, 
Acoli)
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 24
single letter sound at the end of the school year is 39 percent for the same group (down from 57 
percent at the beginning of the year). 
Another alarming finding is the fact that practically no students can read any words in a connected text 
in any of the language groups, except a small number in Runyoro-Rutooro. This means that for 
practically 100 percent of students, their oral reading fluency scores was zero word per minute at the 
end of one year of primary schooling. 
As implementation continues to be rolled out, and students move up in grades, it is possible that 
impacts on higher level literacy skills could manifest themselves. Additionally, with time, we may see a 
gradual transfer of these skills from the local language to English, if the hypothesis that mother-tongue 
based early grade literacy with transition to English is the most effective bilingual literacy acquisition 
model holds. However, such higher level impacts must likely be preceded by substantial improvements 
in students’ foundational reading fluency and comprehension skills. 
Overall, the results from this first impact evaluation of SHRP on Cluster 2 students folllow a similar 
trend to the results that we found for the first impact evaluation of SHRP on Cluster 1 students. For 
Cluster 1, we did not find much impact of the intervention in year 1 on any of the subtasks except in 
Luganda but did see more positive impacts in Year 2, although absolute levels in literacy skills remain 
low. It is therefore possible that impacts of SHRP for Cluster 2 students will follow similar trends. 
CONCLUSION 
This report describes the impact of SHRP on Cluster 2 students after one year of implementation, 
focusing on Result 1 activities, i.e. those related to Early Grade Reading. In general, there has been little
impact of the SHRP program on early reading skills. We found:
 Positive impact on letter sound in Runyoro-Rutooro subgroup, in local language and English. 
 No impact on any other EGRA subtaks in in Runyoro-Rutooro subgroup. 
 No impact for any EGRA subtask in any other local language (Lumasaaba, Lugbarati, Acoli). 
Discussions with stakeholders, including USAID and the implementing agency may help uncover possible 
reasons regarding why positive impacts were only found in the Runyoro-Rutooro language subgroup, 
and why, in general, there have been little to no discernible impacts on reading skills of the SHRP Result 
1 interventions during the first year of their implementation. It is possible that the intervention was 
implemented differently in Runyoro-Rutooro speaking districts than in other areas (in terms of quality 
and effectiveness of teacher trainings and/or instructional materials for instance) which may explain the 
fact that the intervention was effective in these districts but not in other districts. We intend to delve 
deeper into these inquiries during upcoming stakeholder meetings and results dissemination workshops.
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 25
ANNEX A. BALANCE AT BASELINE –
TREATMENT VS. CONTROL 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 26
Table A.1. Treatment vs. Control, R/R Language 
Variable
Treatment
Mean
(SE)
Control
Mean
(SE)
Difference
(C - T)
Age of student 7.300
(0.108)
7.410 
(0.092)
0.110
% of cases with missing age information 0.197
(0.020)
0.149
(0.018)
-0.048
Gender of student (female = 1) 0.478
(0.025)
0.490
(0.025)
0.012
Number of assets 2.505
(0.067)
2.604 
(0.058)
0.099
Lives with both parents (yes = 1) 0.458
(0.025)
0.555
(0.025)
0.097*
Does not live with mother (yes = 1) 0.214
(0.020)
0.209
(0.020)
-0.005
Someone reads to student at home (yes = 1) 0.539
(0.025)
0.559
(0.025)
0.020
Attended preschool (yes = 1) 0.613
(0.024)
0.653
(0.024)
0.040
Student absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 1) 0.451
(0.025)
0.462
(0.025)
0.011
Teacher absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 
1 )
0.499
(0.026)
0.537
(0.026)
0.038
Gender of teacher (female = 1) 0.712
(0.026)
0.806
(0.022)
0.094
Teacher teaches in R/R (yes = 1) 0.871 
(0.017)
0.861
(0.017)
-0.010
Speaks R/R at home (yes = 1) 0.614
(0.024)
0.681
(0.023)
0.067
R/R Letter sound score (max = 100) 2.493
(0.252)
2.375
(0.208)
-0.118
R/R Word segmenting score (max = 10) 5.570
(0.125)
5.355
(0.105)
-0.215
R/R Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.087
(0.047)
0.084
(0.049)
-0.003
R/R Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.037
(0.035)
0.070
(0.061)
0.033
R/R Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.005
(0.005)
0.005
(0.005)
-.000
R/R Listening comprehension 1.373
(0.059)
1.284
(0.057)
-0.089
English Letter sound score (max = 100) 1.465
(0.171)
1.243
(0.125)
-0.222
English Word segmenting score (max = 10) 4.306
(0.086)
4.509
(0.070)
0.203
English Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.124
(0.055)
0.020
(0.020)
-0.104
English Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.183
(0.056)
0.084
(0.022)
-0.099
English Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
English Receptive vocabulary score (max=20) 5.619
(0.132)
5.350
(0.115)
-0.269
*p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.001 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 27
Table A.2. Treatment vs Control, Lugbarati Language 
Variable
Treatment
Mean
(SE)
Control
Mean
(SE)
Difference
(C - T)
Age of student 8.668
(0.095)
8.764
(0.097)
0.096
% of cases with missing age information 0.140
(0.017)
0.098
(0.015)
-0.042
Gender of student (female = 1) 0.506
(0.025)
0.498
(0.025)
-0.008
Number of assets 2.483
(0.064)
2.561
(0.065)
0.078
Lives with both parents (yes = 1) 0.610
(0.024)
0.664
(0.023)
0.054
Does not live with mother (yes = 1) 0.215
(0.020)
0.174
(0.019)
-0.041
Someone reads to student at home (yes = 1) 0.334
(0.023)
0.323
(0.023)
-0.011
Attended preschool (yes = 1) 0.200
(0.020)
0.167
(0.019)
-0.033
Student absent any day in the week prior assessment (yes = 1) 0.432
(0.024)
0.455
(0.025)
0.023
Teacher absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 1 ) 0.312
(0.024)
0.369
(0.025)
0.057
Gender of teacher (female = 1) 0.661
(0.023)
0.521
(0.026)
-0.140
Teacher teaches in Luganda (yes = 1) 0.816
(0.019)
0.819
(0.019)
0.003
Speaks Luganda at home (yes = 1) 0.966
(0.009)
0.828
(0.019)
-0.138***
Luganda Letter sound score (max = 100) 2.915
(0.240)
1.716
(0.182)
-1.199**
Luganda Word segmenting score (max = 10) 4.864
(0.138)
4.662
(0.128)
-0.202
Luganda Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.010
(0.010)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.010
Luganda Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.012
(0.008)
0.009
(0.006)
-0.003
Luganda Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
Luganda Listening comprehension 2.085
(0.049)
2.007
(0.053)
-0.078
English Letter sound score (max = 100) 1.576
(0.178)
0.713
(0.099)
-0.863***
English Word segmenting score (max = 10) 1.576
(0.178)
0.713
(0.099)
-0.863***
English Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 4.024
(0.094)
4.243
(0.085)
0.219
English Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.012
(0.006)
0.010
(0.008)
-0.002
English Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.046
(0.030)
0.015
(0.011)
-0.031
English Receptive vocabulary score (max=20) 0.002
(0.002)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.002
*p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.001 
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 28
Table A.3. Treatment vs. Control, Lumasaaba Language 
Variable
Treatment
Mean
(SE)
Control
Mean
(SE)
Difference
(C - T)
Age of student 7.148
(0.095)
7.057
(0.100)
-0.091
% of cases with missing age information 0.317
(0.023)
0.381
(0.024)
0.064
Gender of student (female = 1) 0.502
(0.025)
0.459
(0.025)
-0.043
Number of assets 2.234
(0.074)
2.180
(0.068)
-0.054
Lives with both parents (yes = 1) 0.558
(0.024)
0.589
(0.025)
0.031
Does not live with mother (yes = 1) 0.214
(0.020)
0.233
(0.021)
0.019
Someone reads to student at home (yes = 1) 0.440
(0.025)
0.458
(0.025)
0.018
Attended preschool (yes = 1) 0.466
(0.025)
0.443
(0.025)
-0.023
Student absent any day in the week prior assessment (yes = 1) 0.546
(0.025)
0.527
(0.025)
-0.019
Teacher absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 1 ) 0.614
(0.025)
0.717
(0.024)
0.103***
Gender of teacher (female = 1) 0.922
(0.014)
0.893
(0.018)
-0.029
Teacher teaches in Lango (yes = 1) 0.986
(0.006)
0.907
(0.015)
-0.079
Speaks Lango at home (yes = 1) 0.993
(0.004)
0.870
(0.017)
-0.123**
Lango Letter sound score (max = 100) 0.310
(0.046)
0.293
(0.054)
-0.017
Lango Word segmenting score (max = 10) 4.591
(0.078)
4.556
(0.072)
-0.035
Lango Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
Lango Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.000
(0.000)
0.043
(0.043)
0.043
Lango Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
Lango Listening comprehension 0.502
(0.035)
0.406
(0.035)
-0.096
English Letter sound score (max = 100) 0.195
(0.038)
0.120
(0.027)
-0.075
English Word segmenting score (max = 10) 4.500
(0.071)
4.744
(0.050)
0.244
English Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.000
(0.000)
0.005
(0.005)
0.005
English Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.012
(0.008)
0.055
(0.026)
0.043
English Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
English Receptive vocabulary score (max=20) 4.017
(0.105)
4.078
(0.114)
0.061
*p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.001
 SCHOOL HEALTH AND READING PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT 
Final Report | 29
Table A.4. Treatment vs. Control, Acoli Language 
Variable
Treatment
Mean
(SE)
Control
Mean
(SE)
Difference
(C - T)
Age of student 7.339
(0.083)
7.316
(0.086) -0.023
% of cases with missing age information 0.069
(0.013)
0.170
(0.019) 0.101***
Gender of student (female = 1) 0.503
(0.025)
0.513
(0.025) 0.010
Number of assets 2.646
(0.070)
2.443
(0.066) -0.203
Lives with both parents (yes = 1) 0.692
(0.023)
0.770
(0.021) 0.078*
Does not live with mother (yes = 1) 0.100
(0.015)
0.075
(0.013) -0.025
Someone reads to student at home (yes = 1) 0.378
(0.025)
0.326
(0.024) -0.052
Attended preschool (yes = 1) 0.398
(0.025)
0.292
(0.023) -0.106
Student absent any day in the week prior assessment (yes = 1) 0.337
(0.024)
0.338
(0.024) 0.001
Teacher absent any day in the week prior to assessment (yes = 1 ) 0.396
(0.025)
0.342
(0.025) -0.054
Gender of teacher (female = 1) 0.479
(0.028)
0.545
(0.028) 0.066
Teacher teaches in Ateso (yes = 1) 0.918
(0.014)
0.890
(0.016) -0.028
Speaks Ateso at home (yes = 1) 0.918
(0.014)
0.938
(0.012) 0.020
Ateso Letter sound score (max = 100) 1.421
(0.141)
0.900
(0.129) -0.521
Ateso Word segmenting score (max = 10) 5.144
(0.091)
5.175
(0.102) 0.031
Ateso Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.000
(0.000)
0.020
(0.014) 0.020
Ateso Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.005
(0.004)
0.018
(0.008) 0.013
Ateso Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.000
(0.000)
0.003
(0.003) 0.003
Ateso Listening comprehension 1.841
(0.059)
1.405
(0.062) -0.436***
English Letter sound score (max = 100) 0.408
(0.062)
0.253
(0.052) -0.155
English Word segmenting score (max = 10) 4.577
(0.069)
4.770
(0.051) 0.193
English Nonword decoding score (max = 50) 0.003
(0.003)
0.000
(0.000) -0.003
English Oral reading fluency (max = 68) 0.046
(0.024)
0.025
(0.011) -0.021
English Reading comprehension score (max = 5) 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000) 0.000
English Receptive vocabulary score (max=20) 4.341
(0.133)
3.423
(0.117) -0.918*
*p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.001