Performance Evaluation of  
Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement
Developed Institutional Improvement
(READ II)
Conducted by:
AIR Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed Monitoring and Evaluation (READ
M&E)
March – November 2015
Submitted to
U.S. Agency for International Development/Ethiopia
Marc Bonnenfant, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)
Prepared by:
American Institutes for Research
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Contract No. AID‐663‐C‐15‐00001
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
This study is made possible by the generoussupport ofthe American people through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the
responsibility ofthe American Institutes for Research and do not necessarily reflect the
views of USAID or the United States Government.
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
i
Content 
E[HFXWLYH6XPPDU\ ........................................................................................................................ii
LLVWRI)LJXUHV ................................................................................................................................vi
LLVWRI7DEOHV..................................................................................................................................vi
AFURQ\PV........................................................................................................................................vi
1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Brief Description of READ II....................................................................................................... 2
1.2. Goals and Objectives of evaluation .............................................................................................. 4
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1. Approach/Design of Evaluation .................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Ethics Review ............................................................................................................................. 11
3. Findings:............................................................................................................................ 12
3.1. Research Question #1: Government-to-government program– .................................................. 12
How do parties involved rate their satisfaction with the government-to-government support program? 
A) What worked? B) What could be improved upon? ............................................................... 12
3.2. Research Question #2: Training plan– Was the training organized as per the agreed upon plan 
and schedule? A) How many teachers were trained? ................................................................. 16
3.3. Research Question #3: Trainee experience– How do teachers view and experience the training? 
The guide? .................................................................................................................................. 18
4. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 22
4.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 22
4.2. Recommendations for USAID and MoE .................................................................................... 23
Annex A: ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Annex B ................................................................................................................................................. 30
Annex C ................................................................................................................................................. 34
 
  
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Under the umbrella of the Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed (READ) projects, launched by
USAID in collaboration with the Ethiopian Ministry of Education, the READ Monitoring and Evaluation
(READ M&E) project provides external monitoring and evaluation services for the READ suite of projects.  
The following performance evaluation, undertaken by READ M&E, is intended to provide external
accountability for the direct implementing READ Institutional Improvement (READ II) project. This
evaluation examines the major project outcomes, utilizing evaluation instruments developed
collaboratively with USAID representatives and READ II project staff.
READ Institutional Improvement
The READ II project, a $10 million basic education project implemented from August 2014 to March 2015,
sought to improve the reading skills acquisition outcomes of public primary schoolstudentsin five regions
where the medium of instruction is one of the seven most widely spoken mother tongue languages, i.e.
Amharic, Afan Oromo, Sidaamu Afoo, Somali, Hadiyissa, Tigrinya and Wolayitatto. The project worked
directly with the Federal Ministry of Education (MoE) and through the Federal Ministry of Education (MoE)
in the Somali Region and the Regional State Education Bureaus (RSEBs) in Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and
Tigray to improve early grade reading classroom instruction in primary schools by providing in‐service
professional development for teachers., The Ministry of Education and RSEBs under a Fixed Amount
Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) implemented the project, targeting over 60,000 primary school
mother tongue teachers teaching students in grades 1‐4.  
In order to effect large‐scale change on the classroom level, READ II employed a cascade model of in‐
service teacher professional development training. To train teacher trainers, READ II utilized master
trainers, materials, and a training guide, developed by READ Technical Assistance (READ TA), another
project under the USAID suite of projects. Teacher trainers trained by READ II were in‐turn assumed to
return to their respective schools to train their colleagues.     
Woreda and zone educational offices, RSEBs and the MoE in the five participating regions nominated the
local teachers for the training. The training for each cohort took place regionally in multiple training group
sessions and venues. READ II reported having trained 64,555 teachers.
PROCESS
The performance evaluation of READ II was participatory in nature and employed a qualitative research
design that involved the collection of primary and secondary qualitative data through interviews and
document review. Qualitative data collection was employed to facilitate the collection of rich data that
would allow for fully capturing the experiences of those involved in the READ II trainings.  READ M&E used
four qualitative in‐depth interview instruments: a) Interview Guide for Teachers (5 parts), b) Interview
Guide for National Program Leaders (2 parts), c) Interview Guide for Experts from RSEBs, Zones and
Woreda Education Offices (3 parts), and d) Interview Guide for Master and Teacher Trainers 5 parts).
These instruments were then translated into Amharic, Tigrigna, Afaan Oromo, and Af‐Somali. The
instruments were further refined through piloting to ensure readability and cultural appropriateness. Due
to the lack of time and inability to find language expertsin Sidaamu Afoo, Wolayitatto and Hadiyissa, READ
M&E utilized the language of commerce, Amharic, for data collection in the areas where those languages
are spoken.
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
iii
A total of 243 teachers, trainers, experts and national program leaders participated in this performance
evaluation. Respondents were 53% male, 47% female. The average age of respondents was 39, though
they ranged from 20 to 60 years old. Respondents have an average of 19 years of experience.  
As is customary of qualitative evaluations, READ M&E employed a purposive sampling strategy, a
technique in which a sample is selected in a non‐random fashion.   Primary selection criteria for
respondents at the zone level were the physical accessibility of zones and the concentration of teacher
trainers and trainees. The presence of training venues in the Zone was a secondary criterion. USAID
regional representative and READ M&E collectively selected the zones. Zone Education Office experts
selected the woredas. Preference was given to areas with more teachers trained from urban woredas.
Rural woredas within a 50 km radius from the selected urban Woredas were included in the sample.  The
sampling approach for respondent teachers considered the following: the distribution of trained teachers
across regions; those experiences with training that may have differed based on the local context of
language; and whether the teacher worked in an urban or rural school. The approach employed a stratum
of zones, and woredas to sample schools divided into urban or rural categories. Stratification allows for
targeted representation of teachers within each language group and urban and rural schools. A total of
148 teachers were interviewed.  
Sampling of the experts from the MOE, RSEB, Zone and Woreda Education Office was entirely purposive
and consisted of those individuals involved in the program, based on their availability. READ M&E
interviewed experts until the point of saturation (when no new information came from the interviews).
Although the sampling technique employed was purposive, attempts were made to capture the range of
experience of those involved in the READ II training. Range of experience included those involved in
decision‐making, coordination, and supervision. A total of 38 experts were interviewed.   
A combination of both simple random sampling and purposive sampling techniques were employed to
select the Master and Teacher Trainers to be interviewed. READ TA supplied lists with 74 master trainers
and 1,198 teacher trainers. This sampling frame, was used to randomly select respondents on the bases
of language groups. However, in the field, when randomly selected respondents were unavailable,
snowball sampling was used to replace respondents who were unavailable, resulting in interview of 22
Master Trainers and 33 Teacher Trainers.
READ M&E contracted eighteen experienced qualitative data collectors for each language. Data collectors
were assigned to nine data collection sites‐ two data collectors per site in five regions. READ M&E staff
conducted the interviews with national program leaders from USAID and MoE staff. Data collection
spanned from the 13 – 27 June 2015.
Prior to the data collection, in a two‐day intensive training, READ M&E trained data collectors on how to
approach the respondents, use the data collection tools, record the data collected, keep the privacy of
the respondents, and transcribe the audio files based on the data collection protocol. An orientation on
the activities of READ II and READ TA was given. This included the newly developed textbooks and training
manual produced by READ TA.   
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
iv
To ensure data quality, the READ M&E staff supervised the data collection process. All individual and
group interviews were audio recorded and the READ M&E staff randomly checked recorded interview
from each language group with the corresponding transcription.  
READ M&E adheres to strict data analysis principles, regardless of the type of data being collected. All
qualitative data were coded and analyzed using NVivo software. The READ M&E team created a
preliminary coding outline and structure based on the evaluation questions, interview protocols, and
memos of ideas that emerged during data collection. This coding outline serves as the tool to organize
and subsequently analyze the information gathered in the interviews and focus groups. The outline is a
living document that may be modified as new themes and findings emerge during data analysis. A list of
definitions for the codes accompanies the outline, so that coders categorize data using the same
standards. The team subsequently codes the data into the structure using NVivo software.  
Using this coded data, the qualitative team used grounded theory to identify themes, categories, and
theories that emerge from the data and that confirm or refute the researchers’ initial impressions. That
is, rather than basing the analysis on a hypothesis, the researchers create concepts and categories based
on the data, refining the concepts as they go along to eventually inform the overall findings. During this
process of data reduction, researchers characterize the prevalence of responses, examine differences
among groups, and identify key findings and themes related to the research questions.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation found that overall, satisfaction with the READ II program was high, the training went
according to plan, and the experience of those involved in the training was positive. The government – to
– government approach was largely effective and served its purpose. Although minor challenges were
observed during the training, the training was conducted as planned with the satisfaction of all involved.
The mode of presentation was participatory and appropriate for adult learners. The content of the training
and the way it was conducted made the training inspiring for the teacher trainees’ and teachers were
highly satisfied. Those who started teaching immediately after the training were able to apply the
knowledge they gained during the training and found it to be effective for teaching children to read in
mother tongue language. Hence, it can be concluded that the training was effective and achieved its
purpose.  
There was strong alignment between the training offered and the training materials, student textbooks
and teacher’s guides. Because of the delay or lack of new textbooks and teacher’s guides in the schools,
the impact of the training on classrooms and student reading levels has yet to be observed. This goes
beyond the lack of materials, but has implications for the involvement of teachers and administrator at
the school‐level. Respondents, particularly teachers, found that the lack of knowledge of administrators
made it difficult for them to implement the new curriculum. Many respondents reported an unintended
positive impact of the training: a reinforcement of the importance of the language of instruction for
reading being in mother tongue. Teachers took pride in using their respective mother tongue during the
training and in the classroom.   
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
v
Although not the responsibility of READ II, the evaluation found that teachers were very receptive to the
new “I do, we do, you do” methodology. The training emphasized this methodology and provided teachers
with the opportunity to practice. Many teachers reported that the new methodology was the most
important aspect they learned from the training. Teachers report observing improvements in student
reading skills after they changed to the new methodology. Trainers and trainees alike recommend that
beyond scaling up through training remaining teachers, training cluster school supervisors and school
principals is warranted. As one participant wrote, “Otherwise they would not initiate its implementation;
nor support our [teachers’] attempt to put it into effect.” Moreover, education professionals in charge of
assessing teachers’ performance, who were not exposed to the new training, will not be capable of
accurately assessing actual teacher performance.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
The following recommendations broadly address the needs of mother tongue language instruction and
do not all stem directly from the READ II program’s activities. Though READ II was a successful project, the
impact of the project on student reading outcomes is limited by the lack of availability of materials and
the limited number of trained teachers. Therefore, distribution of textbooks and teacher’s guidesto every
school in order for teachers to make full use of the training is necessary.
Scaling‐up teacher training to train greater number of mother tongue language teachersin order to realize
meaningful benefits of teaching in mother tongue is currently underway. All mother tongue teachers need
to be trained to effectively implement the new instructional methods uniformly within schools. Merely
training two to three teachers from each school is not adequate and may not yield the desired
improvements in reading and writing skills of students. During such training, attention to the following is
recommended: coordination of the timing of the training with the receipt of the new textbooks,
scheduling of trainings during school breaks as well as screen participants to ensure compliance with
selection criteria.
Beyond scaling‐up through training more mother tongue language teachers, involvement of clusterschool
supervisors and school principals is warranted. Education professionals in charge of assessing teachers’
performance, who were not exposed to the new training, are incapable of accurately assessing teacher
performance, therefore, training forschoolsupervisors, assessor and principalsis necessary. Such training
should focus on the following: the importance of early grade reading achievement and mother tongue
literacy, the methodology behind the new curriculum and new textbooks, and how to observe the new
methodology for teacher evaluation.
Moreover, refresher trainingsto further increase the competency of mother tongue teachersis advisable.
Such a training should focus of the following: enabling teachers to share experiences and make
recommendationsto the textbook developers; deepening teachers’ knowledge of early grade reading and
mother tongue instruction with theoretical and practical applications; and prior to the training, teachers
should be surveyed to ensure that the training curriculum meets their needs.  
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
vi
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1. READ Cascading Training Model .................................................................................. 3 
Figure 2. READ II Theory of Change ............................................................................................ 4 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1: READ II Trained Teachers by Region and Language ...................................................... 3 
Table 2: The Distribution of Experts Participated in the Interview ................................................ 7 
Table 3: The Distribution of Master Trainers and Teacher Trainers Respondents by Language ... 8 
Table 4: The Distribution of Sampled Schools by Language and Location ................................. 10 
Table 5: The Distribution of Sampled Teachers by Language and Location ............................... 10
ACRONYMS 
AIR American Institutes for Research 
CAEBs City Administration Education Bureaus 
CTEs Colleges of teacher education 
MoE Ministry of Education 
READ CO READ Community Outreach 
READ II READ Institutional Improvement 
READ M&E Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed Monitoring and Evaluation 
READ TA READ Technical Assistance 
RSEBs Regional State Education Bureaus 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
1
1. Introduction and Background 
Future success in learning and the ability to develop other cognitive skills depend on the 
development of foundational skills in the early years of schooling. Among the most important 
foundational skills that children develop are reading and writing. Reading is not only the 
foundational skill for school-based learning, but is a basic requirement for future success in 
educational and occupational careers, success in life, and also for a nation’s social and economic 
future. Students who do not learn to read in the first few grades are more likely to make limited 
educational progress throughout their lives. They are likely to fall behind in other subjects, to 
repeat grades, and eventually to dropout. Investing on the development of this skill in children 
means contributing not only to individual’s future success but also to the future of a nation. 
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study indicates that low-income countries perform, on 
average, at the bottom 20 percent in the world. Consistent with this result, national learning 
assessments and early grade reading assessments conducted in Ethiopia since 2010 yielded low 
student achievement in reading in mother tongue languages. For example, data from the first early 
grade reading assessment conducted in Ethiopia in 2010 by the Ministry of Education and USAID 
revealed that by the end of second grade, 34 percent of students were unable to read a single word, 
and 48 percent scored a zero in reading comprehension. These results suggested that poor reading 
in early grades has limiting effect on students’ ability to read-to-learn in upper primary grades. To 
assist with this challenge, USAID, the Ministry of Education, and other education focused 
development partners are focusing on improving early grade reading and writing. USAID aims to 
improve reading skills for 100 million children in primary grades by 2015 as Goal 1 of its 
Education Strategy. 
The Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed (READ) launched by USAID in collaboration 
with the Ministry of Education addresses four important and interrelated components: 
1. Improving the mother tongue curriculum for seven of the most widely spoken languages 
in Ethiopia 
2. Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Education to support teacher training 
3. Building the capacities of communities and parents to develop a culture of reading outside 
of school 
4. Monitoring and evaluating student-learning progress. 
READ Technical Assistance (READ TA) focuses on curriculum revision, development of 
textbooks, teacher’s guide, teacher training manuals and supplementary reading materials, training 
of teacher trainers, and provision of technical assistance in improving early grade reading and 
writing to the Ministry of Education (MoE), regional state education bureaus (RSEBs), colleges 
of teacher education (CTEs), and other key development partners. READ Institutional 
Improvement (READ II) consists of direct grants to the MOE and RSEBs to conduct in-service 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
2
teacher training and build the capacity of the education system to improve early grade reading and 
writing. READ Community Outreach (READ CO) assumes responsibility for the capacity of 
parents and communities to engage them in promoting early grade reading and writing, and support 
school and community libraries and establish reading centers. The READ Monitoring and 
Evaluation (READ M&E) focuses on monitoring and evaluating early grade reading and writing 
as well as the M&E needs of the overall USAID READ program. These projects complement each 
other and are expected to improve reading and writing in Ethiopian primary schools. 
1.1.Brief Description of READ II 
READ II was a one-year, up to $10 million basic education project, which sought to improve the 
reading learning outcomes of primary school students in Ethiopia in seven mother tongue 
languages, i.e. Amharic, Afan Oromo, Sidaamu Afoo, Somali, Hadiyissa, Tigrinya and 
Wolayitatto. The project worked directly with the Ministry of Education (MoE) and through the 
Federal Ministry of Education (MoE) in the Somali Region and the Regional State Education 
Bureaus (RSEBs) in Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray to improve early grade reading 
classroom instruction at schools by providing in-service continuous professional development of 
teachers, school principals, supervisors, and teacher educators. The project targeted over 60,000 
primary school mother tongue teachers teaching students in grades 1-4. READ II activities were 
implemented from approximately August 2014 to March 2015. The Ministry of Education and 
RSEBs under a Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) implemented the project. 
The READ II teacher training fit into a larger cascading model of training. READ TA was 
responsible for training master trainers, who in turn trained the teacher trainers. This training is 
the piece of the cascade for which READ II was responsible. The training used materials and a 
training guide developed by READ TA. The third level of the cascade is where the trained teachers 
would return to their schools to train other teachers. The following figure, taken from the 
memorandum of understanding, illustrates the cascade model. This performance evaluation 
evaluated the training of teacher trainers, shown below in the second tier in blue. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
3
Figure 1. READ Cascading Training Model 
The woreda and zone educational offices, RSEBs and the MoE in the five regions selected to 
participate in READ II nominated the teacher trainers to be trained by READ II. The training for 
each cohort took place in the regions in multiple training groups/venues per region. The target for 
the number of teachers trained changed over the course of the project. READ II achieved 64,555 
teachers trained. This number is in the ballpark of planned results. The table below breaks down 
the number of teachers trained by region and language of instruction as reported by the READ II. 
Table 1: READ II Trained Teachers by Region and Language 
Region Number of teachers trained Language 
Percent of trained 
teachers 
Amhara 10,599 Amharic 16.4% 
Oromia 39,918 Afan Oromo 61.8% 
Tigray 6,004 Tigrigna 9.3% 
SNNP 2,044 Sidaamu Afoo 3.2% 
 1,459 Wolayita 2.3% 
 1,542 Hadiya 2.4% 
Somali 2,989 Somali 4.6% 
Total 64,555 100% 
 Source: MoE Reports 
 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
4
Theory of Change
The Theory of Change below grounds this performance evaluation in the theoretical model that 
motivates the READ II. 
Figure 2. READ II Theory of Change 
1.2.Goals and Objectives of evaluation 
The Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed Monitoring and Evaluation (READ M&E) 
project is a five-year USAID-supported activity implemented by the American Institutes for 
Research (AIR). This performance evaluation is the first of several performance evaluations to be 
conducted by READ M&E. 
Three major evaluation questions guide our overall approach to the performance evaluation of 
READ II: 
No. Evaluation Question 
Data Type Data 
Source 
Data 
Gathering 
Instrument 
1 How do parties involved rate their 
satisfaction with the government-to￾government support program? 
a. What has worked? 
b. What could be improved? 
Qualitative  FMOE 
 RSEBs 
 Interview 
2 Was the training organized as per the agreed 
upon plan and schedule? 
a. How many teachers were trained? 
b. How do teachers view and 
experience the training? The guide? 
c. What is the proportion of teachers 
who were satisfied with the 
training? 
Qualitative & 
Quantitative 
 FMOE 
 RSEBs 
 CTEs 
 Trainers 
3 Was the training aligned with the new 
READ TA materials? 
Qualitative & 
 Quantitative 
 Teachers 
INPUT: 
Training of 
teachers 
OUTPUT:
Trained 
teachers 
OUTCOME:
Improved teacher 
knowledge and 
practices in mother 
tongue reading 
instruction 
IMPACT:
Improved 
student reading 
outcomes 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
5
2. Methodology 
2.1.Approach/Design of Evaluation 
The performance evaluation of READ II was participatory in nature and employed a qualitative 
research design. The evaluation involved the collection of primary and secondary qualitative data 
using interview and document review. Qualitative data is the most appropriate for answering our 
research questions, as the depth and richness of individual and group interviews allowed the 
research team to explore fully the experiences of those involved in READ II trainings. However, 
at times, READ M&E found that some of the qualitative data was easily quantified. Many of the 
respondents answered questions were brief and provided simple yes or no answers. In those 
instances, we have included the quantitative data. 
2.1.1. Data Sources
The data sources for this performance evaluation are varied in level of involvement and 
responsibility assumed in the project. The following organizations/category were the primary data 
sources: 
 MOE and USAID program leaders; 
 RSEBs, zone and woreda Education Offices experts 
 College of Teacher Education (CTE) teachers 
 Zone and Woreda Education Offices experts, 
 High school teachers who were trained as master trainers and teacher trainers; 
 Trained teachers who are teaching mother tongue language of the seven languages groups 
Furthermore, terminal reports of RSEBs submitted to READ II and other documents like training 
rosters from READ II, as well as from the MOE and RSEBs and woreda Education Offices served 
as secondary data sources. 
More specifically, MOE and RSEB officials involved with the program and FARA in general 
served as the data source for evaluation question. To this end, experts from RSEBs, Zones and 
Woreda Education Offices were the data source for answering evaluation question 1 and question 
2. Teachers trained by the master trainers as teacher trainers and those trained by teacher trainers 
served as the data source for question 3. 
2.1.2. Instruments
READ M&E prepared a set of four in-depth interview guides. These include: a) Interview Guide 
for Teachers (consisting of 5 parts), b) Interview Guide for National Program Leaders (which has 
2 parts), c) Interview Guide for Experts from RSEBs, Zones and Woreda Education Offices (with 
3 parts), and d) Interview Guide for Master and Teacher Trainers (consisting of 5 parts) (See 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
6
Appendix A for the instruments used). Experts from AIR local and home offices prepared and 
guided the draft instruments through intensive reviews. 
Then, experienced language experts translated the interview guides for teachers and experts from 
RSEBs, Zones and Woreda Education Offices into Amharic, Tigrigna, Afaan Oromo, and Af￾Somali. During the training, data collectors reviewed and made comments on the translated 
instruments to ensure readability and cultural appropriateness. Due to lack of time and inability to 
find language experts in Sidaamu Afoo, Wolayitatto and Hadiyissa, READ M&E utilized the 
language of commerce, Amharic. 
Teachers and woreda experts were interviewed to pilot the Interview Guide for Teachers and the 
Interview Guide for Experts from RSEBs, Zones, and Woreda Education Offices. The pilot 
reviewers were selected from two schools and one woreda from Oromia Regional State, East Shoa 
Zone. Accordingly, the necessary revision and improvements were made to the tools. For 
example, on the Teacher Interview Guide, one question was found to be duplicated in another 
question. During the pilot we learned that not all of the teachers who attended the training were 
mother tongue teachers therefore we added a question asking what subject the teacher taught before 
the training. 
2.1.3. Sampling of Respondents
READ M&E employed a purposive sampling strategy as is customary with qualitative research 
and as this is a performance evaluation, READ M&E necessarily chose to interview only those 
with experience of READ II. Purposive sampling is a technique in which a sample is selected in 
a non-random fashion to achieve the purpose of this performance evaluation. 
The Selection of Respondents by Zones and Woredas
READ M&E used a purposive sampling technique to determine the selection of Zones. Physical 
accessibility of zones and the concentration of teacher trainers and trainees were the major criteria 
used for selecting zones. The presence of training venues in the Zone was a secondary criterion 
we considered for the selection of Zones. USAID regional representative and READ M&E 
collectively chose the zones. 
Zone Education Office experts selected the Woredas. Preference was given to areas with more 
teachers trained from urban woredas. Rural woredas within a 50 km radius from the selected urban 
Woredas were included in the sample. 
The Selection of Respondents‐ Experts
Sampling of experts from the MOE, RSEB, Zone and Woreda Education Office was entirely 
purposive and consisted of those individuals involved in the program, based on availability. The 
number of individuals selected for the sample was determined by the number of staff members 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
7
involved in the program and availability during the period of data collection. Interviewing experts 
continued until the point of saturation (when no new information came from the interviews). 
Although the sampling technique employed was purposive, attempts were made to capture the 
range of experience of those involved in the READ II training. Range of experience included those 
involved in decision-making, coordination, and supervision. Accordingly, 38 experts were selected 
purposively. The table below provides the details of the selected experts. 
Table 2: The Distribution of Experts Participated in the Interview 
Experts 
Language Groups 
Tigrigna Amhara 
Afaan 
Oromo 
SNNP Af￾Wolayittatto Sidaamu Afoo Hadiyissa Somali Total 
Woreda Experts 1 - 5 1 4 2 3 16 
Zone Experts - 3 4 4 1 1 - 13 
Region Experts 1 1 2 - 2 - 3 9 
Total 2 4 11 5 7 3 6 38 
Of the experts interviewed 32 (84.2%) were males and 6 (15.8%) were females. This percentage 
reflects the gender distribution in woreda, zone, and regional educational experts. 
The Selection of Respondents‐ Trainers
A combination of both simple random sampling and purposive sampling techniques were used to 
select master and teacher trainers. READ TA supplied lists consisting of 74 master trainers and 
1,198 teacher trainers. After rearranging the lists based on the language groups of the trainees, 21 
master trainers (3 from each language group) and 42 teacher trainers (on the average 6 per 
language) were selected and the list prepared was distributed to data collectors. These lists, or 
sampling frame, were used to randomly select respondents. However, in the field, when randomly 
selected respondents were unavailable, we used a snowball sampling based on those who were 
interviewed to replace the respondents who were unavailable. Just under 50% of trainer 
respondents were purposively selected. Fifty-five master and teacher trainers were selected for the 
sample. Table 3 shows the distribution of master and teacher trainers by language. 
 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
8
Table 3: The Distribution of Master Trainers and Teacher Trainers Respondents by Language 
Region Language Zone No. of Respondents 
MTs TOTs 
Oromia Afan Oromo Bale 3 2 
Jimma 1 3 
Ilu Ababora - 1 
Amhara Amharic
Bahirdar Zuria - 2 
South Wollo 1 2 
North Gonder 2 4 
North Shoa 1 - 
SNNP 
Sidaamu Afoo Sidama 3 3 
Hadiyissa Hadiya 2 3 
Wolayittatto Wolayta 3 4 
Somali Af-Somali Jigjiga 3 3 
Tigray Tigrigna Central 3 6 
South - - 
Total 22 33 
The Selection of Respondents‐ Teachers 
The sampling approach for sampling teachers trained to teach mother tongue language considered 
a) the distribution of trained teachers across regions b) those experiences with training that may 
have differed based on the local context of language c) and whether the teacher worked in an urban 
or rural school. The approach employed a stratum of zones, and woredas to sample schools divided 
into urban or rural categories. Stratification allows for targeted representation of teachers within 
each language group and urban and rural schools. The purposive approach allowed selecting 
schools and teachers who are accessible both geographically and in person since in almost all 
schoolteachers teaching at grades 1 – 4 were on short vacation during the data collection period. 
Nearly in all schools, teachers had administered final test and were marking students’ exam papers 
at home. 
The number of schools to be included in the study was decided to be a minimum of four schools 
(two urban and two rural) per language group. It was anticipated that using pairs of schools would 
provide for a greater diversity of experiences while still considering budgetary and time restrictions 
on data collection for cost-effectiveness. It was assumed that with this number of schools to be 
selected from each language group and number of teachers from each school a minimum saturation 
point would be reached. To this end, a minimum of two urban and two rural schools per language 
area were selected. The team added an additional number of schools to account for the greater 
number of teachers who were trained in Oromia and Amhara. Hence, one urban and three rural 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
9
schools were added to Afaan Oromo language group and one urban and two rural schools were 
added to the Amhara language group. The addition of more rural than urban schools was intended 
to reflect the nature of the distribution of schools in urban and rural areas in these larger language 
areas. 
The selection process involved the use of three strata. The first stratum is geographic zone. In each 
of the five regions where READ II worked, two zones from Tigray and Somali regions with an 
additional zone in Amhara and an additional zone in Oromia were selected. The one exception is 
SNNP, where teachers from only three zones were trained. Hence, the three zones specifically￾Sidama, Wolayita and Hadiya- were automatically included in the sample. 
The second stratum is woreda. Because schools are managed at the woreda level, the data 
collection team worked at the woreda level to do the school selection. Within each sampled zone, 
woredas were selected purposively from which to choose urban schools and from the nearby 
woredas to choose the rural schools. In Oromia and Amhara, READ M&E sampled a 
proportionally higher number of schools because more teachers had been trained in these two 
regions. To do this, the team added all rural woredas. See Table 4 below for the exact numbers. 
Schools were selected purposively in consultation with the Woreda Education Office. The 
inclusion criteria for schools include a) the presence of at least two mother tongue teachers trained 
by READ II, b) the school is teaching the mother tongue language of the region or the zone, and 
c) the accessibility of the schools. 
The fourth stratum is the teachers within the schools. All teachers who have been trained as mother 
tongue language teachers by the READ II project were invited to participate as respondents, with 
a maximum of eight teachers per school. Setting a maximum number of participants assumed to 
ensure that all voices could be heard in the focus group discussion or group interviews. Teachers 
would then participate in a focus group for larger groups of six or more teachers per school or a 
group interview if the number of teachers in a school were less than six. 
 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
10
Table 4: The Distribution of Sampled Schools by Language and Location  
Region 
No. of zones 
sampled (random 
selection except 
SNNP) 
No. of urban 
woredas per zone 
(purposive 
selection) 
No. of rural 
woredas per 
zone (purposive 
selection) 
Total 
no. of 
Schools 
Language of 
Instruction 
Amhara 4 3 4 9 Amharic 
Oromia 4 3 5 9 Afaan Oromo 
Tigray 2 2 2 4 Tigrigna 
SNNP 1 (Sidama) 2 2 4 Sidamu Afoo 
 1 (Wolayita) 2 2 4 Wolayttatto 
 1 (Hadiya) 2 2 4 Hadiyyisa 
Somali 2 2 2 4 Af-Somali 
Total 13 16 19 38 
The number of teachers included in the sample from each language group is presented in the following 
table. 
Table 5: The Distribution of Sampled Teachers by Language and Location  
Language Groups 
Tigrigna Amhara 
Afaan 
Oromo 
SNNP Af￾Wolayittatto Sidaamu Somali Total 
Afoo 
Hadiyissa 
Teachers Urban 7 14 17 8 8 9 8 71 
Rural 8 17 19 8 8 9 8 77 
Total 15 31 36 16 16 18 16 148 
2.1.4. Data Collection Procedures
READ M&E identified and selected experienced qualitative data collectors for each language 
group. Minimum qualifications were a MA/MEd degree for the school and regional level data 
collection experience. Data collectors’ demographics are: MA/MEd = 9, PhD Candidate = 4, and 
PhD holders= 6. Eighteen data collectors traveled to the five regions. These 18 data collectors 
were assigned to nine data collection sites- two data collectors per site. READ M&E staff 
conducted interviews with national program leaders from USAID and MoE staff. 
Prior to the data collection, in a two-day intensive training, data collectors were trained on how to 
approach the respondents, use the data collection tools, record the data collected, keep the privacy 
of the respondents, and transcribe the audio files based on the data collection protocol. An 
orientation on the activities of READ II and READ TA was given. This included the newly 
developed textbooks and training manual produced by READ TA. The first morning of the 
training was committed for induction. The afternoon of the first day and morning of the second 
day were used for training the developed tools. In the afternoon, the trainees practiced the 
instrument among themselves for an hour and half. They practiced both roles: conducting the 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
11
interview and taking notes. They then discussed problems encountered and collectively developed 
solutions. 
 
Data collection took place during 13 – 27 June 2015. To ensure data quality, the READ M&E staff 
supervised the data collection process. All individual and group interviews were audio recorded 
and the READ M&E staff randomly checked recorded interview from each language group with 
the corresponding transcription. Some transcribers first transcribed into the language of the 
interview then translated the data into English. Others translated and transcribed at the same time 
into English. All coding of data was done in English. 
2.1.5. Data Coding and Analysis
AIR adheres to strict data analysis principles, regardless of the type of data being collected. All 
qualitative data were coded and analyzed using NVivo software. The READ M&E team created a 
preliminary coding outline and structure based on the evaluation questions, interview protocols, 
and memos of ideas that emerged during data collection. This coding outline serves as the tool to 
organize and subsequently analyze the information gathered in the interviews and focus groups. 
The outline is a living document that may be modified as new themes and findings emerge during 
data analysis. A list of definitions for the codes accompanies the outline, so that coders categorize 
data using the same standards. The team subsequently codes the data into the structure using NVivo 
software. For the chart of nodes, refer to Annex A. 
Using this coded data, the qualitative team used grounded theory to identify themes, categories, 
and theories that emerge from the data and that confirm or refute the researchers’ initial 
impressions. That is, rather than basing the analysis on a hypothesis, the researchers create 
concepts and categories based on the data, refining the concepts as they go along to eventually 
inform the overall findings. During this process of data reduction, researchers characterize the 
prevalence of responses, examine differences among groups, and identify key findings and themes 
related to the research questions. 
2.2.Ethics Review 
AIR conducts rigorous ethical reviews through its Institutional Review Board (IRB) for all of its 
own internal research activities and provides this service for a variety of subcontractors and 
collaborators. AIR’s IRB has conducted expedited and full board reviews of research involving 
human subjects for more than 16 years. AIR is registered with Office of Human Research 
Protection (OHRP) as a research institution and conducts research under its own Federal wide 
Assurance. READ M&E conducted data collection with full approval from the AIR ethics board. 
The interview with each interviewee was held after the informed consent was obtained from the 
interviewee. The respondents were also assured of the confidentiality of data throughout the 
evaluation process. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
12
3. Findings: 
A total of 241 teachers, trainers, experts and national program leaders participated in this 
performance evaluation. Respondents were 53% male, 47% female. The average age of 
respondents was 39, though they ranged from 20 to 60 years old. Respondents had an average of 
19 years of experience. See Annex B for a more complete set of summary statistics on respondents. 
3.1.Research Question #1: Government-to-government program– 
How do parties involved rate their satisfaction with the government‐to‐government 
support program? A) What worked? B) What could be improved upon? 
The data in this section revealed that overall satisfaction was high although there were 
specific challenges. The data include three other important themes: 1) READ II has met the 
educational priorities and needs of the country; 2) the FARA mechanism functioned well; and 3) 
the program helped the MOE and RSEBs understand children’s reading. 
Overall satisfaction with the government-to-government support program was high. 
Confirming this high level of satisfaction, an expert states: 
The satisfaction of the trainers and trainee was conspicuously high as we observed during 
the supervision and management support visits at the two rounds training. All trainees 
were actively engaged in and enjoying the training. They were sharing their experiences 
and learning from each other as well. The satisfaction of the trainers and trainee was 
conspicuously high as we observed during the supervision and management support visits 
at the two rounds training. All trainees were actively engaged in and enjoying the training. 
They were sharing their experiences and learning from each other as well. 
In line with the above quote, a teacher states: 
 “it helped us to teach the language and to have confidence in teaching the language. It 
also helped learners to identify letters and sounds.” 
3.1.1. Alignment with educational priorities of Ethiopia
Respondents generally concurred that READ II was well aligned with the educational priorities 
of the country. For example, one respondent comments: 
The government – to – government program has focused on quality and improving the 
outcomes of instruction. The program addressed the issue that the government is planning to 
achieve - quality education. Doing this activity at lower grade levels helps the government to 
a great deal. In general, I can say that the government – to – government program is 
completely aligned to the government GEQIP 1 program. 
Respondents were also supportive of the program in the ways in which it addressed the 
needs of the country. However, there were different thoughts on measuring the success of the 
program. If the objectives are seen in terms of student outcomes, it is difficult to talk about 
achievement at this stage. One of the program leaders responds, 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
13
Since the implementation is on progress it could be premature to make concert judgment 
in terms of student outcomes. However, we believe that it will address very well the 
identified problems regarding reading and writing.
 The identified problem, according to this one respondent, was the capacity of teachers to 
teach reading and writing based on the new materials. Since the focus of the government – to – 
government program is institutional improvement through capacity building, the training provided 
by READ II has addressed the issue related to teachers’ skill in teaching reading in mother tongue 
language. The following quote illustrates this view.
To achieve the goal of READ program, teachers should be trained on the basis of ‘I do, 
you do and we do’ approach and taking into account the five components of reading. … 
The training was given to teachers in seven languages and this was great. 
3.1.2. Focus on early grade reading
One of the unintended impacts of the overall government-to-government program was the 
focus it forced, from the highest levels of the ministry, on early grade reading. The program leaders 
expressed their views that READ II project helped MoE and RSEBs improve their activities 
directed toward improving children’s reading skills in mother tongue language. As an illustration, 
one of the program leaders who participated in the interview says: 
First of all, in the process of quality education, teachers have determinant and critical role. 
The development of quality curriculum and the production of quality textbooks do not 
guarantee quality education without the use of skilled teachers. READ II project helped 
MoE and RSEBs in achieving this goal. 
Another respondent adds: 
I can say that the READ II program has helped greatly both the MoE and RSEBs in their 
efforts to improve the reading skill of students. The results of EGRA shocked some regional 
states. Even some of them were taking measures by their own to improve the reading skill 
of students. For example, SNNP allotted around 20 million birr and trained teachers who 
would teach reading and writing in mother tongue language. There were similar efforts in 
Amhara and Tigray Regional States. The READ II program was launched in a more 
organized manner and helped both MoE and RSEBs in achieving their goals. 
3.1.3. Cascade model did not include teacher supervisors or principals
Many respondents, particularly teachers, report difficulty in implementing the new 
curriculum and using the textbooks, as their supervisors have not received training in the new 
methodology. Their direct supervisors do not know the “I do, we do, you do” methodology. Nor 
have they been taught basics of the early grade reading process. One of the teachers eloquently 
says: 
Lack of knowledge of administrators on the new materials is one of the hindrances for 
implementation. For example, the new textbook entails nine weeks for students to count 
letters. Only after this that we start teaching children to read words. Nevertheless, before 
children finish counting letters, we were instructed to give tests at the end of the September 
to measure reading skill. We tried to tell them how we were trained to teach but they could 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
14
not understand us. The most challenging bodies were supervisors. They need to be trained 
on the new textbooks and teacher’s guide.” 
3.1.4. Delay of Implementation concerns
Respondents noted that the rollout of the trainings was effective. However, several experts 
and official at all levels expressed their concern with the delay of implementation. Some of the 
interviewees noted that the effectiveness of the training had yet to be established because of the 
delay of textbook distribution in some areas. One of the regional experts, for instance, states the 
following: 
It has been documented that up to 65 percent of the teachers have undergone the training. 
However, the newly prepared textbooks have not been printed and distributed to schools 
in the region where I am working. In this region, children were learning with the old 
textbooks and curriculum. Hence, it would be difficult to assess the effectiveness of the 
training in terms of improving the pedagogical skill of trained teachers. Overall, the 
training covered for about 10,600 teachers in my region but the delay of delivery of the
curriculum materials to schools has hampered the assessment of its effectiveness.
3.1.5. Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA)
The respondents had positive things to say about the terms of the funding mechanism, and 
the benefits of the collaboration among stakeholders. The national program leaders (USAID and 
MOE staff) believe that the government – to – government program was introduced based on the 
following assumptions: 
 Ensure proper resource utilization; 
 Allow reaching the actual beneficiaries directly; 
 Call for cost sharing which strengthens ownership; and 
 Build the capacity of the Ethiopian MoE to carry out similar activities by its own. 
 According to the respondents, these assumptions were realistic and achievable. The 
program leaders participated in the interview stated that government – to – government approach 
was a new method and gave opportunity to have smooth relationship among stakeholders involved 
in the training process, created smooth channel of communication, strengthened the feeling of 
ownership, and ensured direct accountability. 
 READ M&E asked the respondents to explain whether Fixed Amount Reimbursement 
Agreement (FARA) has worked as desired. The responses to the interview questions yielded 
different views about the effectiveness of FARA. The quotes below illustrate different views: 
Although I cannot say that it has worked on the full scale, I can say that FARA has worked 
as desired. This agreement entailed some restrictions. For example, the amount of budget 
that should have been released at once was restricted. It was not more than 10 million USD 
that was earmarked to government to be used in the first phase. This money was not 
adequate to train all teachers. Because of this, the number of teachers trained was below 
the initial plan. That is why I said that FARA has not worked fully. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
15
I think we could examine the effectiveness of FARA from different angles. I could say that 
it was not effective in terms of timing. Teachers were not trained on time as planned. The 
developed textbooks and teacher’s guides were not distributed on time. 
There was some kind of delay while transferring money but it did not create a serious 
problem on the implementation of the training. Even regions were invited for orientation 
as to how they should use and utilize the money for the purpose. To this end, there was no 
problem inherent to the FARA agreement. All problems are related to implementation 
factors. 
The RSEBs claimed to have contributed about 25-30 percent of the total fund allocated to 
it in consultation and collaboration with the respective zones. Although the woredas and zones 
appear to be less familiar and clear about the FARA modality, they successfully managed to 
implement the program in consultation with RSEBs. Regarding this, an expert from zonal 
education office described in the following manner: 
I know there is an amount of money allocated to the RSEB though I do not know the details. 
My understanding is that the agreement was entered between the USAID and the RSEB 
though I do not even know the details. I believe that the amount of budget allocated was 
sufficient to conduct the training without difficulties. The training materials, textbooks, and 
teacher’s guide were also supplied along with this funding. The zone, as per its training 
schedule, received the needed amount of money for all kinds of payments. There was no 
financial shortage. All kinds of payments like per diem for trainees, professional fee for 
trainers, and other related costs and payments were made without complaints. 
 Respondents were also asked to describe if the parties involved in FARA have successfully 
carried out their responsibilities. Different views were reflected in this regard. For example, one 
of the respondents said: 
I can say that both parties have successfully carried out their duties and accomplished 
their tasks. The responsibility of USAID was to provide fund whereas the responsibility of 
the host government was to use the money and carryout planned activities as per the 
agreement. The MoE distributed the money to RSEBs and the RSEBs using their structure 
did the same to the Zones and Woredas and to the level of training centres.
The other argued differently and stated: 
Well regarding FARA there is the Ethiopian government on one side and the USAID on 
the other. I think we have to be honest. USAID has carried its responsibility very well. I 
think there was problem on the part of the Ethiopian government (including regional 
states) particularly on settling and reconciling the budget used on time. As a result the 
training that was planned to be conducted during September and October 2014 was pushed 
to January and February. Hence, there was some delay on the part of the Ethiopian 
government to liquidate the utilized money. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
16
The answer to research question one is that those involved had a high level of satisfaction 
with the training program despite minor problems observed during the two rounds training. The 
quantitative data reveal parallel results. The majority of the respondents (83.8%) reported that 
they are highly satisfied with the training organized and offered by READ II. Similarly, 11.5% of 
the respondents indicated that they are moderately satisfied by the training offered. There is no 
difference among the language groups in terms of trainees’ overall satisfaction. 
3.2.Research Question #2: Training plan– Was the training organized as 
per the agreed upon plan and schedule? A) How many teachers were trained? 
The outstanding success of READ II project was the training of 64,555 teachers in two 
rounds and the implementation of the training according to the agreed upon plan and schedule. 
Two major findings emerged from responses relating to this research question. First, the second 
round of training was better organized and resourced than the first round. Second, respondents 
routinely commented that the ten days of training was inadequate for the volume of information 
the trainees were expected to absorb. Smaller findings include that respondents noted that when 
the time in the year that the training was given was not ideal as it cut into the school year. 
Additionally, respondents note that the selection process of teachers was not uniformly followed. 
These findings are explained in detail in the following section. 
3.2.1. Organization of the trainings: Satisfaction, timing, and length
Generally when the RSEBs, Zones and Woreda education offices were asked whether or 
not they have successfully managed and completed the training their response was ‘yes’ . They 
tell the following with confidence: 
Yes, we have succeeded in managing and completing the trainings. At Woreda level, we 
were satisfied very much and we need to keep it up. At zone level, problems encountered 
were corrected on time in collaboration with woredas and schools. 
The second round training was relatively better organized and executed than the first round. In 
explaining this, an expert states the following: 
During the first round of training, the availability of training materials was not as 
expected. It seemed that the organizers hastily engaged in the commencement of the 
training without sufficient preparation. Such hurried engagement was not the feature of 
the second round training. 
A number of the trainees stated the training attempted to cram a high volume of information 
in lengthy sessions over an inadequate number of days. The number of days allocated for the 
training did not allow for the essential conceptualization of the content outlined in the training 
materials necessary for precise in-class implementation. Moreover, in the interest of time, some 
sections were omitted. Trainers expressed similar dissatisfaction regarding the allocated number 
of days for the training; reiterating the teachers’ concerns that there was an “imbalance between 
the vast content and the duration of the training.” As much of the content outlined in the training 
materials was new to the teachers the training lagged in pace. Furthermore, a few trainers expressed 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
17
the lack of adequate gap in number of days between the training of trainers and facilitating of 
training for teachers. 
The training for teachers “… [was not] scheduled in collaboration with all the 
stakeholders”. As the training was conducted while school was in session, many teachers found it 
difficult to attend. Additionally, teachers were not given sufficient notice prior to the scheduled 
training. 
The respondents considered the selected time for the training as inappropriate as it 
coincided with the opening of schools and conflicted with another training. The following quotes 
corroborate this finding: 
“The training overlapped with another in-service training for teachers upgrading their 
degree. So such overlap brought a conflict of interest, which [required teachers] to transfer 
[their training] responsibility midway to other teachers losing income derived from the 
extension and in-service payment.” 
“I would have appreciated had it been offered when we were in our break time.” 
“The training sessions could have been organized in a way that would not affect students’ 
school time, especially during the second round training.” 
“The training should have been given at the appropriate time. Had it been at the beginning 
of the year (September), we would have used the knowledge we gained immediately before 
the substantial amount get lost.” 
“I feel that the training schedule should have been prepared in collaboration with all 
involved including teachers. It would have been more appropriate to conduct the training 
during July and August where teachers were free from the teaching load.” 
3.2.2. Selection of trainees
Another important element to the planning and execution of the trainings was the process 
for selecting trainees. The selection process varied by region, and some teachers who were trained 
were not mother tongue/reading teachers. Many respondents expressed strong feelings on this 
topic, with some approving of the process and others discussing problems. The selection of trainees 
has important consequences for the impact of the program, as the program assumes that trained 
teachers are and will be the ones teaching reading to students. 
 Zone education offices instructed woreda education offices and schools to select teachers 
for the training as per the quota given by the RSEBs. The schools, woreda education offices, and 
the zone education offices collaboratively selected the training participants. Although there was 
agreed up on criteria for the selection of trainees, the actual selection of teachers for the training 
did not follow similar approaches across language groups In SNNPR, for example, only those who 
held a diploma in language were given priority despite the fact that they were not teaching mother 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
18
tongue language. In the absence of language specific diploma holders, other non-language teachers 
were selected. There was similar practice in Oromiya region where good numbers of the trainees 
were non-language teachers. It was noted that some schools selected and sent non-language 
teachers for the training in the presences of good number of language teachers teaching the mother 
tongue language. This situation had been observed across all regions with varying magnitude. In 
explaining this, an expert from Amhara region states the following: 
Most schools in our region selected teachers for the training from those teaching Amharic 
and who were certified as language teachers. We tried to be strict with the selection 
process. However, some schools might have selected others assuming that they would be 
assigned as language teachers in the future. This problem had been rectified during the 
second round training because of orientation given by the RSEB. 
The analysis of quantitative data supports such claim. For example, close observation of 
the data yielded that about 8.1% of the respondents who participated in the training were not 
mother tongue language teachers. Physical education, science, math, and English teachers, for 
example, participated in the training. There were teachers who were teaching beyond grade 4 who 
participated in the training. Among trained teachers, about 4.1% of them are not currently teaching 
at grade 4 or below. Furthermore, teachers who participated in this evaluation were asked whether 
they are currently teaching mother tongue language or not. The data gathered yielded that 89.4% 
trained teachers are currently teaching mother tongue language while 8.1% of the respondents do 
not teach mother tongue language at the time of data collection. 
3.3. Research Question #3: Trainee experience– How do teachers view and 
experience the training? The guide? 
A) What is the proportion of teachers who were satisfied with the training?  
B) Was the training aligned with the new READ TA materials?
3.3.1. Teachers & trainers positive views of the training
Teachers had very positive views of the training and teacher’s guide in general. Almost all 
trainees stated they were satisfied. Only 3.4% of the respondents were not satisfied with the 
training offered. There was no difference among the language groups in terms of trainees’ overall 
satisfaction. When probed on specific elements of the training, responses diverged. One of the 
most common problems noted related to the late arrival of materials to the trainings (particularly 
in round one), and how hard it was to implement what they learned when materials were not yet 
present in the schools. Though there were some issues with the materials, especially relating to the 
Somali versions, respondents reported a high degree of alignment between the training and the 
materials they used. 
READ M&E highlights seven particularly helpful feedback in the following section: 
relevance of content; participation and presentation; materials; trainers; teachers; and organization. 
Despite the lack of materials, teachers reported that the training was helpful and that they 
are using the new methodology in the classroom. Most teachers reported making use of the “I do, 
we do, you do” approach: “Yes it has helped me a lot. I have changed my methodology,” reports a 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
19
teacher, typical of many responses. Teachers also reported that they are comfortable with and like 
the idea of segmenting words by sound, and will use this technique in the classroom. 
On the other hand, some teachers reported that it was hard to change methodology in the 
middle of the school year, as students became confused. Other teachers look forward to 
implementing the new methodology in the future: “Now I have fourth grade Amharic book and I 
am planning to use (it) next year. And my method of teaching will be different from what it used to 
be,” a teacher comments. 
The data further yielded that teachers appreciated the style of the training and how easy it 
was to translate to the classroom: 
“Yes it was, because during the training we never conducted things theoretically. We 
treated each practically and it was the same that we are implementing. Example, we use 
songs, different models of letters from materials around us and it was helpful and easy to 
implement.” 
Teachers also appreciated the relevance of the content of the training manual, student 
textbooks, and teacher’s guides. Other positive acknowledgements include: 
“Unlike the previous language teaching techniques the new technique begins from 
sound/phonemes followed by letters and proceeds to words” 
“Children learn reading by segmenting and blending” 
 “Teachers do not need separate planning” 
“Each lesson along with the accompanying activity(s) has time limits, revision and 
assessment techniques” 
“Lends itself to the “I do, We do”, and “You do” approach” 
“The training was aligned with the newly developed teacher guides and student textbooks 
in grades 1-4 (the First Cycle of the school system)” 
“Strongly motivates teachers to produce learning aids” 
“Enabled teachers to leave aside the traditional approach of teaching language where 
children were presented with all alphabets in the language and were asked to say them 
without recognizing the sound and/or the shape” 
“The new technique, properly applied, organizes lessons from simple to complex 
sounds/words; spells out teachers’ roles, student roles and that of parents’; as well as the 
medium of instruction in the training being in the relevant mother tongue language of the 
teachers” 
Trainers equally shared the above views of trainees. For example, trainers’ state: 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
20
“If teachers apply the knowledge they gained from the training, learners reading skill will 
improve in short time since the method can help students recognize sound and letter 
relationship.” 
 “I believe it could really bring a great change in students’ reading abilities since the 
training started with the view to understanding the very essence of the problems of 
teaching reading in mother tongue language. What it needs is commitment of not only 
teachers teaching at the level but also of all responsible parties including school 
principals, supervisors, parents and other members of the school community.” 
Another consistent finding is that respondents felt the training had a strong participatory 
design, and that the presentation of materials was clear and easy to follow. The majority (94.6%) 
of the respondents acknowledged that the approach the trainers used during the training was 
participatory and involved active interaction among trainees and between trainers and trainees. 
Group work and presentations characterized the approach followed by most of the trainers. 
Almost all of the respondents found there to be adequate stationary materials during the 
training. Some respondents took issue with the less than one-to-one ratio of textbook and teacher 
guides to trainee ratio, while others happily shared during the training. 
Overall, the trainees appear to have sound knowledge and skills in the respective mother 
tongue language they taught in schools; were motivated to learn/acquire better language teaching 
techniques demonstrating strong interest; and believed that reading is critical to acquiring 
knowledge and skills in other subject areas. 
3.3.2. Teachers views of the trainers
The views on the trainers were positive. Their trainees (the teachers) have rated the 
majority of the trainers very high as it relates to their knowledge of the subject matter. The trainers 
level of effort demonstrated throughout the training period; the several initiatives taken; the 
individual and group support they provided throughout; their punctuality, preparation made well 
in advance, techniques used to involve and encourage trainees across the board, their efficient use 
of time; and the fact that they were friendly, approachable are repeatedly noted. The quantitative 
analysis also yielded similar finding. Most of the respondents (81.7%) appreciated the trainers for 
their knowledgeable and other important qualities. 
In contrast, some respondents report that a minority of trainers lacked the requisite 
knowledge and skills in mother tongue language. Reasons for this lack include: the trainers were 
not working as classroom teachers and sometimes not working in schools at all; unable to read and 
write in the mother tongue language; “preach but not train”, they tell teachers to read fluently while 
they do not read fluently; and ill-organized (in situations where two trainers facilitate sessions in 
pairs). Similarly, about 12.2% and 6.1% of the respondents rated the trainers as moderately 
knowledgeable and less knowledgeable, respectively. Data revealed no apparent difference among 
language groups in terms of judging the knowledge of the trainers. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
21
3.3.3. Quality and selection of trainees
As pointed out by a few of the trainers there was some difference in interest as well as 
attitude towards learning mother tongue language teaching techniques between the first round and 
second round trainees. Accordingly, those in the first round are seen as active in the course of the 
training, capable of analyzing concepts, suggesting creative ways of mother tongue language 
teaching methods beyond what is noted in the training materials. In contrast, those in the second 
round have been described to have problems understanding mother tongue language teaching 
techniques and as such, they were less able, uninterested and unresponsive during the training. In 
general, the trainees as described by trainers were composed of those who can fairly be classified 
as either excellent or poor in two of the four language skills: reading and writing. 
This, according to many of the trainers, relate to poor recruitment criteria and procedure 
(selecting those who do not qualify for the training has been explained as nepotism and favoritism 
in the interest of collecting per-diem). Responses gathered from the trainers indicate a lack of 
uniformity in the application of the selection criterion for trainees. A trainer states, “Competent 
and motivated and subject area trainees should be selected. Among the selected ones there were 
unrelated subject area teachers like physics, teachers from grade 5-8, and trainees who 
participated the first round training.” In several training centers such “bad” trainees were replaced 
by the relevant ones. 
Limited comments on training use of time were provided by the trainees in attendance 
across regions. A trainee in Somali region stated the training was commenced “…as scheduled 
and completed successfully”. Whereas a trainee in Oromia region stated the training was delayed. 
Similarly, trainers across regions commented conflictingly. Based on the overall limited number 
of feedback received regarding use of time, the assumed majority conscience is that the trainings 
across regions used the available time efficiently. 
As an aspect of organization of the training, the respondents were asked to comment on 
whether or not the training was overseen by the concerned bodies. When asked, the majority of 
the respondents (96.5%) indicated that the training was overseen by experts from Regional State 
Education Bureaus, Zone and Woreda Education Office, Save the Children, and USAID staff. Out 
of these, respondents stated that the visit was highly (89%) and moderately (9%) helpful, 
respectively. Only 3% of participants expressed that the visits were not helpful. No difference has 
been observed among language groups in terms of describing the presence visits made by the 
concerned bodies. All the respondents who expressed that the visits were not helpful were from 
Afan Oromo and Af-Somali language groups. 
  
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
22
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 
4.1.Conclusions 
Though the evaluation found that overall, satisfaction with the government-to￾government training was high, the training went according to plan, and the experience of 
those involved in the training was positive, there are a number of important findings worth 
highlighting. 
1. The government – to – government approach implemented for the conduct of the training 
was largely effective and served its purpose. Parties involved are highly satisfied with the 
government-to-government approach. 
2. Although minor problems were observed during the training it can be said that the 
training was conducted as planned with the satisfaction of all involved. The mode of 
presentation was participatory and appropriate for adult learners. 
3. The content of the training and the way it was conducted made the training inspiring for 
the teacher trainees. Teachers who participated in the training were highly satisfied with 
the training offered. Those who started teaching immediately after the training were able 
to apply the knowledge they gained during the training and found it to be effective for 
teaching children to read in mother tongue language. Hence, it can be concluded that the 
training was effective and achieved its purpose. 
4. There was strong alignment between the training offered and the training materials, student 
textbooks and teacher’s guides. Because of the delay or lack of new textbooks and teacher’s 
guides in the schools, the impact of the training on classrooms and student reading levels 
has yet to be observed. This goes beyond the lack of materials, but has implications for the 
involvement of teachers and administrator at the school-level. READ M&E found that 
respondents, particularly teachers, found that the lack of knowledge of administrators made 
it difficult for them to implement the new curriculum. 
5. Many respondents reported an unintended positive impact of the training: a reinforcement 
of the importance of the language of instruction for reading being in mother tongue. 
Teachers took pride in using their respective mother tongue during the training and in the 
classroom. Though some teachers were initially confused by the concept of language 
training for native speakers, they eventually come to appreciate the content of the training. 
The following teacher quote illustrates this point:
“Initially there was a misunderstanding that since we are Tigrigna speakers, why 
do we need to take training? But later on, everyone was capable of realizing the 
importance of teaching reading and writing in particular and Tigrigna in general.” 
6. Teachers were very receptive to the new “I do, we do, you do” methodology and commonly 
reported that they use it in the classroom. The training emphasized this methodology and 
provided teachers with the opportunity to practice. Teachers often reported that the new 
methodology was the most important thing they learned from the training. Teachers report 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
23
observing improvements in student reading skills after they changed to the new 
methodology.
7. Trainers and trainees alike recommend that beyond scaling up through training remaining 
teachers, training cluster school supervisors and school principals is warranted. As one 
participant wrote, “Otherwise they would not initiate its implementation; nor support our 
[teachers’] attempt to put it into effect.” Moreover, education professionals in charge of 
assessing teachers’ performance, who were not exposed to the new training, will not be 
capable of accurately assessing actual teacher performance.
4.2.Recommendations for USAID and MoE 
Not all recommendations stem from READ II activities directly but address the needs of mother 
tongue language instruction more broadly. 
Recommendation #1: Distribute textbooks and teachers guides to every school for 
teachers to make full use of the training. Though READ II was a successful project, the impact 
of the project on student reading outcomes is limited by the lack of new materials in the classroom. 
Recommendation #2: Scale up teacher training to train greater number of mother tongue 
language teachers. During this training, pay attention to: 
o Coordinate the timing of the training with the receipt of the new textbooks 
o Hold trainings during school breaks 
o Screen participants to ensure compliance with selection criteria. 
Recommendation #3: Conduct separate training for school supervisors and school 
principals. During this training, pay attention to: 
o The importance of early grade reading achievement and mother tongue literacy 
o The methodology behind the new curriculum and new textbooks 
o How to observe the new methodology for teacher evaluation 
Recommendation #4: Conduct refresher trainings for the teachers teaching mother tongue. 
During this training, pay attention to: 
o Enabling teachers to share experiences and make recommendations to the textbook 
developers 
o Deepening teachers’ knowledge of early grade reading and mother tongue 
instruction with theoretical and practical applications 
o Prior to the training, teachers should be surveyed to ensure that the training 
curriculum meets their needs. 
 
  
Annex A: 
Teacher & Trainer Codebook READ II
The following table is the codebook, explaining the nodes that we’ll use for coding our data. Basically,
we’ll assign every part (or nearly every) word in the transcriptions that has not been otherwise entered
to one of these nodes.  
 Some nodes here are in grey stripes. That means they are parent codes. We’ll generally not code
to parent nodes. They are there just to organize the nodes that we will be using.
 Responses that are highlighted in green have been selected to be coded. Ideally, all other data
will be entered but we may shift some of that back to coding depending on resources.
 You’ll see in our data that some things have been crossed out. This means they have been
entered already and don’t need to be coded. The exception is data  highlighted in green and
crossed out. These data have been entered but also have snippets that we also want to code.
Please code them.  
Name of node When to use When not to use
1.1 training logistics
1.1.1 Use of time Any comment relating to time 
management during the training 
Comments relating to when the timing 
was scheduled or about the timing 
relating to materials 
1.1.2 per diem comments 
positive 
Any positive comment on per diem or 
costs that would be covered by per diem 
(including transportation and lodging for 
trainees) 
Comments not relating to per diem but 
other costs 
1.1.3 per diem comments 
negative 
Any negative comment on per diem or 
costs that would be covered by per diem 
(including transportation and lodging for 
trainees) 
Comments not relating to per diem but 
other costs 
1.1.4 food comments 
positive 
Any positive comment refreshments 
during the training 
Comments not relating to food or drink 
during the training 
1.1.5 food comments 
negative 
Any negative comment refreshments 
during the training 
Comments not relating to food or drink 
during the training 
1.2 training materials Misc comments on training materials that 
have not been crossed out. Most of this 
should have been entered. Training 
materials include resources needed for 
training, including markers, paper, as well 
as training guide, textbooks, and teacher 
guides. 
Any data not relating to training 
materials. 
1.3 training support staff All of these comments should have been 
entered. Anything remaining can be coded 
here. It relates to staff at the training who 
were not trainers. 
Comments on the trainers. 
2.1 training feedback 
2.1.1 training strengths General comments on good things about 
the training. 
Comments that are on specific things 
contained in other nodes. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
25
2.1.2 training weaknesses General comments on bad things about the 
training. 
Comments that are on specific things 
contained in other nodes. 
2.2 training presentation All of these comments should have been 
entered. Anything remaining can be coded 
here. It relates to comments on the 
methods of presentation of the training. 
Comments on the content of the 
materials. 
2.3 training language 
comments 
All of these comments should have been 
entered. Comments relating to the use of 
language (mother tongue) in the training 
or in general. 
Comments on attitudes towards mother 
tongue, as there is a separate node for 
that. 
2.4 trainers 
2.4.1 positive comments 
on trainers 
Any positive comments on the trainers. 
Much of this should have been entered. 
Comments that relate to the training 
and not trainers specifically. 
2.4.2 negative comments 
on trainers 
Any negative comments on the trainers. 
Much of this should have been entered. 
Comments that relate to the training 
and not trainers specifically. 
2.4.3 suggestions on 
trainers 
Ideas offered by respondents for the 
trainers, or for future training but that 
relates to trainers. 
Comments that are positive or negative 
and not focused on a suggestion for the 
future. For example, “this person 
would be a good traininer again” is a 
positive comment, not a suggestion. 
2.4.4 comment on trainer 
gender 
This code is used for comments 
specifically on female trainers. Either 
directly or indirectly, it should focus on 
gender. 
Comments on male trainers or general 
feedback on a trainer who happens to 
be female. 
2.5 training relevance Comments on if training was helpful for 
teaching or not. 
Comments on if they are using the new 
methodology, as that has a separate 
node. 
2.6. Impact on teaching 
2.6.1 received textbook All comments on whether the textbooks 
have or haven’t reached the schools. 
Comments on textbook availability 
during the training. 
2.6.3 are using new 
methodology I do you do 
we do 
All comments on teachers using the new 
methodology. 
Related comments on the 
methodology. 
2.6.4 are not using new 
methodology 
Comments on teachers not using the new 
methodology. 
Related comments on the 
methodology. 
2.7 Impact on reading 
outcomes 
2.7.1 Students are 
reading better 
Positive comments on student reading 
outcomes that are better because of the 
training. This includes examples and 
numbers on improved students. 
Comments on student reading that 
aren’t related to the training or new 
materials. 
2.7.2 no impact on 
students 
Comments on how the training has not 
impacted students. This may be because 
they are not using the new methodology, 
they don’t have new books, or it is not 
effective. 
Comments that say the results of the 
training are either positive or negative. 
2.8 Satisfaction from 
training 
Most of these should have been entered. 
Any general comments on respondent’s 
general satisfaction from the training. 
Comments that get into specifics 
covered by other nodes. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
26
2.9 What teaching Most of these should have been entered. 
Any general comments on respondent’s 
teaching. 
Comments that get into specifics 
covered by other nodes. 
2.10 General comment Other comments about the training not 
covered by other nodes. 
Comments that get into specifics 
covered by other nodes. 
2.11 How improve 
training 
2.11.1 training length Comments that are suggestions regarding 
the length of the training. 
Comments that get into specifics 
covered by other nodes. 
2.11.2 when training 
should be 
Comments that are suggestions regarding 
the timing of the training. 
Comments that get into specifics 
covered by other nodes. 
2.12 Recommendations 
for future 
2.12.1 give materials on 
time 
Comments on getting the materials either 
for the training or materials for schools. 
Comments on having the materials. 
2.12.2 notify of training 
participation on time 
Comments on the advance notice given 
about the training. This also includes 
negative comments on notification timing. 
Comments on the length of the 
training, or when the training should be 
held. 
2.12.3 train all mother 
tongue teachers 
Comments where respondents recommend 
training all teachers who teach mother 
tongue. 
Comments on training teachers who do 
not teach mother tongue but use it as 
medium of instruction for other 
subject. 
2.12.4 train other 
teachers 
Comments on training other teachers who 
are not mother tongue teachers. 
Comments on training mother tongue 
teachers. 
2.12.5 other Any other comments on recommendations 
for other training. 
Comments that fit other nodes above. 
2.13 feedback on 
materials 
2.13.1 not enough time 
for each lesson/ material 
in book in general 
Comments on the time needed to use the 
materials in the classroom. 
Comments relating to the time used 
during the training. 
2.13.2 other negative 
feedback on materials 
Negative feedback on materials not 
included in other nodes. This includes 
comments on alignment. 
Comments on training materials that 
aren’t textbooks. 
2.13.3 positive feedback 
on materials 
Positive feedback on the materials, 
including comments on alignment. 
Comments on training materials that 
aren’t textbooks. 
2.14 trainee selection and 
demographics 
2.14.1 trainee skill level Comments on the abilities of the trainees. Comments on the abilities of the 
trainers. 
2.14.2 trainee attitude 
towards mother tongue 
Comments on the attitudes of toward 
mother tongue, either as used in the 
training or in general. 
Comments on materials relating to 
mother tongue. 
2.14.3 trainee selection 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
27
2.14.3.1 bad trainee 
selection 
Negative comments on who participated in 
the training as a trainee. 
Comments on trainee skills that don’t 
imply the teacher should not have been 
selected. 
2.14.4 follow-up training Comments on who should be trained that 
is not “train all mother tongue teachers.” 
Comments on train all mother tongue 
teachers as that is a separate node. 
3 good quotes Use this for quotes that we might want to 
use in our report. Most of these should be 
double-coded into another node as well. 
Focus on coding data that captures 
respondents’ feelings concisely and 
clearly, and can’t otherwise be expressed 
through numbers, or supports the bigger 
themes of our findings. 
Don’t use this too often or we’ll end up 
with a list that’s too big and we won’t 
use all the quotes in our report. 
FMOE, RSEB, ZEO, WEO, USAID Experts Codebook READ II
The following table is the code book explaining the nodes that will be used for coding data collected from experts 
working for the FMOE, RSEB, ZEO, WEO, USAID.
Name of Node When to use When not to use 
I Government to Government 
Support
 1.1 knowledge about READ II Any information related to knowledge 
about READ II 
Information other than 
READ II 
 1.2 use of the project Any comment toward improving 
children’s reading skill in mother tongue 
language by MOE and RSEBs 
Other comments not 
related to improving 
children’s reading skill in 
mother tongue language 
 1.3 reimbursement positive Any positive comments on Fixed Amount 
Reimbursement Agreement 
Positive comments related 
to training or impact on 
reading skills. 
 1.4 reimbursements negative Any negative comments on Fixed 
Amount Reimbursement Agreement 
Negative comments 
related to training or 
impact on reading skills. 
 1.5 government to government 
support positive 
Any positive comments related to READ 
II’s help to MOE and RSEBs 
 Any positive Comments 
not related to G2G 
support 
 1.6 government to government 
support negative 
Any negative comments related to 
READ II’s help to MOE and RSEBs 
Any negative Comments 
not relating to G2G 
support 
 1.7 communication and 
transparency 
Any comment on communication and 
accountability among stockholders 
Comments that are on 
specific things contained 
in other nods 
 1.8 how to improve G2G 
supports 
Any recommendations related to 
improving G2G support 
 Recommendations not 
related to G2G support 
II Training feedback 
 2.1training strength Any comments on the presence of agreed 
up on plane and implementation 
Comments that are on 
specific things contained 
in other nodes 
 2.2.training weaknesses Any comment on absence of agreed up on 
plane and 
Comments that are on 
specific things contained 
in other nodes 
 2.3 comments on selection criteria 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
28
 2.3.1 positive comments on 
selection 
All positive comments concerning 
criteria and the process of selections of 
trainees 
Other point other than 
selection 
 2.3.2 negative comments on 
selection 
All negative comments related to poor 
criteria set and any problem created on 
selection of trainees 
Comments on number of 
tranees 
 2.3.3.comment on number of 
trainees 
Comments on planed number of trainees Comments on other 
subject teachers 
 2.3.4 Documents of the trainees Any comments related to written 
document showing list and or number of 
trainees 
Comments not related to 
documents of trainees 
 2.4.roles played 
 2.4.1 roles of FMOE Comments on role played at MOE Roles played not by 
MOE. 
 2.4.2 roles of RSEB Comments on role played at RSEB roles played not by 
RSEB 
 2.4.3 roles of ZEO Comments on role played at ZEO roles played not by ZEO 
 2.4.4 roles of WEO Comments on role played at WEO roles played not by 
WEO 
 2.4.5 roles of schools Comments on role played at schools roles played not by 
Schools 
 2.4.6 no idea and /or no clear 
roles given 
Where there is no clear roles and don’t 
know the roles at different levels 
role played at different 
echelons of the 
education system 
 2.5.comments on coordination 
 2.5.2 problem encountered Any problem encountered in coordinating 
and conducting the training 
Comments that relate to 
budget and quota 
 2.5.1 positive comments on 
coordination 
Good comments in coordination Comments that relate to 
budget and quota 
 2.5.3 measure taken Any corrective measures taken to solve 
problems created in coordinating the 
program 
Measures that relate to 
budget and quota 
 2.6 curriculum materials Any comment on curriculum and 
materials including preparation and 
distribution 
Any comment unrelated 
to curriculum and 
materials 
 2.7general comments on quality 
of the training 
Other comments about the training not 
covered by other nodes 
Comments that get in to 
specifics covered by other 
nodes 
III General comments and 
Recommendation 
 3.1 satisfaction on the training Any general comments on respondent’s 
general satisfaction from the training 
Comments that get in to 
specifics covered by other 
nodes 
 3.2 general comments 
 3.2.1 Positive comments Positive comments on good things about 
the training 
Comments that get in to 
specifics covered by other 
nodes 
 3.2.2 Negative comments General comments on weakness about 
the training 
Comments that get in to 
specifics covered by other 
nodes 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
29
 3.2.3 negative comments on 
quota, budget and materials 
Any comments on insufficient number 
of trainees, lack of allocated budget and 
training materials 
Comments that fit to other 
nodes. 
 3.3 Recommendations Any other comments on 
recommendations for other trainings. 
Comments that fit other 
nodes above. 
IV Good quotes 
 4.Good quotes Any good quotes that we might want to 
use in our report. Most of the quotes may 
be double-coded into another node as 
well. 
Do not use similar quotes 
repeatedly and do not use 
this too often 
 
  
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
30
Annex B 
Overall Demographics of Respondents
A total of 241 (M = 128 and F = 113) teachers, trainers, experts and national program leaders 
participated in this performance evaluation. The distribution of the respondents by gender is 
presented in Table 6. 
Table 6: 
The Distribution of Respondents by Sex and Region 
Participants 
Region 
Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Somali Total 
Male 13 18 21 53 22 127 
Female 13 28 36 30 6 113 
Total 26 46 57 83 28 240 
One respondent from Amhara failed to indicate his/her sex. As shown in the above table, the 
proportion of males and females is not the same across regions. For example, more male teachers 
than female teachers were represented in the evaluation from Somali Region. On the other hand, 
more female teachers than males participated in the evaluation from Amhara and Oromia Regions. 
This may partly indicate the actual sex distribution of primary school teachers who are teaching 
mother tongue language. 
Table 7: 
The Distribution of Sex by Respondent Type 
 Participants 
Respondent Type 
Teacher Trainer Expert Total 
Male 48 47 32 127 
Female 99 8 6 113 
Total 147 55 38 240 
When seen by respondent type, the representation of women is high in teaching position while 
extremely low as trainers and experts working at different levels. 
The average age of the respondents is found to be 38.96 with standard deviation of 10.226 years. 
The standard deviation indicates high variability of the age distribution of the respondents. The 
youngest respondent is 20 years - old whereas the oldest is 60 years - old. Table 8 provides the 
details the age distribution of the respondents. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
31
Table 8: 
Age Distribution of the Respondents by Sex 
Age 
Male Female Total 
N % N % N % 
20 – 26 13 10.3 13 11.5 26 10.9 
27 – 33 22 17.5 40 35.4 62 25.9 
34 – 40 27 21.4 27 23.9 54 22.6 
41 – 47 20 15.8 9 8.0 29 12.1 
48 – 54 30 23.8 21 18.6 51 21.3 
55 – 61 14 11.1 3 2.7 17 7.1 
Total 126 100.0 113 100.0 239 100.0
Consistent with the age distribution of the respondents, high variation is also observed in the 
service year of those who participated in this performance evaluation. The average service year of 
the respondents is 18.6 with standard deviation of 10.419 years. The service year ranges between 
1 and 38 years. 
Table 9: 
The Distribution of Service Year by Sex of respondents 
Service Year 
Male Female Total 
N % N % N % 
 1 – 7 18 14.2 12 10.7 30 12.6 
 8 – 14 33 26.0 45 40.2 78 32.6 
15 – 21 20 15.7 21 18.6 41 17.2 
22 – 28 17 13.4 12 10.7 29 12.1 
29 – 35 32 25.2 19 17.0 51 21.3 
36–42 7 5.5 3 2.7 10 4.2 
Total 127 100.0 112 100.0 239 100.0 
About 70% of female teachers have service year 21 years or below while 56% of male teachers 
have the same service year during the period of data collection. Similarly, the analysis yielded that 
about 83% of male and female teachers participated in this evaluation have been teaching mother 
tongue language for about 21 years or below. It appears from the data that proportionally more 
male teachers than female teachers who have 7 years or below teaching experience on mother 
tongue language. Table 10 presents the details. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
32
Table 10: 
The Distribution of Years of Teaching Mother Tongue Language of respondents 
Service Year 
Male Female Total 
N % N % N % 
 1 – 7 21 43.8 25 25.5 46 31.5 
 8 – 14 7 14.6 36 36.7 43 29.4 
15 – 21 15 31.3 17 17.3 32 21.9 
22 – 28 2 4.1 10 10.2 12 8.2 
29 – 35 2 4.1 9 9.2 11 7.5 
36 – 42 1 2.1 1 1.0 2 1.4 
Total 48 100.0 98 100.0 146 100.0 
The table below summarizes the descriptive measures of the participants of the READ II project 
terminal performance evaluation on three demographic characteristics viz. age of the respondents, 
service year, and years of teaching mother tongue language. 
Table 11: 
Summary of Descriptive Measures by Type of Respondents 
Variable 
Type of
Respondent N Mean 
Std. 
Deviation Minimum Maximum 
Age of the respondents 
Teacher 148 38.06 11.024 20 60 
Trainer 54 39.72 8.424 26 58 
Expert 38 41.39 8.991 25 58 
Total 240 38.96 10.226 20 60 
Years working 
Teacher 147 17.97 11.149 1 37 
Trainer 55 18.84 9.245 2 35 
Expert 38 20.74 8.922 4 38 
Total 240 18.60 10.419 1 38 
Years teaching mother
tongue language 
Teacher 147 13.12 9.155 1 37 
The average year that the teachers engaged in teaching mother tongue language is 13.12 with 
standard deviation of 9.155. As the standard deviation clearly shows, there is high variability 
among teachers participated in the evaluation with respect to the years they were engaged in 
teaching mother tongue language. 
Profile of the Trainers
50 Master Trainers and 1197 Teacher Trainers were recruited and trained by READ TA and Save 
the Children, respectively. READ II was responsible for the training of teachers. The interview 
with national program leaders yielded that the criteria for selecting master trainers and teacher 
trainers were set by READ TA and the MoE at national level. There was consensus that the master 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
33
trainers must be those who participated in curriculum development and should entirely be from 
CTEs. It was also agreed that teacher trainers should be selected from CTEs, secondary schools 
(highly experienced teachers), and supervisors. In the absence of experienced language teachers 
and supervisors, it was decided that people from RSEBs, or Zones should be selected to serve as 
teacher trainers. According to the respondents, master trainers and teacher trainers were selected 
by regions as per the criteria set. It is the belief of the interviewees that no teacher trainers were 
selected from primary schools. 
However, as presented in Table 12, there is slight deviation from what has been agreed upon. As 
shown in the table below, 62.8% of Teacher Trainers were teachers selected from high schools and 
the second majority of teachers (16%) were selected from primary schools in the five regions and 
seven language groups. When examined across language groups, apparent difference was observed 
in terms of the profile of teacher trainers selected from regions. For example, 92.9% of teacher 
trainers from Af-Somali language group were selected from primary schools while only 0.01% 
primary school teachers were selected and trained as teacher trainers from Tigrigna language 
group. About the same percent of primary school teachers (19.1% and 16%) were selected and 
trained as teacher trainers from Amhara and Afan Oromo language groups, respectively. None 
from Hadiyyissa and Sidaamu Afoo and 8.2% from Wolayittatto language groups were selected 
from primary school teachers to serve as teacher trainers. Such difference in the profile of teacher 
trainers might have an impact on the quality of teacher training. The details are presented in Table 
12. 
Table 12: 
Teacher Trainers by Language and Occupation 
No. Occupation 
Tigri￾gna Amhara 
Afan 
Oromo 
Af - 
Somal
i 
Wolayi
-ttatto 
Hadi
yissa 
Sidaam
uAfoo Total 
N N N N N N N 
1 Primary School Teachers 1 35 113 39 4 - - 192 
2 High School Teachers 49 130 479 - 29 32 33 752 
3 Preparatory Teachers 9 3 60 - - - - 72 
4 University/College 
Teachers 
14 13 - - 6 3 2 38 
5 REB Exerts 5 2 5 1 8 - - 21 
6 Zone EO Experts 39 - 49 1 2 5 23 119 
7 Other 1 - - - - - - 1 
8 Unknown - - 1 1 - - - 2 
Total 118 183 707 42 49 40 58 1197 
Source: List of Training of Trainers (August 31-September 9, 2014) obtained from READ TA 
 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
34
Annex C 
Interview Guide for Experts from RSEBs, Zones and Woreda Education Offices
Procedures for informed consent  
Verbal consent will be obtained from participants.  
Testing materials include 
Interviewer clock 
Checklist of procedures  
Obtain verbal consent from participant. 
Conduct interview. 
Debrief following each interview. 
Please type up notes in tables! 
Interviewer’s name 
Interview’s code 
Region 
Language Group 
Cell phone of the interviewer 
Background and informed consent
Background and informed consent 
My name is (name of the interviewer) and I’ll be talking with you today. Also here with us 
today is (name of the note taker), who will be taking notes. We work for an independent 
nonprofit research organization called American Institutes for Research (AIR). We are 
conducting an end of the project performance evaluation of Reading for Ethiopia’s 
Achievement Developed Institutional Improvement (READ II). 
The purpose of today’s interview is to learn about the training offered by READ II in 
collaboration with the MoE and RSEBs. We will be recording this conversation to help 
capture what you say accurately. All information that is collected will be treated 
confidentially. Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. While 
results from this discussion will be shared with USAID and the MoE, no individual will be 
identified in any report. Participation in this discussion is voluntary and you do not have to 
answer any questions you do not want to answer. 
If you have questions about the discussion, please contact Daniel Tefera - the principal 
investigator at 0911 663402. You can also email Daniel Tefera at: dtefera@gmail.com. If 
you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American 
Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of 
project participants) at IRB@air.org, or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
35
The interview will last approximately 90 minutes. We have a lot of questions to ask, but we 
want to respect your time. So I may ask you to move to another topic at some point in the 
discussion. Please let us know if you have any time constraints. 
Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate today? 
 Option 1: If the participant does not grant permission, end here. 
 Option 2: If the participant grants permission, please proceed to the next section and begin 
the interview. 
Thank you 
Duration of the interview  (90 minutes total)
Approximate Time Topic Elapsed Time 
5 Background and informed consent 5 
10 Demographic Data 15 
10 Introductory questions 25 
20 Government to government support program 45 
20 Quality of the training 65 
20 Overall satisfaction with the training 85 
5 Closing 90 
Demographic Data  (Start at 6 min. End at 15 min) 
Code of participant 
Age 
Sex 
Current position 
Work experience in 
years 
 
Region 
Zone 
Woreda 
Date of Interview 
Time of interview 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
36
Introductory questions                       (Starts at 15 min. End at 25 min)
Please tell us tell your name and your favorite pastime. 
Please tell us about your position and how it is related to READ II. 
Government to Government support program    (Starts at 26 min. End at 45 min)
1. What do you know about READ Institutional Improvement project? 
1.1. Do you think that READ II project has helped MoE and RSEBs in terms of improving 
their activities directed toward improving children’s reading skill in mother tongue 
language? If yes, how? 
1.2. Has Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) made between USAID and the 
MOE worked as desired?
1.3. Do you think that each party involved in the agreement has successfully carried out its 
responsibilities? If yes, can you elaborate by giving examples? 
1.3.1. Were there periodic meetings to review accomplishments and address challenges and 
issues arising during implementation of the Project? 
1.3.2. Have the parties involved conducted coordinated field visits to oversee the 
accomplishment of the project? 
1.4. What were the successes of this project? In other words, what aspects of the project have 
worked well? 
1.5. What aspects of the project did not work? What measures were taken to change the 
situation? What were the consequences, if any? 
1.6. What aspects of the government to government support program could be improved 
upon? 
Quality of the training   (46 min. End at 65 min.)
2. Was there agreed upon plan to conduct the training? If yes, would you please provide us with 
adequate description of this agreed upon plan and schedule? 
2.1. Do you think that the trainings were conducted and executed as per the agreed upon plan 
and schedule? If not, what were the possible reasons? 
2.2. How many teachers were trained in your region, zone or woreda? Can you provide us with 
written documents or the attendance of the trainees? 
2.3. What was the mechanism for selecting teachers for the training? 
2.3.1. Whose major responsibility was it? 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
37
2.3.2. Weren’t there better alternatives to select teachers for the training? 
2.3.3. Were there problems encountered in the selection of teachers for the training? If 
yes, what procedures did you follow to solve problems faced? 
2.4. What roles did the MOE, RSEBs, ZED, WEO and the schools played in conducting the 
training? 
2.5. How do you rate the level of coordination among the schools, WEO, ZED, and the RSEBs 
in organizing and conducting the training? 
2.5.1. Was there problem encountered in organizing and conducting the training? If yes, 
can you describe in detail? 
2.5.2. What was the measure taken to solve the problem? 
2.6. Do you think that you have successfully managed and completed the training? 
Overall satisfaction with the training   (66 min. End at 85 min)
3. What is your overall comment about the training conducted by READ II? 
3.1. If there is another chance of organizing similar training, what aspects of the training do 
you think should be improved? Why? 
3.2. Do you have any recommendation you may forward about organizing similar training?
3.3. Is there anything else that you want to add?
Closing  (86 min. End at 90 min.)
Is there anything I did not ask about that you would like to share with me? Do you have any additional
thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you very much for participating in this discussion today.
Staff facilitating the interview will debrief following the interview to discuss issues including but not
limited to:
 What worked and did not work 
 Lessons learned 
 Issues to address in future interviews 
 Issues to follow up on with the research team or client 
 Key points to note in data analysis 
Please type up notes as soon as possible after interviews! 
Interview Guide for Master and Teacher Trainers
Procedures for informed consent  
Verbal consent will be obtained from participants. 
Materials include 
Interviewer clock 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
38
Voice recorder 
Checklist of procedures  
Obtain verbal consent from participant. 
Conduct interview. 
Debrief following each interview. 
Please type up notes in tables! 
Interviewer’s name 
Interview’s Code 
Region 
Language Group 
Cell phone of the interviewer 
Background and informed consent
Background and informed consent 
My name is (name of the interviewer) and I’ll be talking with you today. Also here with us 
today is (name of the note taker), who will be taking notes. We work for an independent 
nonprofit research organization called American Institutes for Research (AIR). We are 
conducting an end of the project performance evaluation of Reading for Ethiopia’s 
Achievement Developed (READ II). 
The purpose of today’s interview is to learn about the training offered by READ II in 
collaboration with the MoE and RSEBs. We will be recording this conversation to help 
capture what you say accurately. All information that is collected will be treated 
confidentially. Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. While 
results from this discussion will be shared with USAID and the MoE, no individual will be 
identified in any report. Participation in this discussion is voluntary and you do not have to 
answer any questions you do not want to answer. 
If you have questions about the discussion, please contact Daniel Tefera - the principal 
investigator at 0911 663402. You can also email Daniel Tefera at: dtefera@gmail.com. If 
you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American 
Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of 
project participants) at IRB@air.org, or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA. 
The interview will last approximately 90 minutes. We have a lot of questions to ask, but we 
want to respect your time. So I may ask you to move to another topic at some point in the 
discussion. Please let us know if you have any time constraints. 
Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate today? 
 Option 1: If the participant does not grant permission, end here. 
 Option 2: If the participant grants permission, please proceed to the next section and begin 
the interview. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
39
Thank you 
Duration of the interview (90 minutes total)
Approximate Time Topic Elapsed Time 
5 Background and informed consent 5 
10 Demographic Data 15 
5 Introductory questions 20 
15 The organization of the training 35 
15 Quality of the training 50 
15 Quality of the trainees 65 
15 Relevance of the training 80 
5 Overall impressions and recommendations 85 
5 Closing 90 
Demographic Data  (Start at 6 min. End at 15 min) 
Code of participant 
Age 
Sex 
Current position 
Serving as a) master trainer 
or b) teacher trainer? 
 
Years of service 
Region 
Zone 
Woreda 
Name of school (if 
applicable) 
 
What training did you receive 
(to be a trainer)? 
 
What training did you facilitate? 
Venue of the training 
Date of Interview 
Introductory questions                       (Starts at 15 min. End at 21 min)
Please tell us your name and your favorite pastime. 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
40
Please tell us what you think are the best ways to teach reading and writing 
The organization of your training as a trainer    (Starts at 21 min. End at 35 min)
2. My next questions will be about the training you received where you learned to be a trainer in 
collaboration with READ II on the teaching of reading in mother tongue language.
1. How do you see the appropriateness of the training venue in terms of location, cleanliness, 
and freedom from distraction? 
2. Was the training properly organized in terms of sitting arrangement, light and ventilation? 
3. Was the location appropriate for doing group activities and other similar activities? 
4. Were there training materials during the training? Were they adequate in number? 
5. Were there individuals who oversaw the training activities? 
6. Were these individuals helpful in solving problems related to the training? 
7. Would you please mention the strengths and weaknesses of the way the training was 
organized? 
Quality of the training you received  (36 min. End at 50 min.)
3. In your opinion, what are the key criteria of high quality training? 
4. Did the training offered by FMoE and/or RSEBs in collaboration with READ II on the teaching 
of reading in mother tongue language meet these criteria? Why or why not?
5. Did you benefit from any special training as a trainer? If yes, to what extent has the training 
you received helped you deliver high quality training?
6. Following are some indicators of training quality, to what extent did the training of the teaching 
of reading in mother tongue meet these indicators: 
1. the presence of training materials like teacher’s guide and students textbooks
2. the quality of the training materials made available
3. the provision of supporting materials like stationaries
4. degree of preparedness for the training 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
41
5. methods of presenting the contents of the training materials (were they participatory?)
6. language use during the training
7. Are there other quality indicators that you wish to comment on with regard to the training?
Quality of the trainees who you trained  (51 min. End at 65 min)
7. How do you perceive the trainees in terms of: 
1. their knowledge about teaching reading in mother tongue language
2. their attitude about teaching reading in mother tongue language 
3. their level of interest in the training
4. the extent to which they understood the training concepts
5. the extent to which they participated actively in the training 
8. What’s your overall evaluation of the trainees’ ability to benefit from the training?
Relevance of the training    (66 min. End at 80 min)
9. To what extent was the training manual and the training you provided aligned with the newly 
developed mother tongue materials including teachers’ guide and student textbooks? 
1. Was the training helpful to teach reading in mother tongue language? If yes, how? If no, 
why? 
2. Do you think that the training will help teachers change their teaching methodology? 
Please give example(s) if it did. 
3. Please give us examples of how you believe students will be reading better as a result of 
teachers implementing the training practices in their teaching of reading. 
4. If the training did not help in changing the way teachers teach, please tell us why. 
5. Is it easy to transfer the knowledge that teachers gain from the training to teaching reading 
in mother tongue language? Please give example(s). If it is difficult to transfer the training 
practices, please tell us about where the difficulty comes from. 
10. If you are asked to describe your level of satisfaction with the training, what do you say about 
it? Are you satisfied with the training? From your perception of the way the training was 
conducted, what per cent of the trainees do you think seemed to be satisfied with the training? 
Overall impressions about the training and recommendations for further improvement     (81 min. End 
at 85 min)
11. What is your overall comment about the master trainers or teacher trainers training conducted 
by READ II? 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
42
1. If there is another chance of organizing similar training, what aspects of the training do 
you think should be improved? Why? 
2. Do you have any recommendation you may forward about organizing similar training? 
3. Is there anything that you want to add? 
12. What is your overall comment about the teacher training of teachers? 
1. If there is another chance of organizing similar training, what aspects of the training do 
you think should be improved? Why? 
2. Do you have any recommendation you may forward about organizing similar training? 
3. Is there anything that you want to add? 
Closing   (86 min. End at 90 min.) 
Thank you very much for participating in this discussion today.
Staff facilitating the interview will debrief following the interview to discuss issues including but not
limited to:
 What worked and did not work 
 Lessons learned 
 Issues to address in future interviews 
 Issues to follow up on with the research team or client 
 Key points to note in data analysis 
Please type up notes as soon as possible after interviews!
Interview Guide for Teachers
Procedures for informed consent  
Verbal consent will be obtained from participants. 
Materials include 
Interviewer clock 
Voice recorder 
Checklist of procedures  
Obtain verbal consent from participant. 
Conduct interview. 
Debrief following each interview. 
Please type up notes in tables! 
Interviewer’s name 
Interview’s code 
Region 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
43
Language Group 
Cell phone of the interviewer 
Background and informed consent
Background and informed consent 
My name is (name of the interviewer) and I’ll be talking with you today. Also here with us 
today is (name of the note taker), who will be taking notes. We work for an independent 
nonprofit research organization called American Institutes for Research (AIR). We are 
conducting an end of the project performance evaluation of Reading for Ethiopia’s 
Achievement Developed (READ II). 
The purpose of today’s interview is to learn about the training offered by READ II in 
collaboration with the MoE and RSEBs. We will be recording this conversation to help 
capture what you say accurately. All information that is collected will be treated 
confidentially. Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. While 
results from this discussion will be shared with USAID and the MoE, no individual will be 
identified in any report. Participation in this discussion is voluntary and you do not have to 
answer any questions you do not want to answer. 
If you have questions about the discussion, please contact Daniel Tefera - the principal 
investigator at 0911 663402. You can also email Daniel Tefera at: dtefera@gmail.com. If 
you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American 
Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of 
project participants) at IRB@air.org, or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA. 
The interview will last approximately 90 minutes. We have a lot of questions to ask, but we 
want to respect your time. So I may ask you to move to another topic at some point in the 
discussion. Please let us know if you have any time constraints. 
Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate today? 
 Option 1: If the participant does not grant permission, end here. 
 Option 2: If the participant grants permission, please proceed to the next section and begin 
the interview. 
Thank you 
Duration of the interview  (90 minutes total)
Approximate Time Topic Elapsed Time 
5 Background and informed consent 5 
10 Demographic Data 15 
5 Introductory questions 20 
15 The organization of the training 35 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
44
15 Quality of the training 50 
15 Quality of the trainers 65 
15 Relevance of the training 80 
5 Overall impressions and recommendations 85 
5 Closing 90 
Demographic Data  (Start at 6 min. End at 15 min) 
Code of participant 
Age 
Sex 
Years of service in teaching 
Years of service in teaching mother tongue 
language 
 
Region 
Zone 
Woreda 
Name of school 
When did the interviewee participate in the training? 
First Round 
Second Round 
Venue of the training 
Date of Interview 
Time of interview 
Introductory questions                       (Starts at 15 min. End at 21 min)
Please tell us tell your name and your favorite pastime. 
Please tell us what you in your opinion are the best ways to teach reading and writing. 
The organization of the training     (Starts at 21 min. End at 35 min)
13. Do you remember the training offered by teacher trainers in your school on the teaching of 
reading in mother tongue language?
1. How do you see the appropriateness of the training venue in terms of location, cleanliness, 
freedom from distraction, sitting arrangement, light and ventilation? 
2. Was the location appropriate for doing group activities and other similar activities? 
3. Were there training materials during the training? Were they adequate in number? 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
45
4. Were there individuals who oversaw the training activities? 
5. Were these individuals helpful in solving problems related to the training? 
6. Would you please mention the strengths and weaknesses of the way the training was 
organized? 
Quality of the training   (36 min. End at 50 min.)
14. If you try to remember the way the training was conducted, how do you look at the quality of 
the training in terms of:
1. the presence of training materials like teacher’s guide and students textbooks?
2. the quality of the training materials made available?
3. the provision of supporting materials like stationaries?
4. degree of preparedness for the training? 
5. methods of presenting the contents of the training materials? Was it participatory?
6. language use during the training? 
Quality of the trainers   (51 min. End at 65 min)
15. How do you perceive the trainers in terms of: 
1. their knowledge or mastery of the material they delivered?
2. their preparation for the training?
3. the extent to which they conveyed the training concepts?
4. the extent to which they engaged trainees actively in the training? 
5. your overall evaluations of the trainers?
Relevance of the training    (66 min. End at 80 min)
16. How was the degree of the alignment of the training manual and the training you received with 
the newly developed mother tongue materials including teachers’ guide and student textbooks? 
1. Was the training helpful to teach reading in mother tongue language? If yes, how? If no, 
why? 
2. Do you think that the training helped you in changing your teaching methodology? Please 
give example(s) if it did. 
3. Please give us examples of whether you observe your students are reading better as a result 
of you changing your teaching methodology. How do you observe this? 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
46
4. Was it easy to transfer the knowledge you gained from the training to teaching reading in 
mother tongue language? Please give example(s). If it was difficult to transfer what you 
learned, please tell us about where the difficulty came from. 
17. If you are asked to describe your level of satisfaction with the training, what do you say about 
it? Are you satisfied with the training? From your perception of the way the training was 
conducted, what per cent of the trainees do you think seemed to be satisfied with the training? 
18. What were you teaching before the training? Are you currently teaching mother tongue 
language? If yes, at what grade level are you teaching mother tongue language now? 
Overall impressions about the training and recommendations for further improvement     (81 min. End 
at 85 min)
19. What is your overall comment about the training you received? 
1. If there is another chance of organizing similar training, what aspects of the training do 
you think should be improved? Why? 
2. Do you have any recommendation you may forward about organizing similar training? 
3. Is there anything that you want to add? 
Closing   (86 min. End at 90 min.) 
Thank you very much for participating in this discussion today.
Staff facilitating the interview will debrief following the interview to discuss issues including but not
limited to:
 What worked and did not work 
 Lessons learned 
 Issues to address in future interviews 
 Issues to follow up on with the research team or client 
 Key points to note in data analysis 
Please type up notes as soon as possible after interviews!
Interview Guide for National Program Leaders
Procedures for informed consent  
Verbal consent will be obtained from participants. 
Testing materials include 
Interviewer clock 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
47
Checklist of procedures  
Obtain verbal consent from participant. 
Conduct interview. 
Debrief following each interview. 
Please type up notes in tables! 
Interviewer’s name 
Region 
Language Group 
Cell phone of the interviewer 
Background and informed consent
Background and informed consent 
My name is (name of the interviewer) and I’ll be talking with you today. Also here with us 
today is (name of the note taker), who will be taking notes. We work for an independent 
nonprofit research organization called American Institutes for Research (AIR). We are 
conducting an end of the project performance evaluation of Reading for Ethiopia’s 
Achievement Developed (READ II). 
The purpose of today’s interview is to learn about the training offered by READ II in 
collaboration with the MoE and RSEBs. We will be recording this conversation to help 
capture what you say accurately. All information that is collected will be treated 
confidentially. Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. While 
results from this discussion will be shared with USAID and the MoE, no individual will be 
identified in any report. Participation in this discussion is voluntary and you do not have to 
answer any questions you do not want to answer. 
If you have questions about the discussion, please contact Daniel Tefera - the principal 
investigator at 0911 663402. You can also email Daniel Tefera at: dtefera@gmail.com. If 
you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American 
Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of 
project participants) at IRB@air.org, or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA. 
The interview will last approximately 60 minutes. We have a lot of questions to ask, but we 
want to respect your time. So I may ask you to move to another topic at some point in the 
discussion. Please let us know if you have any time constraints. 
Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate today? 
 Option 1: If the participant does not grant permission, end here. 
 Option 2: If the participant grants permission, please proceed to the next section and begin 
the interview. 
Thank you 
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
48
Duration of the interview  (90 minutes total)
Approximate 
Time 
Topic Elapsed 
Time 
5 Background and informed consent 5 
2 Demographic Data 7 
7 Introductory questions 15 
20 Relevance of the Government to Government support program and READ II 35 
20 Effectiveness of the G2G and READ II 55 
5 Closing 60 
Demographic Data  (Start at 6 min. End at 8 min) 
Code of participant 
Date of Interview 
Time of interview 
Introductory questions                       (Starts at 8 min. End at 15 min)
Please introduce yourself, your official position, and what role you play with regard to READ II. 
Please tell us what you believe are the best ways to teach reading and writing. 
Relevance of the government to government support program and READ II                   (Starts at 16 min. 
End at 35 min) 
4. To what extent is G2G support program consistent with 
4.1. National education priorities? 
4.2. Regional education priorities? 
4.3. Beneficiary needs? 
5. To what extent do the G2G objectives correctly address well identified problem? 
6. What were the assumptions underlying the implementation of G2G? 
7. Were these assumptions realistic? 
8. Do you think that READ II project has helped MoE and RSEBs in terms of improving their 
activities directed toward improving children’s reading skill in mother tongue language? If 
yes, how? 
Effectiveness of the G2G support program and READ II                                         (Starts at 35 min. End at 55 
min) 
1. Has Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) made between USAID and the MOE 
worked as desired?
Performance Evaluation of READ II READ M&E   November 2015
49
2. Do you think that each party involved in the agreement has successfully carried out its 
responsibilities? If yes, can you elaborate by giving examples? 
3. Were there periodic meetings to review accomplishments and address challenges and issues 
arising during implementation of the Project? 
4. Have the parties involved conducted coordinated field visits to oversee the accomplishment 
of the project? 
5. What aspects of the READ II project have worked well? Were those intended 
consequences? 
6. What aspects of the READ II project did not work? Were those unintended 
consequences? 
7. What measures were taken to change the situation? What were the consequences, if any? 
8. What aspects of the government to government support program could be improved 
upon? 
Closing   (55 min. End at 60 min.) 
Is there anything I did not ask about that you would like to share with me? Do you have any additional
thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you very much for participating in this discussion today.
Staff facilitating the interview will debrief following the interview to discuss issues including but not
limited to:
 What worked and did not work 
 Lessons learned 
 Issues to address in future interviews 
 Issues to follow up on with the research team or client 
 Key points to note in data analysis 
Please type up notes as soon as possible after interviews!