Credit photo: All Children Reading Project ALL CHILDREN READING MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT JANUARY 2020 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Gaelle Simon, Mamadou Fall, Souleymane Barry, and Safyatou Diallo Management Systems International (MSI), A Tetra Tech Company. ALL CHILDREN READING MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT January 2020 Contracted under AID-685-C-15-00003 USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project Cover Photo: Children (in Grade 2) reading in Wolof, Kaolack DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government CONTENTS CONTENTS I ACRONYMS II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV PROJECT BACKGROUND IV EVALUATION PURPOSE IV EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW IV FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS V RECOMMENDATIONS VI INTRODUCTION 8 CONTEXT AND PROJECT BACKGROUND 8 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE 10 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 10 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW 11 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS 12 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 13 RECOMMENDATIONS 28 ANNEX I: FINDINGS FROM SCALABILITY WORKSHOP 31 ANNEX II: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE 35 ANNEX III: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 75 ANNEX IV: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 100 DATA COLLECTION METHODS 100 SAMPLING STRATEGY 100 FIELDWORK 101 ANNEX V: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 102 ANNEX VI: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX 124 ANNEX VII: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 126 ANNEX VIII: COST ANALYSIS AND MODELING 136 ANNEX IX: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 137 USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | ii ACRONYMS ACR All Children Reading ARED Associates in Research and Education for Development CAP Cellules d’animation pédagogique CE1 Cours élémentaire première année (Grade 3) CE2 Cours élémentaire deuxième année (Grade 4) CGE Comité de gestion des écoles CI Cours d’initiation (Grade 1) CODEC Collectif des directeurs d’école CONFEMEN Conférence des ministres de l'éducation des états et gouvernements de la francophonie CP Cours préparatoire (Grade 2) CRFPE Centre régional de formation des personnels de l’éducation DAGE Direction de l’administration générale et de l’équipement DALN Direction de l’alphabétisation et des langues nationales DEE Direction de l’enseignement élémentaire DFC Direction de la formation et de la communication DPRE Direction de la planification et de la réforme de l’éducation DRH Direction des ressources humaines EGR Early Grade Reading EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment EQ Evaluation Question FY Fiscal Year iii | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GoS Government of Senegal G2G Government-to-Government IA Inspection d’académie IEF Inspection de l’éducation et de la formation IFEF Institut de la Francophonie pour l’éducation et la formation INEADE Institut national d’étude et d’action pour le développement de l’éducation L1 First Language L2 Second Language LPT Lecture Pour Tous MEN Ministry of Education M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Project MOHEBS Modèle harmonisé d’enseignement bilingue PAQEEB Projet d'Amélioration de la Qualité et de l'Equité dans l'Education de Base PAQUET -EF Programme d’amélioration de la qualité, de l’équité et de la transparence-Education Formation PASEC Programme d’analyse des systèmes éducatifs SOW Statement of Work USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND In 2016 the Government of Senegal (GoS) Ministry of Education (MEN) launched a national reading program, Lecture Pour Tous (LPT),1 to substantially and sustainably improve reading outcomes for students in Grades 1–3. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Senegal, under its All Children Reading (ACR) program, provides technical assistance through the five-year LPT project implemented by Chemonics International and its consortium of partners in six regions and through a government-to-government (G2G) program, implemented by the MEN, that replicates the LPT model in Saint-Louis. The LPT project targets three outcomes: • Outcome 1: Improved early grade reading in public primary schools and daaras (Koranic schools). • Outcome 2: Improved delivery systems for early grade reading. • Outcome 3: Improved parent and community engagement in early grade reading. EVALUATION PURPOSE Midway through the LPT period of performance and following the first G2G implementation year, USAID/Senegal requested that the Monitoring and Evaluation Project (MEP), implemented by Management Systems International, conduct a midterm performance evaluation of LPT to assess progress, especially the MEN’s readiness to manage the rollout of the LPT model in Saint-Louis and scale it up to the country’s remaining regions. This performance evaluation focuses on implementation successes and challenges in policy development, LPT’s perceived value among stakeholders, and whether LPT is on target to achieve its goal and objectives for sustainability and scale-up, and complements the use of Rapid Feedback Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning methods that test the effectiveness of specific components of the LPT program. The audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Senegal Education Office, the GoS, the MEN at the central and decentralized levels, education implementing partners, and other key stakeholders supporting education in Senegal. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW This evaluation addresses the following evaluation questions (EQs) and sub-questions: • EQ1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? o EQ1.1.a: To what extent is implementation achieving expected policy results? o EQ1.1.b: To what extent have G2G activities in Saint-Louis successfully replicated efforts made in the other LPT regions? o EQ1.2: To what degree is the MEN prepared to scale up LPT from 7 to 14 regions to take the program nationwide, and how can this be further facilitated? • EQ2: How is LPT’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress towards achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? o EQ2.1: To what degree is the current approach effectively identifying and involving relevant and committed MEN partners? 1 Also referred to as “All Children Reading” (ACR). v | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV o EQ2.2: To what degree is the GoS aware of and supporting LPT activities? o EQ2.3: To what degree can costs be borne by the MEN or donors, as demonstrated through replication analysis and modeling? The evaluation relies mostly on qualitative methods, with some primary quantitative data collected from a small sample of schools participating in the G2G program. Most quantitative data were obtained from secondary sources, including LPT financial reports and MEN reports for the G2G program. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? Answer: LPT has made important advances in developing and implementing school-level policies to support early grade reading in national languages. Still, LPT and the MEN must develop system-level policies and procedures that support the institutionalization of bilingual education and the LPT model. Key policy development areas include: • A validated approach to using national languages as subject and medium of instruction. • Updated procedures and systems for teacher recruitment, training, placement, and mobility. • Curriculum reform, including revisions to the assessment system. LPT and MEN enjoy a collaborative relationship that is strengthened by the LPT counterparts (homologues) located within the central and decentralized MEN offices. This relationship has not yet, however, led to increased MEN ownership and leadership for the LPT model. Though the MEN has replicated several LPT elements in Saint-Louis, decentralized MEN personnel view the G2G program as a project implemented outside its regular systems and policies and thus as an additional task. Key Supporting Findings: • Parents are informed of the benefits of learning to read first in national languages. • The communication strategy remains an LPT activity implemented with little engagement from the MEN. • National reading performance assessments are conducted only for French language reading. • Schools have adopted the LPT timetable, but teachers have difficulties implementing it. • Many teachers and school directors are assigned to school communities where they do not speak the dominant language and thus the chosen language of instruction. • Decentralized MEN officials view themselves as LPT and G2G implementers and not planners or decision makers. • The coaching model is highly valued, but school directors and inspectors noted difficulties with the coaching model, like the frequency of the coaching sessions, the time required to conduct the sessions . • The G2G activity completion rate was estimated at 75 percent at the end of Year 1. • There were substantial delays in G2G activity implementation. • In Saint-Louis, materials received last year were delivered in insufficient numbers in some schools and with some errors. • Due to delays with the materials, teachers could not complete the reading program with their students during the 2018–2019 school year. • Teachers have difficulties pronouncing and transcribing words in the national languages. • The MEN relies on technical assistance from LPT to conduct training activities. • The coaching model is not included in school directors’ and inspectors’ scopes of work (cahier de charge). • Document review • Qualitative methods: - Semi-structured interviews - Scalability assessment • Quantitative data collection and analysis: - School survey - Detailed cost analysis and modeling USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | vi • Internal MEN inefficiencies in disbursing funds and procuring materials delay G2G activities. EQ2: How is LPT’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress towards achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? Answer: Reforming education in Senegal from a monolingual system to a bilingual system in a multilingual context will require sustained high-level political leadership from the GoS, management and technical leadership from the MEN, substantial financial investments from the GoS and its financial partners, and better coordination among technical partners. Although the MEN has issued directives that facilitate LPT implementation in targeted regions, there have thus far been few systematic and comprehensive efforts to review governing laws and formulate policies that would support the use of national languages in the education system. Key Supporting Findings: • Associates in Research and Education for Development (ARED), an LPT consortium member, is a key MEN technical partner for bilingual education and brings a lot of recognition and legitimacy to the LPT model. • Discussions on possible partnerships with key MEN partners such as UNICEF and the World Bank are ongoing. • Technical and financial partners were familiar with the LPT model and recognized it as a promising model for reading instruction in national languages. • Comprehensive policies in support of bilingual education are needed before scaling up the LPT model. • Some respondents questioned whether there is truly strong political will at the highest level for using national languages in the education system and, therefore, for bilingual education. • The MEN considers improved reading performance in French an indicator of the system’s performance. RECOMMENDATIONS The following key recommendations emerged from the recommendations workshop and technical experts on the evaluation team. Responsibility for each recommendation is assigned to one or more key LPT partner including MEN divisions at the central level (DAGE, DEE, DFC, DPRE, DRH, INEADE) and at the decentralized levels (IA, IEF). Tasks Manager Policy Development 1. Develop a clear vision and comprehensive action plan for bilingual education in Senegal. GoS, DEE, DPRE 2. Develop policies on teacher recruitment, training, placement, and mobility that will support bilingual education in Senegal. DRH, DEE, DFC 3. Conduct an impact evaluation of student reading performance in French language to provide evidence of the LPT model’s impact on the second language. LPT 4. Review the national curriculum to integrate reading in national languages. DEE Financial Management 5. Develop a procedures manual for the G2G program and insert it into the overall MEN procedures manual DAGE Technical Readiness and Ownership 6. Ensure that all LPT and G2G activities are fully integrated into IA annual work plans (avoid creating separate work plans for LPT and G2G activities). IA, DEE, LPT Teaching Corps Management vii | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Tasks Manager 7. Identify teachers’ linguistic competencies within the MEN human resources management system, MIRADOR. DRH 8. Continue working with the DRH and the unions to revise teacher recruitment, placement, and mobility practices and adapt them for a multilingual system. LPT Training 9. Provide training on LPT reading methods to all teachers within a school through the internal or zonal CAP. School Directors, DFC 10. Integrate a comprehensive set of modules in support of the LPT model within the national preservice framework. DRH, CRFPE, LPT 11. Implement the LPT preservice training modules in all functioning CRFPE. LPT, DRH, CRFPE Coaching 12. Integrate the LPT coaching model in the statement of work/contract of the inspectors and school directors. DRH, IA, IEF Materials 13. Identify technical partners for developing teaching and learning materials to replicate the LPT model in the other three languages. MEN, LPT 14. Use the operational budget of the school management committees to collect the materials from the IEFs. School Directors 15. Identify LPT materials that are essential to the LPT methodology and procure those only. LPT, DEE 16. Identify financial partners and private sector actors who can help finance the production and distribution of materials for the LPT model. USAID, DEE, DPRE 17. Review the procurement schedule of LPT materials to reduce the MEN’s financial burden. DEE, INEADE 18. Develop and pilot materials maintenance and “rental” systems to prolong materials’ shelf life. LPT, IA, IEF The following are key actionable and practical recommendations for the LPT program that should be considered for implementation during the remaining period of performance include the following: ➢ Finalize and validate the performance-level descriptors and benchmarks for reading in national languages and in French. ➢ Review the LPT timetable for better alignment with classroom realities. ➢ Actively engage IAs and IEFs in developing and implementing LPT work plans. ➢ Ensure that all LPT activities are fully integrated into IA annual work plans (avoid creating separate work plans for LPT activities). ➢ Assess the technical support provided to IAs and IEFs by LPT through the homologation system and determine how best to engage the IAs and IEFs. ➢ Develop summary training guides for teachers who did not participate in LPT training sessions and that could be used within the CAPs. ➢ Use existing systems (e.g., available transportation) to conduct coaching sessions. ➢ Encourage the inspectors to use the LPT coaching tools during their 25 annual school visits. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8 INTRODUCTION CONTEXT AND PROJECT BACKGROUND The 2014 Programme d’Analyse des Systèmes Educatifs de la CONFEMEN (PASEC)2 results show that at the end of Grade 2, “almost 30 percent of pupils reach the ‘sufficient’ language threshold” in Senegal, with only 22 percent of students able to read more than 20 letters correctly in one minute. Furthermore, the 2014 PASEC signaled that “Senegal is the country where the greatest inequalities between pupils are observed at the beginning of the primary cycle.” The report highlights substantial variability (280.9-point difference in reading scores) between the strongest and weakest Grade 2 readers, revealing severe inequities within the education system. In response to Senegalese students’ poor reading performance on international assessments, and following recommendations from the 2014 Assises de l’éducation du Sénégal (national conferences), the Government of Senegal (GoS) reaffirm in its national education policy, PAQUET-EF, 3 in August 2018 the use of national languages to improve learning in the early grades. PAQUET-EF (2018–2030) cites as a priority “the development and gradual rollout of bilingual education.” 4 In this context, the GoS and its Ministry of Education (MEN) launched a national reading program, Lecture Pour Tous (LPT), to improve reading outcomes for students in the early grades. The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) primary technical assistance to LPT, contracted under USAID/All Children Reading (ACR), aligns directly with USAID/Senegal’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy third development objective and sub-intermediate result 1.1, “Improved early grade reading performance.” Implemented by Chemonics International and its consortium of partners, LPT5 is a five-year, US$71,097,573 initiative that began in October 2016 and runs through July 10, 2021. LPT is currently implemented in six regions of Senegal (Figure 1). In addition to its support to LPT, USAID/Senegal is funding the expansion of the LPT model through a government-to-government (G2G) agreement with the GoS and the MEN. This G2G agreement is a three-year initiative (2018–2021) estimated at US$7,333,333, of which $1,833,333 is funded by the MEN. The MEN is implementing the model, with targeted support from LPT, in Saint-Louis. Ultimately, it is hoped that the MEN and its key financial and implementing partners will scale up the model nationwide. LPT aims to greatly improve reading levels for students in Grades 1–3 through an effective, sustainable, and scalable national reading program. To achieve this goal, 2 Programme d’Analyse des Systèmes Educatifs de la CONFEMEN. 2015. PASEC 2014 Education System Performance in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa, Competencies and Learning Factors in Primary Education. 3 République du Sénégal. 2018. Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité, et de la Transparence – Education / Formation PAQUET-EF (2018–2030). 4 Ibid. 5 LPT and ACR are used interchangeably throughout this report. Diourbel Louga Fatick Kaolack Matam Kaffrine Saint-Louis Figure 1: LPT and G2G Intervention Regions 9 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV LPT targets three outcomes, as detailed in its results framework (Figure 2): • Outcome 1: Improved early grade reading in public primary schools and daaras (Koranic schools). • Outcome 2: Improved delivery systems for early grade reading. • Outcome 3: Improved parent and community engagement in early grade reading. LPT employs evidence-based instructional materials and techniques that permit students to learn to read in a language that they speak and understand; uses social behavior change communications and other communication strategies to ensure that parents and communities understand the reasons for and benefits of using national languages for teaching and learning early grade reading skills; uses evidence-based strategies to increase family and community support for early grade reading; provides direct technical assistance to the MEN for implementing the model in Saint-Louis; and provides direct technical assistance to the GoS to develop a feasible model for replication and implementation on a national scale. Outcome 1 Early Grade Reading Instruction in Public Primary School and Daaras Improved Output 1.1: Evidence-based early grade reading materials in Senegalese languages provided Output 1.2: Teachers’ skills in evidence-based early grade reading instruction improved Output 1.3: Coaching and supervision of early grade reading instruction improved Output 1.4: Early grade reading assessment improved Outcome 2 Delivery Systems for Early Grade Reading Instruction Improved Output 2.1: Coordination and communication about early grade reading increased Output 2.2: National standards for early grade reading adopted and applied Output 2.3: Research on early grade reading in Senegal produced and disseminated Output 2.4: Policies in support of evidence-based early grade reading instruction implemented Output 2.5: Ministry of Education staff’s performance of essential functions improved Outcome 3 Parent and Community Engagement in Early Grade Reading Improved Output 3.1: Parent and community demand for high￾quality early grade reading instruction increased Output 3.2: Community￾based early grade reading activities implemented Output 3.3: At-home support to early grade learners improved Output 3.4: Parent and community monitoring of early grade reading instruction delivery improved GOAL: EARLY GRADE READING SKILLS IMPROVED Figure 2: LPT Results Framework USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE Midway through LPT’s period of performance and following the first G2G implementation year, USAID/Senegal requested that the Monitoring and Evaluation Project (MEP), implemented by Management Systems International, conduct a midterm performance evaluation of LPT to assess progress and, specifically, the MEN’s readiness to manage the rollout of the LPT model in Saint-Louis and scale it up to the country’s remaining regions. USAID/Senegal is using Rapid Feedback Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning methods to test the effectiveness of specific components of the LPT program, including the coaching model, the use of information and communication technology, and community and parental engagement activities. In order to avoid duplication of efforts, this performance evaluation focuses on implementation successes and challenges in policy development, LPT’s perceived value among stakeholders, and whether LPT is on target to achieve its goal and objectives for sustainability and scale￾up. This evaluation aims to: • Assess progress toward LPT goals and objectives. • Review strategies for systems uptake, coordination, and financing by the MEN. • Determine whether G2G activities are on track to succeed. The audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Senegal Education Office, the MEN at the central and decentralized levels, Chemonics International, and other key financial and technical partners supporting education in Senegal. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation addresses the following two evaluation questions (EQs): • EQ1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? • EQ2: How is LPT’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress towards achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? To answer EQ1, the evaluation team addressed the following sub-questions: • EQ1.1.a: To what extent is implementation achieving expected policy results? • EQ1.1.b: To what extent have G2G activities in Saint-Louis successfully replicated efforts made in the other LPT regions? • EQ1.2: To what degree is the MEN prepared to scale up LPT from 7 to 14 regions to take the program nationwide, and how can this be further facilitated? To answer EQ1.1.a, the evaluation team focused on policy support for the LPT model at the central and decentralized levels and institutional practices within the Inspection d’Académie (IA) and the Inspection de l’Education et de la Formation (IEF), as defined by expected outputs under Outcome 2 in the LPT results framework (see Figure 1). To understand how well the MEN has replicated LPT interventions under the G2G program (EQ1.1.b), the evaluation team visited Saint-Louis and reviewed achievement levels for key outputs under Outcome 1 of the LPT results framework (see Figure 1). These include the procurement and distribution of materials, the training of teachers and school directors, coaching support to teachers, and early grade reading assessments. To gauge the MEN’s readiness for a nationwide scale-up of the LPT model (EQ1.2), the evaluation team conducted semi-structured interviews with the MEN at the central and decentralized levels, USAID, LPT, and other key MEN 11 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV financial and technical partners. The team examined the steps taken by the MEN to budget for the scale-up, plan for additional and/or better-equipped human resources, and update internal processes and policies in support of the LPT model. To answer EQ2, the evaluation team addressed the following sub-questions: • EQ2.1: To what degree is the current approach effectively identifying and involving relevant and committed MEN partners? • EQ2.2: To what degree is the Government of Senegal aware of and supporting LPT activities? • EQ2.3: To what degree can costs be borne by the MEN or donors, as demonstrated through replication analysis and modeling? METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW DATA COLLECTION METHODS The evaluation team relied mostly on qualitative methods, with some primary quantitative data collected from a small sample of schools participating in the G2G program. Most quantitative data used for this evaluation were obtained from secondary sources, including LPT financial reports and MEN reports for the G2G program. A complete description of the methodology used for this evaluation is available in Annex IV. The evaluation team used the following data collection methods for this evaluation: 1. Document review 2. Qualitative methods: a. Semi-structured interviews b. Scalability assessment (see Annex I) 3. Quantitative data collection and analysis a. School survey in Saint-Louis b. Detailed cost analysis and modeling (see Annex VIII) Evaluation tools are included in Annex V, and data collection methods and sources appropriate for each evaluation question are presented in the “Getting to Answers” matrix included in Annex VI. SAMPLING STRATEGY The evaluation team used a purposive sample to collect data from teachers, school directors, and parents in Kaolack, Matam, and Saint-Louis. In each region, the team visited LPT or G2G intervention sites in at least one urban IEF6 and one rural IEF. FIELDWORK The fieldwork for this evaluation began in Dakar on October 28, 2019, with key informant and group interviews with MEN officials at the central level, USAID, LPT, and other MEN partners, such as Associates in Research and Education for Development (ARED), and funders, such as the World Bank. 6 Following conventions in Senegal, IEF is used throughout this report to refer both to the school district (commune) and to the inspectors working within that school district. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12 Table 1 summarizes the IEFs (school districts) and respondents the evaluation team targeted in each of the three regions (IAs) 7 visited. Table 1: Targeted IEF and Respondents Region Kaolack Matam Saint-Louis IEF Kaolack Commune Guinguinéo Matam Kanel Saint-Louis Commune Saint-Louis Département Dagana Respondents IA IEF LPT Teachers School directors Parents Preservice teacher training center (CRFPE) 8 IA IEF LPT (Matam) LPT (Louga) Teachers School directors Parents IA focal person IEF LPT Teachers School directors Parents Preservice teacher training center (CRFPE) The complete list of sources of information, including documents reviewed and stakeholders interviewed, is included in Annex VII. DATA ANALYSIS Qualitative data collected through the semi-structured key informant and group interviews were analyzed using content, pattern, and thematic analysis. 1. Content analysis: Using the datasets, the team identified phrases and words relevant to all the evaluation questions. Through multiple iterations, search terms were refined and focused. 2. Pattern analysis: Following the content analysis, the evaluation team looked for patterns by identifying words or meanings of words that suggested a pattern across cases. 3. Thematic analysis: The team then developed conceptual categories or themes that described the patterns that were identified. When respondents consented, interviews were recorded and then transcribed for analysis. Quantitative data and statistics collected from documents and the school surveys were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution. Finally, whenever possible, the evaluation team applied data triangulation and researcher triangulation to strengthen data credibility and validity. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS This midterm performance evaluation relied heavily on qualitative methods. Though the evaluation team collected data from a large swath of stakeholders, allowing for triangulation of some findings, additional sources were not 7 IA is used throughout this report to refer both to the region and to the inspector in charge of education for that region. 8 Centre régional de formation des personnels de l’éducation 13 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV always available for others (e.g., financial data). In addition, although the team attempted to understand the MEN’s readiness to scale up the LPT model to other regions and understand the MEN’s level of ownership of the LPT model at the central and decentralized levels, these assessments may be subjective since the team did not use tools specifically designed to measure these constructs. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? EQ1.1.a: To what extent is implementation achieving expected policy results? Answer to EQ1.1.a: LPT has made important advances in developing and implementing policies in support of early grade reading in national languages. Notable results were achieved with the development and use of the LPT classroom timetable, which incorporates 60 minutes of reading time in national language in targeted grades; a coaching model that is highly regarded by IEFs, school directors, and teachers; a communication strategy coupled with a community engagement component that informs parents of the benefits of learning to read first in national languages; and support to the MEN in the development of its approach to bilingual education (Modèle harmonisé de l’enseignement bilingue au Sénégal [MOHEBS]). However, despite these successes, additional efforts are needed to urge the MEN, at all levels, to take more ownership of the LPT model and to fully embed supporting policies within its structures and practices. Key policy areas that require further development are presented in Table 2 below. Table 2: Key Policy Areas to Develop Policy Area Conclusion Reading benchmarks and assessments LPT benchmarks and assessment tools do not align with those of the education system, which targets improvements in French reading only. L1 and L2 curriculum alignment The misalignment between LPT and the national French curriculum (content and methods) makes it difficult for teachers to properly use acquired first language (L1) reading skills to teach reading in the second language (L2). National curriculum Although time has been allocated for reading in national languages in classrooms targeted by the LPT model, no formal revision to the national curriculum has been undertaken to accommodate the LPT reading lessons. Teachers Teacher recruitment, training, placement, and mobility policies and practices that overlook language proficiency pose a critical challenge to LPT sustainability and to bilingual education in Senegal. Coaching The coaching model is not yet institutionalized within IEF and school directors’ scopes of work and is thus viewed as a project activity. MEN appropriation Despite the presence of counterparts (homologues), activities are implemented mostly by LPT with inconsistent MEN participation, which limits MEN’s capacity to implement LPT and G2G activities without technical assistance. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14 Supporting Findings: In its first three years of implementation, LPT sought to develop and/or implement several policies or frameworks to support the use of national languages for reading instruction in the early grades. Under Outcome 2 in its results framework, “Delivery Systems for Early Grade Reading Instruction Improved,” the project sought to achieve policy results in five key areas: Most parents, school directors, and teachers in LPT and G2G regions stated that they learned about the LPT program through radio and television spots. They also affirmed that the community engagement component (Outcome 3) informed parents of the benefits of learning to read first in national languages and mobilized parents to participate in their children’s schooling. According to one IEF in Dagana, “there are many schools where parents have organized activities such as reading clubs and meetings.” 9 However, several IEFs, IAs, and LPT team members noted important knowledge gaps between communities targeted by the communication strategy and the community engagement component (Outcomes 2 + 3) and communities that are targeted only by the community strategy (Outcome 2 only). According to these respondents and to some parents from communities not targeted by Outcome 3, some community members do not fully understand the LPT approach and continue to question the use of national languages in schools. LPT and MEN respondents at the decentralized levels further noted that the LPT communication strategy remains largely a project activity even though LPT works with the Bureau genre, partenariat, et communication offices located in the IEFs to implement it. Respondents pointed to a lack of technical counterparts at the Department for Training and Communication (DFC)10 at the MEN to collaborate with LPT on the communication strategy and noted that the communication plan was not implemented in Saint-Louis during Year 1 of the G2G program. LPT and the MEN developed preliminary performance standards and benchmarks for reading in the three national languages in CI (Grade 1) and CP (Grade 2) based on 2017 and 2018 early grade reading assessment results. According to the National Institute for Research and Action for the Development of Education (INEADE) 11 at the MEN, the benchmarks are currently being revised. INEADE further noted that, building on its experience with LPT, it would like to establish performance standards and benchmarks for all subjects and all grades. INEADE and MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels also noted that current national standardized assessments of reading performance are conducted only for French reading. These assessments include those conducted twice annually by the IEFs to inform indicators for the Projet d'Amélioration de la Qualité et de l'Equité dans l'Education de Base (PAQEEB) 12 and the INEADE-led national assessments. INEADE further stated that 9 All quotes included in this report have been translated by the report author from interviews conducted in French. 10 Direction de la Formation et de la Communication. 11 Institut national d’étude et d’action pour le développement de l’éducation. 12 PAQEEB is a three-year (2018–2021), $60 million World Bank–funded education initiative managed by the MEN. COMMUNICATION • Coordination and communication about early grade reading increased BENCHMARKS •National standards for early grade reading adopted and applied RESEARCH • Research on early grade reading produced and disseminated POLICIES • Policies in support of early grade reading instruction implemented CAPACITY •MEN staff’s performance of essential functions improved “It's a task required by the DEE for all IEFs. The assessment is for reading and math... but it's reading in French.” - IEF Saint-Louis Département official 15 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV the national assessments at the CP and CE2 (Grade 4) levels will include measures of reading performance only in French, in accordance with decrees currently in effect. LPT and the MEN collaborated to implement several studies, including a sociolinguistic study, a study on French vocabulary acquisition, a study on teacher mobility, and the early grade reading assessment (EGRA) baseline and midline studies. LPT and the MEN used results from these studies to inform decision making, such as the choice of the national language of instruction for each intervention school, negotiations with teacher unions on teacher mobility, and the development of performance standards and benchmarks. Although all MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels agreed that measuring reading performance with EGRA is important and necessary, many noted that EGRA studies conducted by LPT should include items in both national languages and in French to measure student performance in both first language (L1) and second language (L2). Furthermore, several MEN officials cited the need for conclusive evidence of LPT’s impact on student reading performance in French prior to determining if the model should be expanded nationwide. LPT worked with the MEN to develop and implement three key policy documents in support of early grade reading instruction. These include the institutionalization of a new classroom timetable, a review of teacher mobility practices, and support to the MEN for developing the MOHEBS and its national reading program (Programme national de lecture [PNL]). “EGRA is now needed for all reading interventions...There are items for L2 but basically [the EGRA] is for L1 and that too is an aspect of the project that we want corrected.” - MEN/DEE official •The DEE instructed IEFs in the LPT and G2G regions to implement the timetable proposed by LPT. IEFs, teachers, and school directors confirmed that the schools have adopted the timetable. •IEFs, teachers, and school directors noted that the LPT timetable is overloaded (lourd) and that many teachers have difficulty completing lessons during the time allocated. •Many teachers viewed LPT lessons as add-ons to the current curriculum. They noted that they inconsistently implement the LPT lessons due to time constraints, large classes, and other curriculum subject requirements. •Whereas some school directors and IEFs noted that teachers “save” time when teaching L2 thanks to the transfer of skills between L1 and L2, several teachers stated that the LPT training and guidance are inadequate and that the transfer is too difficult to apply. Classroom Timetable •Respondents consider teacher mobility, particularly the mouvement national, a critical challenge to LPT implementation. •Several respondents noted that many teachers and school directors are assigned to school communities where they do not speak the dominant language because recruitment and placement practices are based on merit and do not consider language proficiency. •Several recommendations emerged from the study on teacher mobility conducted by LPT and the MEN, including a draft agreement with teacher unions that received conditional validation but rejected a key article: the commitment of LPT-trained teachers to remain with the program for two years. •Several respondents believe that preservice training in reading in national languages would curb the negative effects of current teacher mobility practices on the LPT program. However, CRFPE staff pointed to difficulties in integrating the LPT modules into the preservice training framework and to a lack of national language instructors for the language transcription training modules. Teacher Mobility USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16 Though IEFs admitted to participating in annual work planning sessions with the DEE for the G2G activities in Saint-Louis and with LPT for the other six regions, several noted that it is difficult to integrate G2G or LPT activities within their internal annual work plans, which are developed by the IEFs and IAs in a separate process. Furthermore, IEFs in the seven regions explained that they view themselves as implementers of G2G and LPT activities and not planners or decision makers. Several IEFs, IAs, and LPT team members also noted that activities are planned and implemented mostly by LPT in its six regions of intervention and that MEN technical counterparts participate only sporadically in activities in LPT and G2G regions. According to one IA, “There are difficulties in the implementation [of LPT], in terms of coordination, in terms of “doing together” which is the LPT slogan….The reliance on counterparts (homologues) is a problem; [coordination] is reduced to attending a training to be trained or to train.” The coaching of teachers by school directors and/or inspectors is a critical component of the LPT model. IEFs, IAs, teachers, and school directors all highly regard the LPT coaching model. All cited the coaching as a success and viewed it as highly beneficial to teachers. However, several IEFs and school directors noted constraints with the coaching model, notably the lack of logistical support for the inspectors, the frequency of the coaching sessions, and the time required to conduct the sessions. According to the IEFs and the DEE, although support to teachers (encadrement) is included in the IEFs’ regular duties, they are responsible for only 25 school visits per year. IEFs thus consider the LPT/G2G coaching an additional task that cannot always be integrated into their planning given the recommended frequency. EQ1.1.b: To what extent have G2G activities in Saint-Louis successfully replicated efforts in the other LPT regions? Answer to EQ1.1.b: Overall, respondents were satisfied with G2G implementation during Year 1. Despite several ongoing challenges, many noted significant progress in activity implementation between Year 1 and Year 2. The MEN successfully implemented activities in Saint-Louis replicating LPT efforts in the other six regions, including training teachers and school directors in reading methods, training school directors and inspectors in coaching methods, and distributing materials. Some planned activities were implemented with modifications (e.g., teacher training conducted by school directors instead of inspectors due to the inspector strike), and others were implemented only partially (e.g., teacher coaching). "Overall, as it relates to the three results, the levels of execution are extraordinary. They are good." - IEF Saint-Louis Commune official School directors in LPT regions completed only 21% of the coaching sessions planned for the 2018–2019 school year. - LPT Year 3 Annual Report •The MOHEBS, developed by the MEN with support from LPT, seeks to serve as a framework for all partners working in primary education in Senegal. It proposes an approach to bilingual education that uses national languages and French as both learning medium and subject in all primary grades. •Many respondents felt that the MEN and LPT were speaking different languages. Some respondents noted a perceived lack of cohesion between the MEN’s vision for the system (i.e., a bilingual education system) and LPT, which intervenes only in reading in national languages. •Several respondents noted that the development of the MOHEBS had not included a comprehensive consultation process and that the draft documents had not been sufficiently shared. “It wasn’t sufficiently shared for us to take ownership of it.” - IA official •The national reading program framework is still in its development phase. MOHEBS and PNL 17 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Several concerns about G2G program ownership and management, teachers’ ability to complete the reading program with their students during the school year, training quality, and coaching support emerged from the evaluation findings. Critically, stakeholders in Saint-Louis view the G2G program as a project funded by external actors and external to the MEN systems. IEFs, school directors, and teachers view G2G activities (e.g., reading lessons in national languages, coaching support) as additional tasks and responsibilities that are not inscribed in their job description or “cahier de charges”. Supporting Findings: According to respondents and documents reviewed, the completion rate of G2G activities in Saint-Louis was estimated at 75 percent at the end of the first year. Most respondents were satisfied with the implementation rate. Implementation successes in Saint-Louis through the G2G program include: According to IEFs in Saint-Louis, the DEE, and documents reviewed, there were, however, substantial delays in G2G activity implementation during Year 1 and at the beginning of Year 2. Respondents blamed most of the delays on the late disbursement of funds from the Direction de l’administration générale et de l’équipement (General Administration and Equipment Department [DAGE]), who explained that the MEN lacks a funded budget line dedicated to G2G activities. The DAGE further explained that with the devolution of duties for budget planning (déconcentration de l’ordonnancement) in effect in 2020, planning budgetary resources will be the DEE’s responsibility. Delayed G2G activities include: • The distribution of materials in Year 1 (January to March 2019) and Year 2 (planned for December 2019) despite earlier planning by the MEN. • The training of teachers in Year 1 (December 2018) and Year 2 (November 2019). • The training of inspectors and school directors in the coaching model in Year 1 (April 2019). Respondents also noted several challenges with G2G implementation that may undermine program quality, particularly teachers’ ability to complete the reading program with their students. Leading and managing the G2G program 1. As mentioned above (under EQ1.1.a), IEFs in Saint-Louis noted that it is difficult to integrate G2G activities within their internal annual work plans. The IEFs explained that they only implement G2G activities and that all decision making and planning falls within the DEE’s purview at the central MEN. 2. MEN respondents pointed to the inspector strike during the 2018–2019 school year as a crucial factor in the IEFs assuming responsibilities for the G2G training and coaching activities late during the implementation year. 3. IEFs in Saint-Louis noted that conducting training sessions under the G2G program over long periods at the beginning of the school year disrupts their planning. This sentiment was also expressed in LPT regions where Materials procurement and distribution • Provided to all CI classes in Year 1. Pedagogical training •All CI teachers trained in Year 1 and Year 2. •All beneficiaries interviewed said they are satistfied with the training. Training in LPT coaching methods • School directors and inspectors trained. • 20 out of 21 school directors surveyed are satisfied with the training in coaching methods. Assessment of student reading performance • Baseline EGRA conducted by INEADE. • Sociolinguistic study conducted by the MEN. “At the moment, in our IA, our task is limited to coordinating and supervising activities. But all decisions to develop terms of reference and others, comes from the DEE.” - IA Saint-Louis official USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18 the IAs and IEFs noted that all inspectors were busy with LPT-related trainings and that none were available at the IEFs and IAs for other regular tasks. 4. IEFs in Saint-Louis noted differences in the allocations (prises en charge) provided to activity participants under G2G and LPT. According to the IEFs, both G2G and LPT provide allocations based on the G50, 13 but the G2G program, and thus the MEN/DEE, describes as “resident” participants residing within the IEF where the activity is taking place, whereas LPT describes as “resident” participants residing within the city/village where the activity is taking place and as defined in the G50. 5. In accordance with the policy for textbooks and teaching and learning materials (politique du manuel scolaire et du materiel didactique), school directors and school management committees (CGEs) are responsible for the collection of materials from the IEFs. The IEFs in Saint-Louis Département and in Dagana noted that a lack of financial support to school directors under the G2G program further delayed the distribution of materials to schools that are farthest away. Though LPT provides financial support to schools in its targeted regions for materials collection, the MEN explained that these allocations are unsustainable and should not be replicated under the G2G program. Completing the reading program 1. IAs, IEFs, school directors, and teachers in Saint-Louis noted that the materials received last year were delivered in insufficient numbers in some schools and with some errors, including missing pages and errors in the content. 2. Teachers, directors, and IEFs in Saint-Louis stated that due to delays with the materials, teachers could not complete the reading program with their students during the 2018–2019 school year. One IEF explained that last year, in May 2019, when teachers should have been on lesson number 50, some were only on lesson number 20. 3. The DEE, IEFs, teachers, and school directors noted that conducting teacher training in November disrupts the school calendar and takes time away from classroom teaching, thus reducing the time available to teachers to complete the reading program and the national curriculum with their students. Ensuring quality training 1. IEFs in Saint-Louis pointed to missing reading materials for the training sessions due to the delays with materials production and distribution. 2. Several respondents, including IEFs, teachers, and school directors in G2G and LPT regions, described the in￾service training provided in national languages as insufficient. Respondents noted that non-speakers of the national languages had difficulties with reading and writing the languages and that speakers of the languages also had difficulties with pronunciation and transcription of words. 3. According to LPT and ARED, the MEN at the central level requires a lot of support to conduct the training of trainers. MEN officials at the central level are not sufficiently equipped to train the regional technical committees (composed of the IEFs) who then train the teachers and school directors. The MEN relies on technical assistance from LPT for those activities. 13 The G50 is the agreement between the GoS and its technical and financial partners, including USAID, to harmonize local costs for local staff. Teachers in LPT regions have difficulties completing the reading program. LPT school monitoring visits in April and May 2019 revealed that only 31% of teachers had passed the 10th week of lessons, the normal threshold at the time of the visit, 57% were between the 6th and 10th week, and 12% were extremely behind (less than 6 weeks of progress). - LPT Year 3 Annual Report 19 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Providing coaching support 1. As noted above (under EQ1.1.a), according to IEFs and school directors, the coaching model is not yet included in their “cahier de charges” (scopes of work) and therefore remains a G2G activity to be implemented in addition to their regular duties. 2. Under the G2G program, IEFs in Saint-Louis implemented one group coaching session during Year 1 instead of the three coaching sessions per school year (one per trimester) per teacher as recommended by LPT. 3. Of the 770 schools in Saint-Louis, the five IEFs provided coaching sessions to CI teachers in only 209 schools during Year 1. 4. Although 21 out of 24 school directors surveyed in Saint-Louis said they had been trained in the coaching methods, only 10 of those trained said they had provided coaching support to their teachers twice a month as recommended by LPT. 5. Although some teachers in Saint-Louis noted that their school directors provided them monthly coaching support, many others explained that school directors were not always available. EQ1.2: To what degree is the MEN prepared to scale up LPT from 7 to 14 regions to take the program nationwide, and how can this be further facilitated? Answer to EQ1.2: To scale up LPT, the MEN will need to address critical issues relating to bilingual education system design and implementation within a multilingual environment. Although respondents believe that the MEN has the capacity and experience to take on and scale up some LPT elements, they also recognize that the MEN has limited capacity in several areas and requires technical and financial assistance. Crucial for LPT sustainability and scaling up is a policy environment that promotes the efficient implementation of a bilingual education approach and addresses the legal and operational needs for recruiting, training, and managing a multilingual teaching corps. Section 1.1.a of this report outlines progress to date in policy reform. The MEN must still undertake significant work to develop a policy environment conducive to LPT scale-up and to a bilingual education system in Senegal. Supporting Findings: As noted above (under EQ1.1.b), MEN respondents at the central level and in Saint-Louis blamed mainly internal inefficiencies in disbursing funds and procuring materials for the G2G activity delays. Several respondents questioned whether the MEN would be able to handle all the technical and management requirements of the LPT model as well as finance the LPT training schedule (twice annually for all targeted teachers) and the procurement of the complete set of LPT materials (procured annually for all targeted teachers and students). “Will the government of Senegal continue to use technical counterparts, hire people who only manage this [LPT model], but who will be paid for [by the GoS]?” - IA Kaolack •Technical expertise •Training •Materials distribution •Coaching •Research Better prepared •Materials production in national languages •Financial management and resources •Reading performance assessments and benchmarks •Communication Somewhat prepared •Sufficient human resources •Policies •Community engagement Not prepared USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20 When asked if the MEN is prepared to scale up the LPT model, MEN stakeholders at the central and decentralized levels pointed to their training and active engagement in several key LPT elements, including training, coaching, materials development, benchmark development, and EGRA. According to these respondents, the MEN has the technical expertise to replicate the LPT model in the other regions, as evidenced by its efforts under the G2G program in Saint-Louis. MEN respondents also pointed to the institution’s experience conducting large-scale in-service teacher training during the previous curriculum reform as well as to existing in-service training networks, the Cellules d’animation pédagogique (CAP) and the Collectif des directeurs d’école (CODEC). However, as noted above (under EQ1.1.b), LPT and ARED questioned the MEN’s ability at the central level to deliver quality trainings to the regional teams. Furthermore, IEFs and LPT noted the difficulties encountered with the pilot of the LPT modules in the CRFPEs (preservice teacher training centers). Of the 15 modules originally developed by LPT, only eight were selected to be piloted in CRFPEs. Yet none of the three pilot centers (out of 11 existing and 6 functioning centers) could implement all the selected modules. Staff from the CRFPEs stated that there were difficulties integrating the eight modules into the current preservice training framework and timetable and that there is a lack of instructors capable of leading the modules on national language transcription. MEN respondents noted the institution’s experience with materials production and distribution. However, INEADE stated that under the MEN editorial policy, its role is to evaluate teaching and learning materials and the private sector is now responsible for developing textbooks under the management of a procurement led by the MEN. According to LPT and the MEN, local printing houses could not participate successfully in the bidding process for the procurement of LPT materials. As a result, LPT, with the participation of INEADE, offered training sessions to local printing houses to improve their ability to participate in future bidding opportunities. Despite these efforts, respondents feared that local capacity for the production of materials in national languages remains limited. Additionally, some respondents noted that scaling up the LPT model would require the use of additional national languages and voiced concern about the MEN’s ability to replicate the LPT model in new national languages without technical assistance. The MEN and its technical and financial partners noted that a wide use of national languages within the education system would require significant reforms in recruiting, training, and managing the teaching corps and with the national curriculum. Several respondents noted that the current system is not designed for the use of national languages, whereas others stated that the MEN needs to shift its thinking from “pilot project” (expérimentation) to fully integrating bilingual education and the use of national languages within its structures at the policy and operational levels. According to the DPRE: “If we are moving toward scaling up, it’s really very high-level policies that must be developed to support it. It’s really the governing law that should be revised.” This sentiment was also expressed by one IEF in Saint-Louis Commune who explained that: “Now, at the governing law level, there are sections that should be revised, consolidated, and if there is an enforcement decree as well, we should aim for that. I think we need to move toward formalization. It doesn’t cost anything. It allows us to simply do it well.” Similarly, UNICEF explained that: “In terms of policy, there are so many issues that need to be clarified on a national level…the approach to teaching a second language, the approach to reading is another, the way in which to adapt the language of instruction is another. These are three dimensions that are very different and need clarification….The policy is the key issue and there is not a clear vision from the MEN on this nor on the language policy.” 21 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Answer to EQ 1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? LPT has made important advances in developing and implementing school-level policies to support early grade reading in national languages (e.g., changes to CI, CP, and CE1 timetables, which now incorporate 60 minutes of reading time in national languages). Still, it is imperative that LPT and the MEN develop system-level policies and procedures that support the institutionalization of bilingual education and consequently the LPT model in Senegal. Key policy development areas include: • A validated approach to using national languages as subject and medium of instruction. • Updated procedures and systems for teacher recruitment, training (pre- and in-service), placement, and mobility. • Curriculum reform, including revisions to the assessment system. LPT and the MEN enjoy a collaborative relationship that is strengthened by the LPT counterparts located within the central and decentralized MEN offices. Though these counterparts facilitate communication and coordination between LPT and the MEN, that relationship has not yet led to increased MEN ownership and leadership for the LPT model. Though the MEN has replicated several LPT elements in Saint-Louis, decentralized MEN personnel view the G2G program as a project implemented by the MEN outside its regular systems and policies, and thus as an additional task. EQ2: How is LPT’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress towards achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? EQ2.1: To what degree is the current approach effectively identifying and involving relevant and committed MEN partners? Answer to EQ2.1: The partnership between ARED and LPT brings a lot of credibility to the LPT model given ARED’s experience with bilingual education in Senegal and its positive relationship with the MEN at the central and decentralized levels. Though LPT has established partnerships with some education implementing partners, it is not yet collaborating with committed MEN partners, except for ARED. Key partners are aware of the LPT model and its potential and have identified possible areas for synergy. Partners such as UNICEF, the World Bank, and Institut de la Francophonie pour l’éducation et la formation (IFEF) are interested in supporting bilingual education in Senegal but look to the MEN for more policy development and to LPT for conclusive evidence of the model’s effectiveness before fully committing to partnerships with LPT. Supporting Findings: ARED is recognized as a key MEN technical partner for bilingual education and, as a consortium member for LPT, brings a lot of recognition and legitimacy to the LPT model. LPT has or is establishing partnerships with other projects intervening in education on a smaller scale (e.g., USAID/Nos Enfants Lisent). The partnerships that are ongoing or in the planning stages focus solely on the LPT community engagement component. Discussions on possible partnerships between LPT and key MEN partners such as UNICEF and the World Bank are ongoing. UNICEF, IFEF, and the World Bank are interested in supporting MEN efforts to develop and implement bilingual education in Senegal. Technical and financial partners interviewed were familiar with the LPT model and recognized it as a promising model for reading instruction in national languages. Many saw opportunities to collaborate, such as the World Bank, which stated that Opportunities • UNICEF has plans with the MEN to expand reading in national languages. • The World Bank included reading and the construction and furnishing of four CRFPEs in PAQEEB. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22 “[LPT] is a good approach. It is included in the PAQEEB but we are waiting for the results from the evaluation to be conducted by USAID….We will also…evaluate the CRFPE, which can also be an opportunity to explore this dimension of bilingualism at the CRFPE….” As noted under EQ1.2, MEN financial and technical partners explained that comprehensive policies in support of bilingual education are needed before scaling up the LPT model. According to IFEF, “there is potential, but we are not there yet in terms of the policy.” EQ2.2: To what degree is the Government of Senegal aware of and supporting LPT activities? Answer to EQ2.2: Despite evidence of a nascent political movement that promotes bilingual education and the use of national languages in the education system, there is no evidence that the GoS has taken concrete steps through policy formulation or other actions to reform the system. This evaluation could not find any evidence to suggest that the GoS, aside from the MEN, has any knowledge of or has taken any actions to support the LPT model. Supporting Findings: Results from the LPT scalability assessment identified as a threat to scale-up the large number of political decision makers who would need to approve the model prior to going to scale (see Annex I). Yet despite several attempts by USAID and the MEN, the evaluation team could not meet with high-level policymakers, such as the president’s education advisor, during fieldwork. Several respondents did, however, note that there seems to be a political awakening on bilingual education. The 2014 national conferences (assises nationales) recommend the use of national languages in the first years of the education system, and the national education policy (PAQUET 2018–2030) cites the development and gradual scale-up of a bilingual education system as a priority. But respondents also questioned whether there is truly strong political will at the highest level for the use of national languages in the education system and, therefore, for bilingual education. ARED stated that “as of now…I have yet to hear him [the president] deliver a speech and say, “as of now we will use national languages.”” Similarly, the PAQEEB, which strongly influences MEN priorities for the education system, includes improved reading performance as a key objective and links student performance results in reading to World Bank funding disbursements. However, the PAQEEB does not specify the language of instruction and, absent clear policies and reforms, the World Bank and the MEN at the central and decentralized levels rely on improved reading performance in French as an indicator of the system’s performance. 23 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EQ2.3: To what degree can costs be borne by the MEN or donors, as demonstrated through replication analysis and modeling? The evaluation team, led by the finance specialist, reviewed and used financial data from LPT, the G2G program, and the MEN, as well as MEN education statistics and projections, to estimate funding requirements for an LPT scale-up nationwide. The funding estimates are provided for three scenarios, for which the main variable is the pace of introduction of the three new languages of instruction—namely, Diola, Mandinka, and Soninke—that would be required for a nationwide scale-up to Senegal’s 14 regions. See Figure 3 below for a map of the main languages in Senegal14. 1. Scenario 1, which proposes a more gradual rollout, is based on the introduction of one new language annually starting in Year 2 of implementation. 2. Scenario 2 is based on the introduction of two new languages starting in Year 2 of implementation and of the third language in Year 3 of implementation. 3. Scenario 3, which most closely mimics the implementation design for the LPT project, and which is the most ambitious, is based on the introduction of all three new languages starting in Year 2 of implementation. All three scenarios assume the following: 1. Continued LPT implementation in Pular, Serere, and Wolof in the current seven regions and in the current three grades (CI, CP, CE1). 2. Review and finalization of the current materials in Pular, Serere, and Wolof in Year 1. 3. Development, testing, and first printing of materials in the new language(s) starting in Year 1. 4. A gradual rollout of the new language(s) by grade, starting with CI in Year 2. 5. A gradual rollout of the LPT model in additional regions starting in Year 2. 6. Full LPT scale-up in Year 6 with widespread implementation in the 14 regions, using all six national languages in CI, CP, and CE1 classes. The estimates presented below are based on current LPT and G2G costs and on statistical projections from the MEN for the number of schools in the public education system; the number of students in CI, CP, and CE1 classes; the number of teachers, inspectors, CGEs, and school directors; the number of classes; and the pupil-to-class ratio. 14 Retrieved from http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/afrique/senegal.htm on February 11, 2020 Figure 3: Map of the Main Languages in Senegal USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 24 The replication analysis and modeling presented here are provisional initial drafts. It is incumbent upon USAID, the MEN, and other partners to review the proposed hypotheses and assumptions, identify the more pertinent or critical ones, and make necessary adjustments to estimate the funding requirements for the optimal scale-up approach. The hypotheses that underline the scenarios presented below include two important differences with the LPT implementation design. The modeling presented here includes all materials, training, and activities conducted under the LPT and G2G programs. This includes support to the CGE and the LPT community engagement component. However, whereas LPT targets only 20 percent of CGEs and school communities, the scenarios presented here assume interventions in all CGEs and school communities, which represents a significant increase in funding for this component. Similarly, at the time of this evaluation, LPT had reached 50 percent of CP classes across its six regions of interventions. However, the modeling presented below assumes a rollout to all CI, CP, and CEI classes. SCENARIO 1 Under Scenario 1, during Year 1, the LPT model is implemented in the three current languages (Pular, Serere, and Wolof), in the three targeted grades (CI, CP, and CE1), and in the current seven regions: Diourbel, Fatick, Kaffrine, Kaolack, Louga, Matam, and Saint-Louis. During Year 2, the gradual expansion of the LPT model begins with the introduction of the fourth national language in CI classes and in eight regions (seven current plus one new region). During Year 3, the expansion continues with the addition of a ninth region, the rollout of the fourth national language in CI and CP classes, and the introduction of the fifth national language in CI classes. During Year 4, the expansion continues with the addition of the 10th region; the rollout of the fourth national language in CI, CP, and CE1 classes; the rollout of the fifth national language in CI and CP classes; and the introduction of the sixth national language in CI classes. During Year 5, the expansion continues with the addition of the 11th and 12th regions; the implementation in CI, CP, and CEI classes of five national languages; and the rollout of the sixth national language in CI and CP classes. During Year 6, the scale-up continues to the 14 regions and the implementation in CI, CP, and CEI of the six national languages. Table 3 presents a summary of the Scenario 1 scale-up by language of instruction. Table 3: Scenario 1 Rollout of Languages of Instruction Languages Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 - - - - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 The projected cost for Scenario 1 over six years is 79,613,519,461 CFA15 or approximately US $135,000,000 (Table 4). Table 4: Scenario 1 Summary Budget Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Community Engagement 263,873,069 299,346,952 367,317,050 426,330,422 570,938,618 633,884,464 2,561,690,575 15 Equivalent to approximately US$134,839,393.97 on January 9, 2020, according to XE currency converter. LPT Implementation to date •20% of CGEs •50% of CP classes Financial Modeling •100% of CGEs •100% of CP classes 25 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Lexical Development 93,601,500 26,802,700 26,856,911 26,912,152 - - 174,173,262 Materials Production 3,339,019,332 3,832,322,564 5,457,004,293 5,909,505,727 7,275,396,628 9,899,613,486 35,712,862,029 Pre- and In￾Service Training 3,393,565,921 3,973,135,452 5,124,006,829 5,831,206,551 7,158,978,883 8,969,488,567 34,450,382,204 Coaching 35,345,000 36,040,500 36,770,481 37,536,660 38,340,843 39,184,923 223,218,406 Financial Management 81,039,000 85,626,600 107,079,392 131,316,623 227,729,791 334,021,296 966,812,703 Communication 638,682,000 709,770,000 798,076,000 886,670,000 1,063,570,000 1,240,470,000 5,337,238,000 Piloting and Coordination 24,007,500 25,435,000 28,226,250 31,024,063 36,488,766 41,960,704 187,142,282 Total 7,869,133,321 8,988,479,768 11,945,337,206 13,280,502,198 16,371,443,529 21,158,623,439 79,613,519,461 SCENARIO 2 Under Scenario 2, during Year 1, the LPT model is implemented in the three current languages, in the three targeted grades, and in the current seven regions. During Year 2, the gradual expansion of the LPT model begins with the introduction of two new national languages in CI classes and in eight regions. During Year 3, the expansion continues with the addition of a ninth region, the rollout of national languages four and five in CI and CP classes, and the introduction of the sixth national language in CI classes. During Year 4, the expansion continues with the addition of the 10th region; the rollout of the first five national languages in CI, CP, and CE1 classes; and the rollout of the sixth national language in CI and CP classes. During Year 5, the expansion continues with the addition of the 11th and 12th regions and the implementation in CI, CP, and CE1 classes of the six national languages. During Year 6, the scale-up continues to the 14 regions. Table 5 below presents a summary of the Scenario 2 LPT scale-up by language of instruction. Table 5: Scenario 2 Rollout of Languages of Instruction Languages Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 - - - - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 The projected cost for Scenario 2 over six years is 77,852,557,384 CFA16 or approximately US $132,000,000 (Table 6). Table 6: Scenario 2 Summary Budget Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Community Engagement 263,873,069 299,346,952 367,317,050 426,330,422 570,938,618 633,884,464 2,561,690,575 Lexical Development 130,272,000 32,836,242 6,777,369 0 0 0 169,885,611 16 Equivalent to approximately US$131,840,633 on January 9, 2020, according to XE currency converter. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 26 Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Materials Production 3,550,039,332 3,839,860,064 5,066,560,464 5,909,505,727 7,362,912,217 9,899,613,486 35,628,491,288 Pre- and In￾service Training 3,393,565,921 3,975,875,452 5,126,746,829 5,833,946,551 7,214,531,631 7,233,412,135 32,778,078,519 Coaching 35,345,000 36,040,500 36,770,481 37,536,660 38,340,843 39,184,923 223,218,406 Financial Management 81,039,000 85,626,600 107,079,392 131,316,623 227,729,791 334,021,296 966,812,703 Communication 638,682,000 709,770,000 798,076,000 886,670,000 1,063,570,000 1,240,470,000 5,337,238,000 Piloting and Coordination 24,007,500 25,435,000 28,226,250 31,024,063 36,488,766 41,960,704 187,142,282 Total 8,116,823,821 9,004,790,809 11,537,553,835 13,256,330,046 16,514,511,865 19,422,547,007 77,852,557,384 SCENARIO 3 Under Scenario 3, during Year 1, the LPT model is implemented as in Scenarios 1 and 2. During Year 2, the gradual expansion of the LPT model begins with the introduction of the three new national languages in CI classes and in eight regions. During Year 3, the expansion continues with the addition of a ninth region and the rollout of the three new national languages in CI and CP classes. During Year 4, the expansion continues with the addition of the 10th region and the rollout of the three new national languages in CI, CP and CE1 classes. During Year 5, the expansion continues with the addition of the 11th and 12th regions and the implementation in CI, CP, and CEI classes of the six national languages. During Year 6, the scale-up continues to the 14 regions. Table 7 presents a summary of Scenario 3 LPT scale-up by language of instruction. Table 7: Scenario 3 Rollout of Languages of Instruction Languages Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 CI CP CE1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The projected cost for Scenario 3 over six years is 82,291,024,797 CFA17 or approximately US $140,000,000 (Table 8). Table 8: Scenario 3 Summary Budget Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Community Engagement 263,873,069 299,346,952 367,317,050 426,330,422 570,938,618 633,884,464 2,561,690,575 Lexical Development 147,012,000 27,611,200 0 0 0 0 174,623,200 Materials Production 5,053,467,332 3,597,478,369 4,734,198,008 5,836,661,201 7,820,353,866 10,739,085,704 37,781,244,481 Pre- and In￾service Training 3,393,565,921 3,961,929,340 4,922,751,997 5,789,193,658 7,499,269,099 9,492,345,137 35,059,055,151 17 Equivalent to approximately US$139,355,480 on January 9, 2020, according to XE currency converter. 27 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Coaching 35,345,000 36,040,500 36,770,481 37,536,660 38,340,843 39,184,923 223,218,406 Financial Management 81,039,000 85,626,600 10,079,392 131,316,623 227,729,791 334,021,296 966,812,703 Communication 638,682,000 709,770,000 798,076,000 886,670,000 1,063,570,000 1,240,470,000 5,337,238,000 Piloting and Coordination 24,007,500 25,435,000 28,226,250 31,024,063 36,488,766 41,960,704 187,142,282 Total 9,636,991,821 8,743,237,961 10,994,419,178 13,138,732,627 17,256,690,982 22,520,952,228 82,291,024,797 Though USAID frequently funds five-year projects, the three scenarios presented above propose a gradual LPT expansion to all regions of Senegal in accordance with the suggested six-year rollout of a bilingual education model presented in the MOHEBS and as suggested by multiple respondents, including the DEE, which noted that a scale-up would need to happen “gradually [because] we cannot do it in the 14 regions.” Scenarios 2 and 3 propose a faster rollout of new languages and would require strong technical expertise from the MEN at the central and decentralized levels earlier in the scale-up process. The replication budgets presented here consist mainly of two major components: materials production and in-service training of teachers and principals, which make up approximately 85 percent of the total budget. Two variables can explain why materials production makes up such a significant portion of the budget: the number of materials to be produced, which depends on the number of students targeted, and the unit price for these materials. In addition to reviewing and determining the most critical elements of the LPT model to take to scale, USAID/Senegal may wish to consider the following to reduce the costs associated with the production of LPT materials: • Follow MEN policy for renewing textbooks every three years. • Institute a system for maintaining and repairing damaged textbooks. Please see Annex VIII for complete details of the cost modeling used for the above scenarios. Answer to EQ2: How is LPT’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress towards achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? Reforming education in Senegal from a monolingual system to a bilingual system in a multilingual context will require sustained high-level political leadership from the GoS, management and technical leadership from the MEN, substantial financial investments from the GoS and its financial partners, and better coordination among technical partners. Although the MEN has issued directives that facilitate LPT implementation in targeted IAs and IEFs, there have thus far been few systematic and comprehensive efforts to review governing laws and formulate policies to support the use of national languages in the education system. Although there are opportunities for LPT to establish key strategic partnerships with committed MEN partners that could help foster greater progress in the policy environment needed to scale up the LPT model, these partnerships have failed thus far to materialize. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 28 RECOMMENDATIONS The evaluation team organized a one-day recommendations workshop with stakeholders from the MEN, USAID, LPT, and education partners to develop actionable and practical recommendations for the short term (through the end of LPT) and the long term to help make LPT scale-up more feasible and realistic. Participants worked in mixed working groups to review and address the evaluation findings. The following recommendations emerged from the workshop participants and technical experts on the evaluation team: Tasks Manager Policy Development 1. Develop a clear vision and comprehensive action plan for bilingual education in Senegal. GoS, DEE, DPRE 2. Develop policies on teacher recruitment, training, placement, and mobility that will support the implementation of bilingual education in Senegal. DRH, DEE, DFC 3. Finalize and validate the performance-level descriptors and benchmarks for reading in national languages and in French. LPT, INEADE 4. Include assessment items for reading in national languages in the annual assessments conducted for PAQEEB and the national assessments conducted by INEADE. INEADE 5. Conduct an impact evaluation of student reading performance in French to provide evidence of the LPT model’s impact on L2. LPT 6. Provide additional training to teachers so they may better implement the LPT timetable. LPT, DEE 7. Review the LPT timetable for better alignment with classroom realities. LPT 8. Develop a guide for the transfer of skills from L1 to L2 with explicit and systematic content and methods. LPT 9. Review the national curriculum to integrate reading in national languages. DEE Financial Management 10. Develop a G2G procedures manual and insert it into the overall MEN procedures manual. DAGE 11. Set deadlines for funding requests in the G2G procedures manual. DAGE 12. Submit funding requests early enough to avoid disbursement delays. DEE 13. Mobilize funds within the timeframe stated in the G2G procedures manual to pre-finance activities. DAGE 14. Respect the definition for “resident” as stipulated in the G50 for lodging and per diem allocations (e.g., residential status at the city/village level and not at the IEF level). DAGE, DEE Technical Readiness and Ownership 15. Identify technical experts at the DFC who will work with LPT and IEFs on a nationwide communication campaign to support reading in national languages in the early grades. DFC, LPT, IEFs, IAs 16. Actively engage IAs and IEFs in developing and implementing LPT and G2G work plans. LPT, DEE 17. Ensure that all LPT and G2G activities are fully integrated into IA annual work plans (avoid creating separate work plans for LPT and G2G activities). IA, DEE, LPT 18. Assess the technical support provided to IAs and IEFs by LPT through the homologation system and determine how best to engage the IAs and IEFs. LPT, DEE Teaching Corps Management 19. Collect information on the linguistic proficiency of student-teachers in the CRFPE. CRFPE 20. Identify teachers’ linguistic competencies within the MEN human resources management system, MIRADOR. DRH 21. Consider teachers’ linguistic proficiency during the placement of student-teachers. DRH 29 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Tasks Manager 22. Continue working with the DRH and the unions to revise teacher recruitment, placement, and mobility practices and adapt them for a multilingual system. LPT 23. Develop an alert system for IEFs to manage teacher movement outside the national teacher placement period (mouvement national). DRH 24. Create a sociolinguistic map of schools in all IEFs to inform the choice of language of instruction in each school. DALN Training 25. Start training in the last week of September to reduce disruptions to the school calendar. LPT, DEE 26. Provide additional training in national languages during in-service teacher training. LPT, DEE 27. Develop a simple and easy-to-use mobile application, such as “Duolingo”, to improve teachers’ proficiency in national languages. LPT, SIMEN 28. Provide training on LPT reading methods to all teachers within a school through the internal or zonal CAP. School Directors, DFC 29. Develop summary training guides for teachers who did not participate in LPT- or G2G-led training sessions and that could be used within the CAPs. LPT 30. Integrate a comprehensive set of modules in support of the LPT model within the national preservice framework. DRH, CRFPE, LPT 31. Implement the LPT preservice training modules in all functioning CRFPEs. LPT, DRH, CRFPE 32. Recruit instructors for the three national languages currently being used by LPT for each of the CRFPEs (all CRFPEs should provide training in all three languages). DRH, CRFPE Coaching 33. Use existing systems (e.g., available transportation) to conduct coaching sessions. IA, IEF, LPT 34. Integrate the LPT coaching model in the statement of work/contract of the inspectors and school directors. DRH, IA, IEF 35. Consider the LPT coaching sessions part of the 25 annual school visits required by the inspectors. IA, IEF, LPT 36. Encourage the inspectors to use the LPT coaching tools during their 25 annual school visits. DEE, IA, IEF, LPT Materials 37. Identify technical partners for developing teaching and learning materials to replicate the LPT model in the other three languages. MEN, LPT 38. Improve projections for materials needs, with a markup of 5 to 10 percent. DPRE, DEE, LPT 39. Institute a quality control mechanism at the level of the IA/IEF to verify materials prior to distribution to schools. IA, IEF 40. Launch bidding process for materials production earlier to account for delays. LPT, DEE 41. Make CGEs accountable for the on-time collection and distribution of the LPT materials. IA, IEF 42. Use the operational budget of the school management committees to collect the materials from the IEFs. School Directors 43. Identify LPT materials that are essential to the LPT methodology and procure those only. LPT, DEE 44. Identify financial partners and private sector actors who can help finance the production and distribution of materials for the LPT model. USAID, DEE, DPRE 45. Review the procurement schedule of the materials for the LPT model to reduce the financial burden on the MEN. DEE, INEADE USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 30 Tasks Manager 46. Develop and pilot materials maintenance and “rental” systems to prolong materials’ shelf life. LPT, IA, IEF Key actionable and practical recommendations for the LPT program that should be considered for implementation during the remaining period of performance include the following: ➢ Finalize and validate the performance-level descriptors and benchmarks for reading in national languages and in French. ➢ Review the LPT timetable for better alignment with classroom realities. ➢ Actively engage IAs and IEFs in developing and implementing LPT work plans. ➢ Ensure that all LPT activities are fully integrated into IA annual work plans (avoid creating separate work plans for LPT activities). ➢ Assess the technical support provided to IAs and IEFs by LPT through the homologation system and determine how best to engage the IAs and IEFs. ➢ Develop summary training guides for teachers who did not participate in LPT training sessions and that could be used within the CAPs. ➢ Use existing systems (e.g., available transportation) to conduct coaching sessions. ➢ Encourage the inspectors to use the LPT coaching tools during their 25 annual school visits. 31 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX I: FINDINGS FROM SCALABILITY WORKSHOP A one-day scaling-up workshop was held with participants from LPT; the MEN, including decentralized staff; and USAID’s Education Office. The workshop aimed to complete the Scalability Checklist Tool to assess the feasibility of taking the LPT model to scale at the national level. Four members of the MEP evaluation team served as facilitators in the four groups that assessed the various elements of the scalability checklist. In overall scoring, 13 out of the 27 potential scores were identified as creating a strong case for scaling to the national level. The remaining 14 points were equally divided between low change to take to scale (7) and neither easy nor challenging to take to scale (7). The model’s strongest characteristic to support taking to scale was pertinence. There was no doubt that reading is a critical problem across the country that should be addressed at a national level. The lowest scoring indicator, as is usual in many of these exercises, is possession of a sustainable funding source to take the model to scale. The model is seen as not cost-effective and as requiring substantial funding to take to national scale. On the model’s credibility, answers were equally divided, with a strong case for the model’s ability to function in multiple social contexts (across diverse regions) and with the support of key individuals and institutions. The model’s credibility received lower scores on independent evaluation and solid proof of its effectiveness. On the model’s advantages compared with the current system, all answers were between easy and challenging to scale. This reflects a lack of clear proof that the model has clear advantages over the current educational system offered in public schools or piloted by other donor interventions. On the model’s simplicity and the ease of adapting it to scale, the answers were equally divided between easy to scale (5) and not easy (3) or in-between (2). The highest scores relate to the use of current systems, close to the current practices of the local population, and elements that are easily integrated into the current school system. The lower scores are seen in model complexity, with multiple components, high level of oversight and supervision, and a large number of political deciders that need to provide approval to take the model to scale. The workshop allocated time for groups to present recommendations to help mitigate some of these lower scores, which reflect a higher level of challenge to take the LPT model to scale. The following is a table of recommendations presented: Challenge for Scaling up Recommendation Limited evidence Limited proof that the model is effective Use standardized national tests to analyze any difference in French reading levels between LPT schools and standard schools. Lack of independent external evaluation Conduct reading tests this school year in CE2 classes that have not received LPT and then compare with students who received LPT in CE2. No Clear Advantage Effectiveness of model compared with current education system and other pilots Conduct a comparison analysis of LPT effectiveness compared with other pilot models and approaches. Complexity of Model Large number of components • Conduct organizational assessments to understand the systems of each and examine ways to more easily transpose the model to the MEN. • Create an inventory of the basic minimum elements required for the model to be effective. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 32 Challenge for Scaling up Recommendation High level of oversight and monitoring Clarify and outline the role of school directors and inspectors in ensuring regular oversight and monitoring. Requires many decision makers to take to scale Develop a communication and advocacy campaign targeted at critical decision makers and use EGRA scores to show the model’s effectiveness. Lack of financial resources No proof of cost-effectiveness Assess the model’s costs to operate effectively. Requires high level of funding • Harmonize donor interventions in education to support scaling. • Develop a reading line item in the MEN’s budget. One of the greatest dilemmas for securing solid evidence of LPT’s effectiveness is that LPT tests reading levels only in national languages. The standard curriculum schools teach reading only in French, so there is no way to conduct control testing to assess differences in reading levels between LPT and non-LPT schools. To lobby political decision makers to adopt the LPT approach, there will need to be solid evidence that the model improves reading scores in national languages as well as in French. Table 9: Completed LPT Scalability Assessment Checklist A B C Caractéristique du modèle ☺✓ La mise en échelle est plus facile ✓ La mise en échelle est plus difficile ✓ Est-ce que le modèle est crédible ? 1 Preuves solides ✓ Peu ou pas de preuves solides 2 Evaluation externe et indépendante Pas d’évaluation externe et indépendante ✓ 3 ✓ Il y a des preuves que le modèle marche dans différents contextes sociaux Il n’y a pas de preuves que le modèle marche dans différents contextes sociaux 4 ✓ Le modèle a le support d’individus et institutions éminents Le modèle n’a pas le support les individus et les institutions éminents Les résultats du modèle peuvent￾ils être observés ? 5 ✓ L’impact est très visible à l‘œil nu ; tangible Impact peu visible ; difficile à communiquer au public 6 Clairement associé à l’intervention Pas clairement associé à l’intervention ✓ 7 ✓ Témoignages et documents existent avec un attrait émotionnel certain Peu ou pas d’évidence, peu d’attrait émotionnel Quelle est la pertinence du modèle ? 8 ✓ Résout objectivement un problème significatif et persistant Résout un problème qui affecte peu de personnes ou d’impact limité 9 ✓ Résout un problème qui est actuellement l’une des priorités politiques Résout un problème qui n’est pas une priorité politique 10 ✓ Répond à un besoin fortement ressenti par les bénéficiaires potentiels Répond à un besoin peu ressenti par les bénéficiaires potentiels Le modèle offre-t￾il des avantages relatifs par 11 Les solutions actuelles pour cette question sont jugées insuffisantes ✓ Les solutions actuelles sont jugées adéquates 33 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV A B C Caractéristique du modèle ☺✓ La mise en échelle est plus facile ✓ La mise en échelle est plus difficile ✓ rapport à la pratique actuelle ? 12 Efficacité supérieure par rapport aux solutions actuelles ✓ Peu ou pas de preuve objective de la supériorité par rapport aux solutions actuelles 13 Efficacité supérieure par rapport aux autres modèles novateurs mis en place ✓ L’efficacité supérieure par rapport aux autres modèles novateurs n’est pas établie Est-il facile d’adopter et de transférer le modèle ? 14 ✓ Mise en œuvre au sein des systèmes présents, de l'infrastructure et des ressources humaines Nécessite des systèmes, infrastructures, ou ressources humaines nouveaux et/ou supplémentaires 15 ✓ Contient des éléments qui s’ajoutent facilement aux systèmes présents Est un paquet complet ou exhaustif de plusieurs composants 16 ✓ Proche des pratiques et comportements actuels de la population ciblée Grand départ par rapport aux pratiques et comportements actuels de la population ciblée 17 ✓ Proche des pratiques actuelles et de la culture de l'organisation (s) qui est en train d’adopter le modèle Grand départ par rapport aux pratiques et culture de l'organisation (s) qui est en train d’adopter le modèle 18 L’accord de seulement quelques décideurs est nécessaire pour l'adoption du modèle L’accord de nombreux décideurs est nécessaire pour l'adoption du modèle ✓ 19 Le modèle a un nombre limité de contrôle et de supervision ✓ Le modèle a un nombre élevé de contrôle et de supervision 20 Efficacité démontrée dans divers contextes organisationnels ✓ Efficacité démontrée que dans un contexte organisationnel 21 Peu de sophistication technique des composantes et activités du modèle Grande sophistication technique des composantes et activités du modèle ✓ 22 ✓ L’innovation majeure est une technique claire et facile à reproduire, par exemple, le vaccin La mise au point du modèle n'est pas une technique facile à reproduire 23 Peu de complexité ; simple avec peu de composants qui s’ajoutent facilement aux systèmes existants Complexité élevée avec de nombreux éléments ; ensemble intégré ✓ Le modèle peut-il être testé ? 24 ✓ Peut être testé sur une échelle limitée Ne peut être testé sans être adopté à grande échelle Y-a-t-il une source de financement durable ? 25 Supériorité coût-efficacité démontrée par rapport aux solutions existantes ou autres clairement établie Peu de preuves de supériorité en termes de coût-efficacité ✓ 26 Nécessite un petit engagement de fonds à l'échelle Demande un grand engagement de fonds à l’échelle ✓ 27 Le modèle a son propre financement interne (par exemple, les frais d'utilisation) ou de la dotation ✓ Pas de financement interne; le modèle dépend de source de financement externe USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 34 A B C Caractéristique du modèle ☺✓ La mise en échelle est plus facile ✓ La mise en échelle est plus difficile ✓ Nombre total de contrôles 13 7 7 35 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX II: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS EQ1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? EQ1.1. a: To what extent is implementation achieving expected policy results? A1. LPT works with the Bureau genre, partenariat, et communication at the IEF levels to implement the communication strategy. The chargé de communication in the IEF/IA received training from LPT. The LPT communication strategy, particularly when paired with the community engagement component, has successfully informed teachers, school directors, and parents about the benefit of learning to read first in the early grades in national languages. [A4, A5, A78] The communication strategy is implemented by LPT in collaboration with the Bureau genre, partenariat, et communication at the IEF/IA, though the plan was not implemented in Saint-Louis in Year 1 under the G2G program. Respondents noted, however, that the communication strategy is led solely by LPT, with some participation from IEFs and IAs, but with little to no engagement from the MEN at the central level. [A1, A2, A3] • Identify a technical expert at the DFC who will work with LPT and IEFs on a nationwide communication campaign in support of reading in national languages in the early grades A2. There are no counterparts (“homologues”) at the MEN at the central level to collaborate with LPT on the communication strategy. A3. The communication plan, led by LPT with the IA in Saint￾Louis, was not implemented as planned during Year 1 for the G2G program. According to the IA and LPT team in Saint-Louis, there is a lack of communication materials. A4. Most parents, school directors, and teachers in all LPT and G2G regions stated that they learned about the LPT program and the benefits of learning to read first in national languages through the radio and television spots. A5. Some respondents noted that in some communities, particularly those without the community engagement component (Result 3), people do not fully understand the LPT program and question the use of national languages in schools. A6. LPT and the MEN have developed performance standards and benchmarks for reading in the three national languages in CI and CP based on EGRA results (2017, 2018). The reading performance standards and benchmarks developed by LPT and the MEN for reading in national languages in the lower grades have not yet been validated by the MEN and are currently being revised. [A6, A7, A8] The reading performance standards and benchmarks are not being used in the Senegalese education system. IEFs and IAs were not informed about the benchmarks and could not provide information on how they are being used in classrooms or at the decentralized or centralized levels of the • Finalize and validate the performance level descriptors and benchmarks for reading in national languages and in French. • Include assessment items for reading in national languages in the annual assessments conducted for PAQEEB and in the national assessments conducted by INEADE. • Conduct an impact evaluation of student reading performance in French to provide evidence of the LPT model’s impact on L2. • Create a sociolinguistic map of schools in all IEFs to inform the choice of language of instruction in each school. A7. The reading performance standards and benchmarks developed by LPT have not yet been validated by the MEN, since they are still in the development phase. A8. The reading performance standards and benchmarks developed by LPT are currently being reviewed by INEADE and an LPT international consultant. According to INEADE, the revisions will allow for greater alignment with proposed UNESCO reading performance level descriptors, which are currently being piloted and have not been approved. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 36 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A9. Building on its experience with LPT, INEADE would like to establish performance standards and benchmarks for all subjects and all grades up to Grade 6. MEN to measure and monitor student reading performance in national languages. [A10, A11] As currently formulated, the benchmarks developed under LPT are incompatible with the education system in Senegal. Though the MEN at the central level understands the value of performance benchmarks and was heavily engaged in the development process, the developed benchmarks cannot be used within the education system without significant reforms to the curriculum and national evaluation system. The benchmarks provide performance guidelines for reading in national languages as measured by the EGRA tool (i.e., five core reading skills), yet the national assessment system does not measure reading in national languages, nor does it utilize EGRA or EGRA-like tools. [A6, A8, A9, A12, A13, A15] Though EGRA is widely known by the MEN and is regarded as a valuable tool for measuring student reading performance, it remains unclear how well it is understood at the decentralized levels. IEFs confused the reading performance standards, the project’s performance indicator, and the five core reading skills measured by EGRA and noted that they administer it without having been trained in EGRA. [A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16] EGRA has not yet been institutionalized at INEADE as part of the national evaluation system and it remains unclear how successfully the IA/IEFs have integrated EGRA items into their regional assessment A10. When asked about the performance standards for reading in national languages, none of the IEFs and IAs were familiar with them. All referred to the five core reading skills measured by the EGRA, but none could provide the benchmarks or examples of how they, teachers, and school directors use the benchmarks to monitor student learning. A11. When discussing performance benchmarks, some respondents referred to the LPT indicator “at least 70 percent of Grade 2 students to be reading at grade level by the end of the 2020/2021 school year.” A12. All MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels are familiar with EGRA and state that EGRA is currently being used in annual assessments undertaken by IEFs, at the behest of the DEE, for PAQEEB reporting purposes. However, none could provide detailed information on how the EGRAs were developed or how they are being implemented and analyzed. A13. IEFs explained that the annual assessment undertaken for PAQEEB includes an evaluation of reading performance in French as well as the other curricular subjects such as math and science. IEFs further explain that these assessments measure student performance in the five core reading skills measured by EGRA. A14. IEF and school directors explained that they measure student performance in reading during coaching visits. They select five students from the classroom and administer the “reduced” EGRA. This administration is part of LEMA, the formative assessment system proposed as part of the LPT model. A15. All MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels agree that measuring reading performance with EGRA is important and necessary. All note that EGRA studies under LPT should include items in both national languages and French to measure student performance in both L1 and L2. 37 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A16. LPT’s active collaboration with INEADE during the implementation of its EGRAs provided needed capacity building for assessing student reading performance at the MEN central level. Decentralized MEN actors were not, however, engaged in the EGRA process. activities. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the MEN at the central or decentralized levels is using EGRA data from LPT studies to inform decision making. [A10, A12, A17] The MEN maintains that the national assessment system will continue to measure reading performance in French, in accordance with current curricular guidelines. Assessment of reading performance in national languages has not been introduced into the national assessment system and is pending the development of institutional texts requiring such measurements. [A12, A13, A15, A19] The sociolinguistic studies conducted by LPT in its six regions and the Division of literacy and national languages (DALN) 18 in Saint￾Louis are considered critical to inform the choice of national language of instruction. However, many pointed to its limitations in addressing disparities between teachers’ language skills and the choice of language of instruction, and others noted that the decision to intervene in three national languages excluded some students and entire school communities. [A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26] A17. Though INEADE implemented EGRA under G2G in Saint￾Louis and presented findings on November 14, 2019, there are currently no concrete plans to integrate it into the national evaluation system because of a lack of financial and logistical resources that are required for an EGRA. A18. There is confusion about EGRA’s frequency, and thus purpose, under the G2G LPT program. INEADE stated that the midline EGRA had been canceled due to budget constraints. The DEE claimed that this is a misunderstanding and that the midline will take place. USAID, however, explained that a midline was never planned given the G2G implementation timeline, though the Year 2 G2G budget does include costs for an EGRA. A19. INEADE stated that the national assessments at the CP and CE2 levels will include measures only of reading performance in French, in accordance with current decrees that are in effect. A20. LPT implemented, in collaboration with INEADE, a sociolinguistic study (cartographie linguistique) that was considered by most respondents as an important study to inform LPT implementation. A21. INEADE collaborated with LPT on several studies and evaluation activities conducted in the six targeted regions, including the sociolinguistic study, the study on French vocabulary, the EGRA baseline and midline studies, and a study on teacher mobility. A22. The DALN implemented the sociolinguistic study in Saint￾Louis, which served to inform language choice for targeted schools for the G2G program. 18 Direction de l’alphabétisation et des langues nationales at the MEN USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 38 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A23. Study results were used to determine the language of instruction for each intervention school; students’ dominant language on the playground and the choice of the community were key determinants for the language of instruction. A24. However, several respondents noted that the chosen language of instruction often differs from that of the teacher, which was not considered when determining the language of instruction for LPT in a given school. « Pour le choix de la langue, déjà, on regarde au niveau de l’école la langue du milieu. Mais est-ce que le même travail a été fait au niveau des enseignants ? Est-ce que tous les enseignants qui sont là-bas parlent la langue du milieu ? C’est pas toujours evident.” – IEF Saint-Louis Département A25. In Matam, several respondents noted that the national language of instruction (L1) chosen by LPT did not correspond to field realities, which meant that several school communities had to be excluded from the project since neither of the three LPT languages (Pular, Serere, and Wolof) were appropriate. A26. Teachers, school directors, and parents also noted that some students do not speak the chosen national language of instruction (L1), which may be the most widely spoken language on the playground and/or the language chosen by the community. The language choice thus prevents some students from fully participating in LPT classes. This sentiment was also echoed by UNICEF, which views the choice of one national language of instruction as exclusionary. A27. The DEE instructed the IEFs in the LPT and G2G regions to implement the classroom timetable proposed by LPT, which incorporates 60 minutes of reading time in national language in targeted grades. IEFs, teachers, and school directors have all stated that the timetable has been adopted by the schools. The timetable proposed by LPT for reading in national languages is adopted in targeted schools though teachers and school directors find it to be “overloaded.” Teachers have difficulty implementing the LPT timetable due to class size, requirements of other subjects, and delays to the start of the LPT program (e.g., delayed distribution of materials). [A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A37] • Provide additional training to teachers so they may better implement the LPT timetable. • Review the LPT timetable for better alignment with classroom realities. • Review the national curriculum to integrate reading in national languages. A28. IEFs, teachers, and school directors noted that the timetable is “overloaded” (lourd) and that teachers have difficulty completing lessons during the time allocated. 39 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A29. Teachers and IEFs have noted that it is difficult for a teacher to implement the proposed timetable in large classrooms and in multigrade (double flux) classrooms. Teachers pointed to the difficulties in implementing the “tu fais” component of lessons when the classrooms are very large. « C’est un emploi de temps surchargé.... il sera très difficile pour l’enseignant de faire toutes les leçons du jour….Vous ne pouvez pas avoir 60, 80 élevés dans une classe et pouvoir les suivre individuellement avec le « Tu fais ». C’est extrêmement difficile…” – Teacher in Kaolack Stakeholders are also concerned about the timetable’s impact on curricular subjects, particularly on French, for which they believe classroom hours are now reduced. [A31, A32] The transfer of skills from L1 to L2 is a mixed bag. Although some teachers state that they can do it, many others noted that is difficult to do. The misalignment between the LPT curriculum and the national French curriculum (e.g., the scope and sequence of letter sounds) and the delays in launching LPT classroom lessons (delayed training and materials) hinder teachers’ abilities to properly use acquired L1 reading skills to learn to read in L2. [A33, A34, A35, A36, A37] • Develop a guide for the transfer of skills from L1 to L2 with explicit and systematic content and methods. • Launch bidding process for materials production earlier to account for delays. A30. School directors in Kaolack and Matam pointed to conflicting instructions on afternoon classes. They stated that in September, they received training to implement remediation classes in reading and math in the afternoons; however, LPT already occupies that time with reading the decodable LPT books. A31. Teachers view the LPT lessons as add-ons to the current curriculum (curriculum d’enseignement de base), which they inconsistently implement due to time constraints, classroom management difficulties, and requirements of other curriculum subjects. A32. IEFs in Saint-Louis raised concerns about the LPT timetable’s impact on the other subjects, for which the national timetable (quantum horaire) has not changed. According to respondents, the LPT timetable reduces the time allotted to other subjects that are mainly considered secondary. However, several teachers have raised concerns about the time now available for French (L2) instruction. Several teachers noted that they are spending too little time on French. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 40 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A33. LPT and some school directors noted that the LPT training and guide provide enough support to teachers in the transfer of skills between L1 and L2. Some school directors and IEFs noted that teachers “save” time when teaching L2 thanks to the training provided by LPT on the transfer of skills between L1 and L2. « Dans un 1er temps, il faut noter qu’ils avaient de petites difficultés pour le transfert. Par exemple les concepts : niveau d’ancrage, point d’ancrage ; maintenant c’est très clair. C’est bien compris parce qu’il fallait partir des lettres qui sont déjà vues en L1 (en langue nationale). Ces lettres-là, s’il faut les étudier en L2, l’enseignant a déjà un gain cognitif » - IEF Saint-Louis Département A34. However, several teachers and some IEFs have also noted that the training and guidance provided for the transfer of skills from L1 to L2 is inadequate. Many teachers further noted that the transfer is too difficult to apply. « Il faut aussi accorder plus de temps à la L2 pour régler le problème de la lecture en français. Parce que le transfert il est insuffisant. Quoiqu'on puisse dire aussi nous sommes dans un pays qui a comme langue officielle d le français. Je crois que le transfert il est insuffisant pour régler le problème du français. » - Teacher in Kaolack A35. Teachers, parents, and MEN officials provided several examples of poor skills transfer from L1 to L2. Parents explained that students confuse letters in L1 and L2, pronouncing “u” as “ou” when reading in French, for example, or reading entire sentences written in French using the letter sounds in Wolof. A36. According to the DFC and the LPT « Document d’appui à la formation des élèves-maitres en lecture écriture initiale, Wolof, janvier – septembre 2019 », there are 13 to 16 letter sounds that students should already know when L2 is introduced during the second trimester of CI. Students will have already learned these letter sounds in L1 and can transfer them to L2, thus capitalizing on a learning advantage (gain cognitif). 41 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A37. IEFs and teachers in LPT and G2G regions pointed to delays in materials distribution, training, and teacher placement as key factors that negatively impact teachers’ ability to respect the proposed rollout of the LPT model (e.g., sequence and schedule of LPT lessons) and ensure proper transfer of skills between L1 and L2. « Il y aura un gain de lettres sons que l’élève devait capitaliser au moment où il va rejoindre le démarrage de la L2. Alors, ce gain-là devait être donc capitalisé. Mais s’il n’est pas réalisé à temps, si l’enseignant n’a pas la capacité de bien gérer les 2 planifications, il n’aura pas ce gain-là. » – IEF Saint-Louis Commune « On a commencé entre fin décembre et début janvier. Pour la lecture en français, on a débuté en apprenant la prononciation correcte des sons. De ce fait, nous étions obligés d’attendre un mois et demi pour travailler sur la lecture wolof. Nous avons arrêté complétement la lecture en français, afin de travailler seulement sur la lecture en wolof » - Teacher in Saint-Louis Commune A38. LPT conducted a study on teacher mobility with the DRH. Several recommendations emerged from this study, including a draft agreement with teacher unions that was ultimately validated “sous-réserve.” The agreement rejected a key article: the commitment of LPT-trained teachers to remain with the program for two years. « Ce rapport n’a pas pu être validé…ils l’ont validé sous réserve. Ils ont encore mis des exigences et qui font qu’on a été obligé de revoir l’élément qui faisait en tout cas l’objet de discorde entre l’administration et les partenaires. Et voilà on a supprimé cette partie,…Là où on demandait en tout cas, on proposait à l’autorité et aux partenaires que si un enseignant s’engage à travailler pour le programme LPT, que cet engagement soit matérialisé par un engagement écrit. Et que l’enseignant puisse rester au moins deux ans dans le programme avec cet engagement. » - DRH Teacher mobility, recruitment, and placement practices, which do not consider teachers’ language proficiency, experience, or training in the LPT model, represent critical impediments to LPT implementation and bilingual education in Senegal. LPT has not been able to secure an agreement with teacher unions that would ensure teacher commitment to the program for at least two years. Absent comprehensive MEN policies that address these issues and buy-in from the teacher unions, the “solutions” proposed by LPT to place and retain trained teachers within LPT classrooms (e.g., preservice modules) will serve only as stopgap measures. [A38, A39, A40, A41, A42, A43, A44] • Continue working with the DRH and the unions to revise teacher recruitment, placement, and mobility practices and adapt them for a multilingual system. • Develop an alert system for IEFs to manage teacher movement outside the national teacher placement period (mouvement national). • Provide LPT training to all teachers within a school through the internal or zonal CAP. • Develop summary training guides for teachers who did not participate in LPT- or G2G-led training sessions and that could be used within the CAPs. • Collect information on the linguistic proficiency of student-teachers in the CRFPEs. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 42 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A39. Teacher mobility, particularly the mouvement national, is regarded by respondents as a critical difficulty to LPT implementation. Though teachers are required to stay within the same IA for five years, they can request transfers to other IEFs. The piloting of the preservice LPT training modules with student-teachers in three CRFPEs was largely unsuccessful as centers were unable to implement all the LPT modules. [A45, A46, A47, A48] • Identify within MIRADOR teachers’ linguistic competencies. • Consider teachers’ linguistic proficiency during student-teacher placement. • Implement the LPT preservice training modules in all functioning CRFPEs. • Integrate a comprehensive set of modules in support of the LPT model within the national preservice framework. • Recruit instructors for the three national languages currently being used by LPT for each of the CRFPEs (all CRFPEs should provide training in all three languages). A40. LPT-trained teachers are often relocated to other schools, IEFs, or IAs that may not participate in the program. These teacher mobility practices (mouvement démocratique) are based on merit and needs and are available to all teachers. A41. School directors have the latitude to assign teachers to different grades within a school. Many have expressed concerns about the need to maintain LPT-trained teachers in certain grades when they may have important vacancies to fill in other non-LPT grades. A42. MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels also pointed to current teacher recruitment and placement practices as negatively impacting LPT implementation. A43. Many teachers and school directors are placed in school communities where they do not speak the dominant language since recruitment and placement practices are based on merit and not language proficiency. « Le problème est qu’il est difficile voire quasi impossible de mettre dans chaque classe LPT un enseignant locuteur de la langue pulaar. Souvent nos enseignants nous viennent des autres régions, Casamance, etc. Souvent Ils ne sont pas de bons locuteurs de la langue locale. Ils ne sont même pas des locuteurs de la langue pulaar. » - IEF Kanel « Mais celui qu’on a affecté là-bas pour enseigner aux enfants pose un problème. Alors ça c’est l’affectation du corps enseignant à la place qu’il faut. » - ARED 43 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A44. Several respondents explained that teacher preservice training in reading in national languages in the CRFPE (formation initiale) is a promising means for curbing the negative effects of current teacher recruitment, placement, and mobility practices on the LPT program. « Moi je pense qu’il faut d’abord par former tous les élèves maitres du Sénégal, dans tous les CRFPE. Au moins, on est sûr que ces sortants-là, partout ils seront affectés, ils pourront dérouler la lecture initiale avec LPT. » - CRFPE Kaolack A45. Three CRFPE have piloted preservice training modules that focus on the LPT reading model. Of the 15 modules originally developed by LPT, only eight were selected to be piloted in the CRFPEs, though none of the three centers were able to pilot all the modules. CRFPE staff pointed to difficulties in integrating the modules into the current timetables for preservice trainings and to a lack of instructors for the language transcription modules. A46. Of the eight modules made available by LPT, the CRFPE in Saint-Louis was able to implement fewer than half because of the late start to the pilot and because of a lack of instructors. A47. According to the IEF in Saint-Louis Commune, the CRFPE in Saint-Louis did not have the LPT materials to properly train the student-teachers. « Et on n’a pas encore senti l’implication des CRFPE dans ce programme-là. Dès fois, ils n’ont même pas les manuels. En tout cas, les élèves maitres qui ont été formés cette année, ils n’ont jamais été dans le programme alors qu’on aurait dû vraiment régler ce problème au niveau des CRFPE. Les former davantage et les initier. » - IEF Saint-Louis Commune A48. The student-teachers in Saint-Louis were not trained in Pular and Serere language transcriptions due to a lack of instructors. Only student-teachers in Wolof were trained in language transcription. A49. LPT supported the MEN in the development of two key documents in support of bilingual education: the Modèle harmonisé de l’enseignement bilingue au Sénégal (MOHEBS) and the Programme national de lecture (PNL). At the time of this evaluation, several respondents did not have much information about the MOHEBS or the PNL. Many claimed not to have seen the MOHEBS and USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 44 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A50. The MOHEBS seeks to serve as a framework for all partners working in primary education in Senegal. It proposes an approach to bilingual education that uses national languages and French as both learning medium and subject in all primary grades. lamented the lack of consultation with decentralized MEN structures and MEN partners. [A49, A50, 51, A52, A53] A51. Many respondents felt that the MEN and LPT were speaking different languages. Respondents noted the lack of cohesion between the MEN’s vision for the system (i.e., a bilingual education system) and the LPT program, which intervenes only in reading in national languages. For example, the MOHEBS proposes to introduce reading in French in the first trimester of CP (Grade 2), whereas LPT recommends that French be introduced only at the beginning of CE1 (Grade 3). « Il y a eu une certaine césure entre le projet en tant qu’intervention et l’option du pays, c’est autour de la question du bilinguisme...il faut que l’approche intègre les aspects bilingues. » - DPRE A52. Several respondents noted that the development of the MOHEBS had not included a comprehensive consultation process with all partners and funders and that the draft had not been sufficiently shared. « Et ce document, le MOHEBS, c’est typiquement le document même qui n’a pas fait l’objet de, à mon sens, de suffisamment de partage » - World Bank « On ne l’a pas partagé de manière approfondie pour qu’on s’approprie » - IA Kaolack A53. The PNL framework is still in development. Most respondents didn’t know much about it except that it focuses on reading only. 45 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A54. IEFs, IAs, teachers, and school directors all highly regard the coaching model that is included in the LPT program. All cited coaching as a success and viewed it as highly beneficial to teachers. « Et ici avec le coaching, ça se fait très bien et alors ça permet de mettre les enseignants à niveau. Ça passe par l'encadrement par les pairs et c’est une très bonne chose. » - IEF Guinguinéo « Les directeurs ont été formés à une nouvelle formule de coaching qui par exemple rompt avec le passé où il y’a tout juste une mission de contrôle. Ici, c’est une collaboration pour pouvoir booster le niveau de l’enfant et de l’enseignant aussi. Donc ceux sont des éléments positifs qui nous ont quand même permis d’atteindre ces résultats. » - School director IEF Saint￾Louis Commune Though respondents highly value the coaching proposed for the LPT model, inspectors and school directors can’t implement it as designed by LPT. The LPT coaching model is not yet instituted within IEF and school directors’ scopes of work and therefore remains an LPT activity that is not integrated into the MEN systems. Inspectors and school directors frequently cited time constraints as an impediment to implementing the coaching model and resources constraints (e.g., transport, funding for per diem and lodging) as a serious obstacle to its sustainability. [A54, A55, A56, A57] Although IEFs recognize that they have participated in developing work plans for LPT and G2G, they still express a lack of ownership of and strategic vision for the programs at the IA/IEF levels. Strategic and monitoring documents at the IA/IEF level, such as the annual work plans, do not integrate LPT activities, which are planned out separately from the IA/IEF planning process. [A58, A59, A60, A61, A62] The IEFs understand their role for the G2G program, and in LPT regions, as that of an “implementer” with no decision-making authority. They carry out activities as directed by the DEE at the central MEN level and by LPT. [A61, A62, A63, A64] Though LPT relies on counterparts and focal points for coordinating and implementing activities with the MEN at the central and • Use existing systems (e.g., available transportation) to conduct coaching sessions. • Integrate the LPT coaching model into the statement of work/contract of the inspectors and school directors. • Consider the LPT coaching sessions as part of the 25 annual school visits required by the inspectors. • Encourage the inspectors to use the LPT coaching tools during their 25 annual school visits. • Actively engage IAs and IEFs in developing and implementing LPT and G2G work plans. • Ensure that all LPT and G2G activities are fully integrated into IA annual work plans (avoid creating separate work plans for LPT and G2G activities). • Assess the technical support provided to IAs and IEFs by LPT through the homologation system and determine how best to engage the IAs and IEFs. A55. IEFs and school directors noted that the training, guide, and materials (fiches) for the coaching model are well designed and easily implemented. However, in Saint-Louis, school directors noted a lack of training on the coaching model as an impediment. « Oui j’ai subi la formation en coaching l’année dernière en fin de l’année mais depuis lors je n’ai pas eu à le pratiquer avec mes collègues parce qu’il y a un problème d’appropriation du document. » - School director IEF Dagana A56. Inspectors and school directors noted some constraints with the coaching model, notably the lack of logistical support for the inspectors, the frequency of sessions, and the time required to conduct the sessions. « Voilà donc on a eu à travailler avec LPT d’ailleurs l’autre jour leur demandais de nous appuyer là-dessus puisque c’est un peu quand même difficile mais nous devons faire en sorte que cela ne génère pas un coût exorbitant parce que ça doit être mis dans les habitudes. Est-ce que vous voyez, que tous les inspecteurs aillent séjourner pendant deux jours dans une IEF maintenant on va se débrouiller pour qu’il y’ait le moindre coût possible pour effectuer la tâche. » - IA USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 46 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A57. According to the IEFs, although support to teachers (“encadrement”) is included in their regular duties, they are responsible for only 25 school visits per year. IEFs consider the LPT/G2G coaching as an additional duty that could not always be integrated into their planning given the recommended frequency (i.e., once per trimester per teacher). « Bon, nous dans notre cahier de charge, aussi bien les coachings, nous avons 25 visites à faire au total. Mais quand même mes séances de coaching, c’est un peu spécifique. Pour chaque enseignant, normalement, l’année dernière on avait visité quand même presque, si je ne m’abuse pas, les maitres du CI. Et si je ne m’abuse pas, on avait vu presque sur 130 écoles, chaque inspecteur avait fait au moins 10 à 20 enseignants en une seule fois. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département decentralized levels, activities are implemented mostly by LPT, with unreliable participation from the MEN. Therefore, and particularly at the MEN central level, there has been limited transfer of skills that would facilitate the MEN’s ability to implement LPT and G2G activities without technical assistance. [A61, A64, A65] A58. The National Technical Committee (équipe technique nationale) and the Regional Technical Committee (équipe technique régionale) comprise MEN representatives from the central and decentralized levels. These committees plan the G2G activities and lead activities, such as training activities. A59. IEFs participated in developing the annual work plan for G2G activities led by the DEE and LPT activities led by LPT. « Au niveau de l’IA. On a eu 2 journées d’élaboration de la feuille de route de l’an 2 de G2G. Il y avait les IEFs, il y avait les points focaux, il y avait d’autres acteurs ; les agents de liaison de R3. Il y avait même la Mairie qui était là je crois. » - IEF Saint￾Louis Commune « On a appuyé le PTA. Sur la base de ce PTA, un plan de travail trimestriel a été élaboré ensemble. Il s’agit, maintenant, de faire la mise en œuvre de ce PTA et dans ce sens on a eu à organiser la formation des enseignants. » - LPT 47 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A60. Several IEFs in Saint-Louis and the other LPT regions noted that it is difficult to integrate LPT/G2G activities within their internal annual work plans, which are developed by the IEFs and IAs in a separate process. « Les gens quand ils sont en train de mettre en œuvre un nouveau programme, il leur est difficile de faire la mise en cohérence entre nous notre plan d’action en tant qu’inspection, nous avons des missions régaliennes, des missions naturelles à mettre en œuvre sur le terrain. Un nouveau programme vient, il faut vraiment faire la mise en cohérence. » - IEF Saint-Louis Commune « Pour la formation peut être deux choses à mentionner, la première, moi je le dis à l’occasion du bilan de l’an 1, c’est la cohérence qu’il faut avoir entre les activités prévues par le programme et aussi les plans d’actions qui sont actés au niveau des IEF. » - IEF Dagana A61. IEFs explained that they are implementers of LPT and G2G and not planners or decision makers on its implementation in the IA/IEFs. They noted that activity planning comes from the DEE at the MEN central level for G2G and from LPT for the other six regions. « Donc, pour le moment, dans notre IA, notre tâche se limite à la coordination et à la supervision des activités. Mais quant à la réflexion maintenant pour élaborer les TDR et autres, c’est la DEE. » - IA Saint-Louis « Peut-être l’autre difficulté c’est lié au pilotage et à 2 niveaux. Je l’ai dit tantôt, le pilotage se fait presque au niveau central. C’est la DEE qui conçoit les différents outils, qui conçoit les termes de référence par rapport aux formations. Donc, tout ce qui est réflexion c’est à ce niveau. Et c’est tardivement nous en tous cas que nous recevons cela » - IA Saint-Louis A62. IEFs in Saint-Louis, Matam, and Kaolack all noted that they are not involved in planning and developing scopes of work for LPT and G2G activities (e.g., training, materials). A63. There are counterparts (homologues) and focal points (points focals) at the MEN’s central and decentralized levels who serve as liaisons with LPT and G2G. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 48 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A64. Respondents noted that activities are planned and implemented mostly by LPT in its six regions and that the counterparts (homologues) participate sporadically in activities in LPT and G2G regions. Furthermore, respondents questioned whether the MEN would continue financing the counterpart positions to have dedicated officials for LPT/G2G. « y’a la question de l’homologation actuellement ici je pense que, au niveau de mon académie on a cinq au niveau des IEF y’en a, qu’est ce qu’ils vont devenir à la fin. … est ce que le gouvernement du Sénégal va continuer ce processus là d’homologation, mettre des personnes qui s’occupent uniquement de ça mais qui seront pris en charge. » - IA Kaolack « C’est dans le pilotage qu’il y a des difficultés en termes de coordination, en termes de faire ensemble et c’est ça le slogan de LPT….Cela a fait que l’implication des homologues pose problème, ça se réduit simplement à assister à une formation pour être former ou former. » - IA Matam « Mais pour le Ministère, même pour rencontrer son homologue, c’est difficile. C’est pourquoi nous avons d’énormes difficultés. On a beaucoup élaboré de politique mais on a beau convoquer des réunions, pour les rencontres parfois c’est difficile. » - LPT 49 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A65. According to LPT and ARED, the MEN at the central level requires a lot of support to conduct the training of trainers. MEN officials at the central level are not sufficiently equipped to train the regional technical committee and rely on technical assistance from LPT and ARED for those activities. “Au niveau national avec l’équipe technique nationale de formateurs des formateurs c’était LPT qui a fourni 90% de la facilitation. Je n’ai pas vu avec les homologues du ministère même quand je suis partie dans les séances tactiques où je devrais voir ces homologues à modéliser j’ai pas vu la modélisation c’était comme oui on peut le faire, on est des experts mais je ne l’ai pas vu. » - LPT « On nous demande d’allait aider le G2G. C’est ARED qui est en train d’aider les formateurs là-bas. Ceux sont nos formateurs, donc là nous sommes dans une position de formateurs de formateurs. » - ARED A66. LPT developed a community engagement framework that guides all community-based activities for the project. However, MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels are not familiar with this framework and stated that no community engagement guidance or policy exists at the MEN to support LPT or other education activities. « Oui l’engagement parental et communautaire et c’est une question nouvelle parce que on a tout le temps théorisé l’école de la communauté par la communauté et le projet avec les actions qu’il pose est en train de donner corps dans cette orientation stratégique en montrant vraiment de manière claire et concrète comment les parents pourraient être amenés à être impliqués dans ce que nous faisons au quotidien. » - DEE Although most respondents perceive Result 3, parental engagement, as a successful and critical LPT component, parental engagement remains an LPT activity outside the purview of the MEN at the central and decentralized levels. [A66, A67, A68, A69, A70, A76, A77, A83] The value-added of the LPT parental engagement strategy is unclear given the activities’ high costs, parents’ irregular participation rates in meetings, and the limited ability of many parents to actively support their children’s reading. [A67, A68, A69, A70, A71, A73, A74, A75] • Integrate within the MEN’s Plan d’action volontariste et de la qualité (PAVQ) good practices developed during the implementation of the LPT community engagement framework. • Validate the community engagement framework developed by LPT and the DEE. • Widely share at the MEN decentralized levels the community engagement framework developed by LPT and the DEE. • Review USAID evaluation results to assess the parental engagement component’s effectiveness and relevance. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 50 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A67. According to the MEN at the central and decentralized levels, parents, teachers, and school directors, the parental engagement component, Result 3, is a critical element of the project. « L'engagement communautaire est sans commune mesure un intrant de qualité pour la réussite d’un programme. » - IEF Kanel « C’est une intervention fondamentale à tout point de vue, et puis c’est une intervention aussi qui constitue l’originalité même du programme. » - DEE « Le troisième niveau, c’est au niveau des parents. On a senti aussi un engagement. Surtout avec les écoles R3, il y’a beaucoup d’écoles où les parents se sont engagés à organiser des activités telles que les clubs de lecture et des rencontres. Il y’a beaucoup d’activités qui devaient être prises en charge par l’école, maintenant ce sont les parents qui les ont supportées. Il y’a des succès par rapport à ça. » - IEF Dagana Even though LPT designed its community engagement component using existing government decrees and building from other donors’ previous experience working with school committees in Senegal, decentralized MEN officials view the LPT support to the school committees as a project initiative that is not integrated into MEN structures and protocols and that may be unsustainable given the high costs of the community engagement model. [A66, A68, A75, A76, A77, A83] The LPT community engagement component is highly valued by all respondents, as evidenced by the collectivités territoriales that have funded replication efforts in nontargeted schools. Parents support the LPT’s approach to early grade reading although their participation in community engagement activities is mixed, with some parents attending school meetings regularly and others never attending. [A69, A71, A72, A73, A74, A78, A79, A80] • Strengthen IA and IEF roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the parental engagement activities. A68. Several respondents noted that the LPT community engagement component has reaffirmed the concept of community school (école de la communauté), which strengthens school community ties, as described in PAQUET. « Il y a également l’implication des comités de gestion (CGE). Ils ont été financés et ils sont impliqués dans les actions parce que l’école c’est l’école de la communauté. Ce n’est pas l’école des enseignants mais c’est l’école de la communauté. Et quand la communauté est informée de ce qui se passe à l’école ça facilite même le suivi, parce qu’en dehors de l’école l'enfant de retrouve à la maison et si la maison, les parents, la communauté sont informés, je pense qu’en même c’est une très bonne chose. » - IEF Guinguinéo A69. According to most respondents, LPT community engagement activities actively promote parental support for children’s learning and act as a bridge between the school and the home, particularly with the livret de maison. 51 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A70. Although many respondents would like to see Result 3 expanded to more school communities, several respondents have questioned the parental engagement strategy’s sustainability, expressing concerns about its costs and the need for the livret de maison. A71. Several parents have noted that they cannot support their children at home due to a lack of capacity or time constraints but reported that other family members provide support to the children. A72. Several IEFs, notably in Saint-Louis, LPT, and the DEE have noted replication efforts by local representatives, particularly of the mayor’s office (les collectivités territoriales), of LPT community engagement activities in nontargeted communities. « Il y a la 1ère adjointe au Maire de Gandon qui a décidé d’octroyer un forum communautaire à toutes les écoles du district de Gandiol. Et ce forum sera entièrement financé par la 1ère adjointe au Maire. Ce qui montre donc l’implication de ces autorités administratives mais aussi politiques dans le projet G2G à Saint-Louis. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 52 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A73. Some parents report high participation levels in LPT￾convened community-based activities, but others admit to having participated in a few meetings or to never having attended any meetings. « A chaque fois quand on organisait ces réunions c’est mon enfant qui m’informait et me demandait d’aller répondre. Ce qui fait que je m’y rendais toujours parce que je m’intéresse beaucoup aux études de mes enfants. Je participais et je n’ai vu que des points positifs vraiment, je ne suis pas instruite mais avec l’enseignement en wolof la maman même peut aider son enfant. » - Parent Kaolack Commune « Mais aussi pour nous les écoles R3 nous avons un problème c’est le problème du temps les parents sont trop sollicités c’est vrai que nous sommes tous d’accord que le CGE c’est la porte d’entrée mais ici au Sénégal les parents n’ont pas l’habitude chaque jour, chaque jour de venir à l’école et presque pour nous R3 chaque semaine deux fois dans la semaine le parent est convoqué pour des causeries finalement qu’est- ce qu’on remarque y a plus de parents dans les causeries au début ils venaient mais à la longue ils se lassent ils sont trop sollicités vraiment. » - School director Kaolack Commune A74. Some MEN officials at the decentralized levels have questioned the parental engagement strategy’s effectiveness, noting that the great enthusiasm from parents during meetings does not always translate into more active involvement once other priorities emerge at home. A75. LPT provides grants to school management committees, (comité de gestion des écoles [CGE]) in 20% of targeted schools to implement community outreach activities in support of the LPT model. « Donc pour moi c’est un résultat qui devait aller au-delà de 20% des écoles seulement. » - DEE « Le résultat 3 que vous avez évoqué ne couvre qu'1/5ème des écoles. » - IEF Kanel 53 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A76. LPT’s approach with the CGEs builds on the 2002 ministerial Decree n° 2002-652, which mandates the creation of the CGEs, and on the work done by other donors, notably JICA and the World Bank, which provided support to CGEs. A77. Though based on official decrees and on work previously undertaken by other MEN funders, IEFs perceive the LPT collaboration with the CGEs as “project” support and outside MEN guidelines and protocols. A78. Respondents have noted that IEFs in the seven regions do not participate in LPT community engagement activities, that those are implemented by the LPT team, and that school committees that do not receive grants do not replicate the activities. A79. Respondents noted that the community engagement component had successfully informed parents of the benefits of learning to read first in national languages and had mobilized parents to participate in their children’s schooling. « Moi aussi, le livre m’a permis de pouvoir lire en Wolof parce que beaucoup d’entre nous n’ont pas fait l’alphabétisation. Donc j’en tire un intérêt. A présent tout ce qu’on me donne je sais le lire puisque parfois mon enfant me corrige. » - Parents IEF Saint-Louis Département A80. Several parents provided examples of their children’s reading activities at home, as well as the support they or other members of the household provide to young readers. Parents also said their children enjoy the livret de maison (take-home reading book) because it includes pictures and engaging stories and is easy to read. « Lorsque madame Faye m’a appelé pour m’expliquer j’étais contente car je n’ai pas appris le français mais j’ai appris le wolofal c’est moi qui encadre mon enfant même les calculs je lui montre en wolof après ses frères l’aide Machala. » - Parents IEF Dagana « Et y a des dessins comme le soleil, un beau sourire, un oiseau et à chaque fois que je lui donne l’appellation il me montre l’image correspondante et il se débrouille dans les calculs aussi merci. » - Parents IEF Dagana USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 54 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS A81. Nine out of 24 school directors surveyed in Saint-Louis stated that their school committees had received training from LPT. A82. Fourteen out of 24 school directors surveyed in Saint￾Louis noted that their school committees implement awareness campaigns in support of early grade reading in national languages. However, only seven of these school directors confirmed that the school committees had received the promotional material from LPT. A83. One IEF stated that LPT should better align its interventions with the school committees to the IEFs’ internal processes. He noted that all funding to schools must go through the IEF in accordance with established protocols and not directly to the committees. EQ1.1. b: To what extent have G2G activities in Saint-Louis successfully replicated efforts made in the other regions of ACR? B1. Respondents and documents note the G2G implementation rate at 75% during Year 1 in Saint-Louis. Many respondents agreed that this is satisfactory. « A l’évaluation, on était à 75 ou 80 %. Et on s’était dit que ça pouvait même aller au-delà si peut-être certains impairs avaient été corrigés en cours d’année liés surtout au démarrage des formations et à la mise en place des manuels. Mais dans l’ensemble, par rapport aux 3 résultats, les niveaux d’exécution sont extraordinaires. Ils sont bons ». - IEF Saint￾Louis Commune Respondents were satisfied with G2G implementation during Year 1. Despite several ongoing challenges, many noted significant progress in the implementation of activities between Year 1 and Year 2. [B1, B6] Despite several important delays, planned G2G activities in the Year 1 work plan were implemented in Saint-Louis, including the training of teachers, school director, and inspectors and the distribution of materials. Some planned activities were implemented with some modifications (e.g., training of • Improve projections for materials needs, with a markup of 5% to 10%. • Institute a quality control mechanism at the level of the IA/IEF to verify materials prior to distribution to schools. • Make school management committees accountable for the on-time collection and distribution of the LPT materials. • Use the operational budget of the school management committees to collect the materials from the IEFs. • Submit requests for funding early enough to avoid disbursement delays. B2. According to IEFs in Saint-Louis, DEE, and documents reviewed, there were delays in the implementation of scheduled G2G activities. 55 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B3. In accordance with the G2G Year 1 work plan (the 2018– 2019 school-year), the IEFs in Saint-Louis received the LPT reading materials that were procured by the MEN during the January to March 2019 period. teachers), whereas others were implemented only partially (e.g., coaching of teachers, CRFPE modules). [A46, A47, A48, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B13] The distribution of insufficient and error￾filled reading materials well into the school year, during the second trimester, negatively impacted G2G implementation in classrooms. Teachers cannot cover the full program due to the late start. [B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9] Though materials were distributed to most schools according to the Year 1 work plan, additional delays accumulated for the most distant schools due to a lack of appropriate and sustainable transportation options for the school directors to collect the materials. [B6, B7, B8, B9] • Mobilize funds within the timeframe stated in the G2G procedures manual to pre-finance activities. • Start training in the last week of September to reduce disruptions to the school calendar. • Provide additional training in national languages during in-service teacher training. • Develop a simple and easy-to-use mobile application such as “Duolingo” to improve teachers’ proficiency in national languages. • Respect the definition for “resident” as stipulated in the G50 (e.g., residential status at the city/village level and not at the IEF level). USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 56 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B4. IAs, IEFs, school directors, and teachers in Saint-Louis noted that the materials received last year were delivered in insufficient numbers and with multiple errors (missing pages, errors in the content, etc…). « L’autre élément c’est ce déficit. Même si les manuels étaient venus, il y avait aussi un déficit qui a été noté. La quantité était insuffisante. Et tous les élèves ne disposaient pas de manuels. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département « Ils sont venus avec beaucoup de retard et beaucoup d’imperfections aussi, au niveau de la pagination, au niveau du contenu par rapport au guide. On est à la page quinze, on demande aux enfants d’ouvrir cette page, on ne la trouve pas ou bien on la trouve trois fois dans le livre. Donc la pagination fait défaut, le contenu fait défaut. » - Directeurs IEF Saint-Louis Commune « Les échos qu’on a reçus des gens qui étaient là-bas et qui sont revenus hier, c’est que le matériel qu’on a mis en place là-bas, c’est du matériel qu’on a un peu amputé de certaines parties. Par exemple cela nous signalait que dans les livres toute la partie sur la fluidité n’est pas sortie. » - ARED 57 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B5. Teachers, directors, and IEFs in Saint-Louis stated that due to delays with the materials, teachers were unable to complete the LPT program with their students during the 2018–2019 school year. One IEF explained that last year, when teachers should have been on lesson 50, they were only on lesson 20 due to the delays. « Le programme a démarré presque entre mi-janvier et février. Voilà, pourquoi dans nos séances de coaching, on a vu des enseignants qui étaient à la vingtième leçon, au moment où nous avons plus d’une cinquantaine de leçons. » - IEF de Dagana Results of the "rapid tests”, which were conducted in a relatively small sampling of schools, and thus do not carry the same weight as the recent EGRA midline results, revealed that only 31% of teachers had passed the 10th week of lessons (normal threshold at the time of the visit); 57% were lagging behind between the 6th and 10th week, and 12% of teachers were extremely behind (less than 6 weeks of progress). B6. Several respondents noted that efforts were made in Year 2 to correct the delays experienced in Year 1 in Saint￾Louis. The Year 2 G2G work plan (September 2019 to August 2020) indicates that the procurement process for the LPT reading materials would be started in September and the distribution of the materials would be completed in November, well ahead of the Year 1 schedule. The work plan further notes that the procurement process for Year 2 was initiated during the 2018–2019 school year. However, as in the LPT regions, the LPT materials for the current school year (2019–2020) were not distributed as of November 2019. B7. Twenty-two of the 24 school directors surveyed in Saint￾Louis stated that they had not received any CI and CP teacher guides and student materials for this school year (2019–2020). USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 58 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B8. The IEFs in Saint-Louis explained that school directors, CODECs, and/or CGEs are responsible for collecting the reading materials from the IEFs. However, in Saint-Louis Département and in Dagana, the IEFs noted that this caused further delays for schools that are farthest away due to a lack of appropriate transport. « Oui, c’est eux qui supportent parce que les écoles s’organisent parfois avec les CGE donc pour venir prendre. Et je sais que même pour certaines contrées c’est l’IEF même qui donne son véhicule et son carburant. » - IEF Dagana « Non. Et il y a une particularité pour cette IEF. Nous sommes une IEF rurale. Nos écoles se trouvent dans la campagne. Donc les Directeurs sont obligés de payer le transport pour venir. C’est pas toujours evident. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département B9. The budget for the G2G program includes a line item for transportation costs for distributing materials to the schools that was not used by the MEN. However, in accordance with the policy for textbooks and teaching and learning materials (politique du manuel scolaire et du matériel didactique), the MEN does not want to provide allocations to school directors for collecting materials, as is done in LPT regions, allocations the MEN will not be able to sustain. « C’est quelque chose qui a été prévu mais ce n’est pas exécuté. Parce que la politique du livre ne prévoit pas cet aspect. C’est le directeur de l’école qui doit normalement trouver les moyens pour les distribuer…Ce sera aux écoles, aux directeurs avec le CGE de venir les récupérer… ils ne veulent pas que l’on commence quelque chose que le Ministère ne pourra pas continuer » - USAID 59 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B10. Respondents in Saint-Louis and USAID confirmed that all CI teachers received seven days of training in December 2018 (Year 1) and in November 2019 (Year 2) in accordance with the training strategy developed by LPT. « Comme je vous l’ai dit nous nous répliquons ce que fait LPT. Pour la formation des enseignants LPT fait 7 jours. Ce que nous répliquons…. il y a une formation initiale de 7 jours et un refresh de 3 jours. » - USAID During Year 1 and Year 2 of the G2G program, the MEN implemented the training strategy developed for LPT with seven days of training for teachers at the beginning of the school year. In Year 2, the MEN trained CI teachers in early November, which is an improvement from the Year 1 training in December 2018. [B10, B11, B12] During Year 1, the inspector strike and the late release of funds from the central MEN delayed the teacher training in Saint-Louis, which in turn shortened the number of school days available to teachers to complete the G2G program. In addition, the schedule of trainings (e.g., time period and length of training) disrupts the regular functioning of the IEFs as well as teachers’ ability to respect the “quantum horaire” (number of school hours per subject) as stipulated in the national curriculum. [B6, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17] Though respondents were unanimously pleased with the content of the pedagogical and coaching training sessions, many noted a need for additional training in national language for teachers who struggle with the pronunciation and transcription of words in national languages. It was further noted that all teachers, regardless of their ability to orally communicate in a national language, would benefit from additional training and support for the teacher of that language. B11. Although training sessions took place earlier in Year 2 than in Year 1, delays persist. The Year 2 G2G work plan includes the training of all actors in October 2019. However, trainings of CI teachers took place in early November in Saint-Louis (as in Kaolack and Matam) and the training of CP teachers is now scheduled for the end of November. « Pour le moment, alors que l’année dernière, les enseignants du CI avaient reçu la formation au mois de janvier. Cette année, la formation a été reçue un peu tôt. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département « Par ces éléments, le premier élément est d’abord le retard accusé dans la formation de l’année dernière. (…….). Les enseignants ont été formés, mais ils ont perdu presque le premier trimestre ». - IEF de Dagana B12. Though the IEFs in Saint-Louis pointed to delays in the availability of funds for the training sessions as the primary reason for the delays experienced during Year 1, the IEFs also recognized that the inspector strike during the 2018– 2019 school year exacerbated the delays, particularly with the implementation of the coaching model. B13. In Year 1, a selected group of trained school directors, instead of the IEFs, trained CI teachers in LPT teaching methods. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 60 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B14. For Year 2, the IEFs in Saint-Louis pointed to the late release of funds as the reason behind the delays in the training sessions and lamented the lack of availability of the reading materials for the training sessions. « La principale difficulté que nous avons est liée aux lenteurs dans les procédures financières. Parfois pour mobiliser les ressources et aller dans les formations ça demande du temps. De sorte que parfois on planifie mais on fait les activités bien après parce que les ressources ne sont pas là. » - DEE « Ce sont les financiers de la DAGE, moi à chaque fois je leur dis j’ai planifié une activité en telle date, voilà le montant que ça demande et eux c’est au dernier moment qu’ils m’informent que je dois encore patienter deux jours ou trois jours et je ne comprends pas trop les procédures et comment ça se passe là-bas. » - DEE [B18, B19, B20] B15. IEFs in Saint-Louis provided examples of vendors who are still awaiting payments for services provided during Year 1 training sessions. They also lamented the fact that teachers and school directors were forced to remain late at the training site on the last day of training to receive their allocations. « Et même l’année dernière, je crois même qu’il y’a un IEF qui a été…… il y a une plainte qu’on a déposé, il y a un fournisseur qui a déposé une plainte prétextant que l’IEF avait bouffé son argent. » - IEF Dagana. « Dès fois, on utilise notre entregent pour pouvoir trouver un traiteur parce que les traiteurs on les paie après service fait. Donc, ils peuvent rester 2 à 3 mois sans être payé alors qu’on leur demande encore une autre prestation. Ce qui veut dire que les traiteurs sont un peu réticents….on peut les solliciter mais c’est pas toujours facile. Il y a une lenteur au niveau de la mise en place des fonds. » - IA Saint Louis 61 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B16. The DEE, IA in Kaolack, IEFs in Saint-Louis, teachers, and school directors noted that conducting teacher training in November disrupts the school calendar and takes time away from classroom teaching, thus reducing the time available to teachers to complete the LPT and national curriculum programs. B17. The IEFs in Saint-Louis noted that the beginning of the school year is a particularly busy time for them and having to conduct training sessions over long periods of time disrupts their planning. This sentiment was always expressed in Kaolack, where the IA and the IEF in Guinguinéo noted that all inspectors were busy with LPT￾related training and that none were available at the IEF and IA for other regular tasks. B18. All beneficiaries, including inspectors, teachers, and school directors, interviewed stated that the training provided for the LPT model by the IEFs and school directors in Saint￾Louis was well done and useful. B19. Twenty-one out of 22 school directors surveyed were satisfied by the training they received in LPT reading methods, and 20 out of 21 school directors surveyed were satisfied with the training in coaching methods. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 62 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B20. Several respondents, including IEFs, teachers, and school directors, described the in-service training provided in national language as insufficient. Respondents noted that non-speakers of the national languages had difficulties with reading and writing the languages, and speakers of the languages also sometimes had difficulties with the pronunciation and transcriptions of words and needed additional support. « Si la formation n’était pas pour nous permettre d’écrire en Wolof, c’était pour nous initier par rapport au programme, par rapport à langue Wolof, par rapport à l’emploi du temps, à la démarche des leçons etc. Il y avait des cours de langue à la fin des séances. Aussi, même si nous parlons Wolof, il faut se dire que nous les Wolof, nous avons des problèmes pour prononcer nos mots. » - Enseignants Saint-Louis Département « Ils disent utiliser de langues nationales pour faciliter les apprentissages, mais on ne donne pas suffisamment de formations aux enseignants sur les langues. Vous prenez par exemple huit jours de formation, les six jours ou les sept jours sont dans la didactique, ce qu’on appellerait quand on fait le français et on fait une demi-journée parfois ou moins, le maximum une journée pour la maitrise de la langue pour des gens qui ont fait 17 ans en français et qui n’ont plus de problème en français qui n’ont jamais fait les langues nationales. » - ARED B21. In Saint-Louis, the national technical committee trained inspectors and school directors in the LPT coaching methods in April 2019. According to the SAIL C, school directors are to be trained in coaching methods in October/November. However, the Year 1 work plan for the G2G program scheduled the training in coaching for March 2019 and in Year 2, school directors will be trained in coaching after the training of the CP teachers now scheduled for the end of November. The MEN trained inspectors and school directors in Saint-Louis in the coaching methods. However, the training in coaching was implemented late in the school year for the inspectors (April 2019), which allowed for only one coaching visit in the last trimester of the school year for approximately one-third of CI teachers. Teachers and school directors noted 63 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B22. IEFs implemented one “group” coaching session last year in Saint-Louis from May 27 to 31, 2019, instead of the three coaching sessions per school year (one per trimester) per teacher as recommended by LPT. « L’année dernière quand même, il faut le dire, nous n’avions pas eu beaucoup de séances. C’était une seule fois pour le coaching. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département irregularities in the coaching provided by school directors. Although some teachers claimed that their school directors provided them regular coaching support, others noted that school directors rarely visited their classroom, and only 59% of school directors surveyed stated that they provided coaching support to CI teachers according the guidelines established by LPT. [B21, B22, B23, B25, B26] B23. Of the 770 schools in Saint-Louis, the five IEFs provided coaching sessions to CI teachers in 209 schools during Year 1. B24. Eight out of 24 school directors (33%) surveyed in Saint￾Louis stated that inspectors had provided coaching support to their LPT teachers. B25. Although 21 out of 24 school directors surveyed in Saint￾Louis said they had been trained in LPT coaching methods, only 10 of those trained said they provided coaching support to their teachers twice a month as recommended by LPT. B26. Although some teachers in Saint-Louis noted that their school directors provided them monthly coaching support, many others explained that school directors were not always available. « Par rapport au coaching c’est vrai que notre directeur est venu me voir, on a beaucoup discuté et il m’a posé des questions auxquelles j’ai répondu et on a échangé vraiment et il l’a fait à plusieurs reprises au niveau de notre école. » - Teacher IEF Dagana B27. School directors in LPT regions were unable to conduct the coaching sessions as designed by LPT. School directors conducted only 21% of the coaching visits expected by LPT during the 2018–2019 school year. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 64 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B28. IEFs in Saint-Louis noted differences in the allocations (prises en charge) provided to participants in activities led under G2G and LPT. They cited the distribution of SIM cards (puces) and higher per diem rates provided by the LPT program in the other six regions. « Vous savez par exemple, si vous allez au niveau de Chemonics, ceux qui sont là-bas, il y a une petite motivation en termes financier si je ne me trompe pas…… On a mis à leur disposition des téléphones, du crédit….. ça, c’est pas intégré dans le G2G. Ça n’existe pas. Et les enseignants utilisent leurs propres moyens à travers WhatsApp etc. » - IEF Saint-Louis Département B29. According to the IEFs, the G2G program provides allocations based on the G50, which doesn’t benefit inspectors in Saint-Louis given that trainings are organized within each IEF (e.g., no travel, lodging, and per diem allocations). « C’est peut-être un peu les conditions matérielles dans lesquelles ils sont parfois pour faire le travail. Ces conditions-là sont justes, nous savons que le programme fait beaucoup d’efforts et nous, nous disons aux enseignants pour les motiver que vous n’ayez même pas besoin de demander de l’argent pour venir acquérir des connaissances, des ressources. Mais compte tenu un peu de la complexité de certaines zones, parfois pour cette formation qui se passe là il y’a des gens qui vont faire 80km et qui n’ont même pas pris l’hébergement. Pour le transport c’est peut-être une somme modique. Et Dagana a sa particularité, donc il n’y a pas de réceptif pour accueillir ces gens-là, ces gens sont obligés d’être dans des familles. » - IEF Dagana 65 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS B30. IEFs and several teachers questioned whether there shouldn’t be a motivation (e.g., benefits, monetary or otherwise) offered to LPT/G2G teachers and inspectors implementing the coaching and training activities. « L'autre point c’est ce protocole de G50 qui fait que les agents de l'Etat soient pas bien rémunérés lors des formations. Ce sont des questions taboues que les gens ne veulent pas aborder. C'est vrai l'Etat doit donner sa contrepartie. Mais, il faudra motiver les agents. Un bon résultat doit être accompagné de motivation.» - IEF Kanel. B31. IEFs noted that trainers, i.e. the inspectors, received the same allocation and lodging arrangements as participants (teachers and school directors). EQ1.2: To what degree is the MEN prepared to scale up ACR from 7 to 14 regions to take the program nationwide, and how can this be further facilitated? C1. MEN stakeholders, at the central and decentralized levels, have been trained in several key elements of the LPT model, including training of teachers and school directors in reading instruction, training of inspectors and school directors in coaching, materials development, development of performance standards and benchmarks, and EGRA. C2. MEN respondents pointed to the institution’s experience conducting large-scale in-service teacher training during the previous curriculum reform as well as to the in￾service training networks (CAP and CODEC). « dans le cadre du curriculum on a formé tous les enseignants » - IEF Kaolack « je crois que le MEN est en mesure de pouvoir réussir la mise en œuvre du G2G et éventuellement procéder à la mise en échelle. Maintenant, je ne sais pas si les gens ont les mêmes capacités financières, mais du pont de vue de l’expertise nationale, on peut porter le programme. » - IEF Kanel USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 66 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS C3. MEN respondents at the decentralized levels noted that the frequency of in-service training provided by LPT and G2G is lourd. They also pointed to the “important” per diems and other prises en charge provided to teachers and school directors during training as examples of prohibitive costs they believe the government is unlikely to continue financing. « dans tous les cas de manière continue pour l’ensemble du pays je sais que ça va être un peu lourd [la formation continue]» - IEF Kaolack « Est-ce que si on met à l’échelle le gouvernement du Sénégal va pouvoir continuer à payer des per diem puisque on doit former continuellement les enseignants chaque fois qu’on aura des nouveaux on va les former. Est-ce que le gouvernement du Sénégal va pouvoir mettre des ressources aussi énormes à la disposition des enseignants pour la formation. » - IA Kaolack C4. MEN respondents at the central and decentralized levels pointed to the LPT preservice training modules as an initial step in the institutionalization of the model and as a solution to the negative impact of teacher mobility. However, of the 11 CRFPEs in Senegal, only 6 are functioning and only 3 (Kaolack, Louga, and Saint-Louis) piloted the LPT modules. C5. MEN respondents pointed to MEN inefficiencies with the disbursement of funds (décaissement des fonds) and the procurement of materials. « la rigueur des décaissements…c’est déploré au niveau terrain. » - LPT « C’est la mise à disposition tardive des fonds parce qu’on est avec des fournisseurs qui empruntent de l’argent pour faire leurs prestations. Ils empruntent de l’argent et des fois ils ont des difficultés pour l’achat. Et là, les formations se font quelques mois après avant qu’on ne restitue l’argent. Et ça, c’est un problème » - IEF Saint-Louis Département Internal inefficiencies at the MEN are causing important delays in the implementation of G2G activities in Saint-Louis, particularly in the procurement and distribution of materials. [B12, B14, B15, C5] Local capacity to produce the LPT materials remains insufficient. Though INEADE collaborated with LPT to produce the materials, internal MEN policies have shifted the development and distribution of teaching and learning materials to the private sector. • Develop a procedure manual for the G2G program and insert it into the overall MEN procedure manual. • Set deadlines for funding requests in the G2G procedure manual. • Identify LPT materials that are essential to the LPT methodology and procure those only. • Identify financial partners and private sector actors who can help finance the production and distribution of materials for the LPT model. 67 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS C6. MEN respondents noted the institution’s experience with materials production and distribution. However, INEADE stated that under the MEN editorial policy, its role is to evaluate teaching and learning materials and the private sector is now responsible for the development of the manuals. « politique éditoriale, les missions de l’INEADE s’articulent autour de l’élaboration de ces spécifications pédagogiques et techniques de l’évaluation des manuels scolaires. Parce que, une bonne partie de nos missions a été confiée au secteur privé, aux éditeurs privés. Ils font l’élaboration, la conception jusqu’à la distribution” - INEADE Outsourcing the development of materials requires a strong base of publishing houses capable of working in mother tongue languages, which currently does not exist in Senegal. [C6, C7, C8] The current procurement model for LPT materials would require a significant increase in the MEN budget for production and distribution, as well as for support from a team of technical experts in at least three languages (Soninké, Mandinka, and Diola). [C9, C10, C11] Scaling up the LPT model, and effectively implementing a bilingual education program, would require significant shifts in policy and operational structures at the MEN. [C11, C12, C13] • Review the procurement schedule of the materials for the LPT model to reduce the financial burden on the MEN. • Develop and pilot materials maintenance and “rental” systems to prolong the shelf life of the materials. • Identify technical partners for the development of teaching and learning materials to replicate the LPT model in the other three languages. • Develop a clear vision and comprehensive action plan for bilingual education in Senegal. • Develop policies on teacher recruitment, training, placement, and mobility that will C7. support bilingual education in Senegal. LPT and the MEN noted that local printing houses could not participate successfully in the bidding process for the procurement of LPT materials for the LPT regions. As a result, LPT, with the participation of INEADE, offered training sessions to local printing houses to improve their ability to participate in future bidding opportunities in support of the LPT model. « ils commencent à comprendre la complexité des outils en langues nationales … Mais pendant la formation, quand ils ont vu les choses, ils ont compris qu’ils ne sont pas prêts. » - ARED C8. INEADE noted that they were participants in the materials production process with LPT, but they also noted that their participation was limited, due mostly to conflicting work plans. « Pour la méthodologie une bonne partie de la division des manuels scolaires, une bonne partie des agents a été vraiment outillée à la maitrise de l’approche. Les décodables gradués pour les premiers niveaux et gradués pour les autres » - INEADE C9. Respondents questioned whether the MEN will be able to finance the complete set of LPT materials. « Les difficultés c’est le nombre d’outils… parce que c’est des classes bilingues, en plus des outils que LPT a produits et a donné aux élèves. Ils ont également d’autres manuels du curriculum de l’éducation de base, au moins trois. » - INEADE USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 68 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS C10. The LPT model includes the use of several teaching and learning materials that are produced and distributed to school directors, teachers, and students annually. Respondents viewed the LPT materials production and distribution as lourd and unlikely to be sustained by the MEN. « le programme est assez lourd en termes de production de supports. » - IEF Saint-Louis Commune « Maintenant si pour les écoles classiques ça pose problème pour pérenniser même la politique du manuel qui a été adoptée qui a été mise en œuvre pendant quatre ans qui a eu des résultats vraiment très probants, on a des problèmes pour pérenniser cette politique. » - INEADE C11. All respondents noted that scaling up the LPT model would require the use of additional languages. However, some respondents voiced concern about the MEN’s ability to replicate the LPT model in new languages without technical assistance. « Parce que, on a eu vraiment une expérience avec les trois premières langues, le wolof, le pulaar et le sérère, pour les autres langues ce sera pareil. » - INEADE « On ne produit pas beaucoup en Langues nationales. Et c’est assez lourd. » - IEF Saint Louis « si nous devons aller vers les autres langues est- ce qu’on a suffisamment de ressources humaines pour pouvoir faire l’extension au niveau national » - IA « il y’a beaucoup de langue qui ont été codifiées et qui n’ont pas été suffisamment outillées pour supporter ce genre d’activité...du point de vue technique, pédagogique…linguistique, » - LPT 69 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS C12. The MEN and partners noted that a wide use of national languages within the education system would require significant reforms. Several respondents noted that the current system is not designed for the use of national languages. « il n’y a pas l’architecture nécessaire pour l’utilisation des langues dans nos classes….Si on veut réussir d’abord l’expérimentation, il y a tout un arsenal textuel à mettre en place. Et si on doit aller à l’échelle, c’est encore vraiment des textes à un niveau très élevé à prévoir pour qu’on puisse l’encadrer. » - DPRE “In terms of policy, there are so many issues that need to be clarified on a national level – the linguistic policy – the approach to teaching a second language, the approach to reading is another, the way in which to adapt the language of instruction is another. These are three dimensions that are very different and need clarification on policy. The policy is the key issue and there is not a clear vision from MEN on this nor on the language policy.” - UNICEF « une nouvelle donne est venu s’ajouter tu es obligé d’être à cheval entre deux principes … c’est la façon d’enseigner [qui] pose un certain nombre de problèmes dire que moi ce que je fais avec LPT je ne vais pas continuer ça avec les élèves de CEI, CE2,CM1, CM2 je suis obligé de lâcher ça pour me lancer dans l’autre système » - School director in Kaolack USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 70 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS C13. Respondents also noted the need for the MEN to shift its thinking from that of a project to fully integrating bilingual education and the use of national languages within its structures at the policy and operational levels. « il faut amener le Ministère à sortir de la logique de pilote et à inscrire ça comme un des éléments, un des leviers de sa politique éducative. C’est déjà inscrit dans le PAQEEB en quelque sorte mais on a besoin d’aller au-delà de ça. » - World Bank « Donc le problème de LPT aujourd’hui c’est surtout des organes de pilotage...au niveau du Ministère comme c’était le cas avec le Curriculum...il y avait un organe qui était chargé de veiller sur tout : la mise en œuvre, les planifications, suivi-évaluation et tout. » - LPT EQ2: How is ACR’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress toward expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? EQ2.1: To what degree is the current approach effectively identifying and involving relevant and committed MEN partners? D1. The MEN at the central and decentralized levels, school directors, and teachers named ARED as a key partner of the MEN for bilingual education. ARED is recognized as a key partner of the MEN for bilingual education and, as a consortium member for LPT, brings a lot of recognition and legitimacy to the LPT approach. [D1, D5] Though respondents valued their experience with ARED, they noted that the LPT and ARED approaches are different, with LPT focusing on reading only and ARED basing its approach on the existing curriculum, which is D2. ARED is a partner under Result 1, focusing on materials development and teacher training. « C’est sur le résultat R1, production de matériel pédagogique et formation des enseignants. Et dans ce cadre-là, pour le matériel pédagogique pour l’essentiel, c’est nous qui travaillions depuis les spécifications techniques et pédagogiques, tout le travail de conception, le travail de production de ces outils, jusqu’à ce que ces outils soient prêts à être imprimés. » - ARED 71 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS D3. The MEN at the central and decentralized levels and school directors named ELAN as a key partner of the MEN for bilingual education. « ELAN est la seule expérimentation institutionnelle portée par la DPRE. Donc il y a un bureau-là qui coordonne ELAN et la DPRE est le point focal de ELAN auprès de l’OIF. Et c’est exécuté par la DEE. » - DPRE better aligned, in their opinion, with a bilingual education program. [D1, D2, D4, D5, D6, D7] D4. According to our document review and to respondents, ARED’s experience in bilingual education was limited in scope (Wolof and Pular) and geographic reach (98 schools and 101 classes in three regions, namely Dakar, Kaolack, and Saint-Louis). ARED implemented a bilingual education program that used both national languages (Wolof and Pular) and French to teach and learn the national curriculum, including reading, math, and science. D5. Evaluation of student performance in reading and math showed that students in ARED’s bilingual program (Wolof/Pular plus French) performed better than their peers in the traditional classes (French-only) on the end￾of-primary education national exam (CFEE). D6. Respondents noted that ARED’s approach was based on the national curriculum and touched on more than reading in national languages. They stated that ARED’s program was a better approach to bilingual education, since it utilizes L1 and L2 for all curriculum subjects. « ARED est avec vous et ils ont un bon modèle soit différé ou intégré. » - DPRE D7. ARED was not involved in designing the LPT model but rather executes the model in accordance with LPT guidelines. D8. LPT has established a partnership with the project Nos Enfants Lisent to implement the LPT community engagement component in Fatick. LPT has or is establishing partnerships with other projects intervening in education on a smaller scale. The partnerships that are ongoing or in the planning stages with these organizations focus solely on the LPT community engagement component. [D8, D9] D9. LPT has initiated meetings with Counterpart International, which has a school feeding program in Saint-Louis. LPT is looking to establish a partnership with Counterpart for the LPT community engagement component in that region. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 72 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS D10. LPT has held meetings with UNICEF and ELAN/IFEF about the LPT model and possible partnerships, but no agreements have been reached. Key MEN partners and funders, the World Bank, and IFEF are aware of the LPT model and are interested in supporting MEN efforts to expand bilingual education. [D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16] Key funders and partners are awaiting more comprehensive policy decisions from the MEN on bilingual education and for evaluation results of student performance in French reading from LPT prior to moving forward with the implementation or financing of a bilingual education model, including the expansion of the LPT model. [C12, C13, D17, D18, D19] D11. In the UNICEF workplan with the MEN, there is a line dedicated to expanding reading in national languages, but no reading model has been identified. D12. UNICEF considers the LPT model and the support pieces, notably the community engagement component, too expensive to support. D13. UNICEF would like to implement a bilingual education program that includes reading in national languages in the southern regions, where the lowest reading scores are found and where LPT does not intervene. D14. LPT has provided “financing options” to the World Bank for a possible expansion of the LPT model. No decision has been made in that regard. D15. The World Bank included reading in the PAQEEB-FA as its commitment to supporting reading and bilingual education initiatives and is planning to support improved quality of education at the primary and secondary levels with the construction and furnishing of four new CRFPEs. D16. The World Bank recognizes the LPT model as the most promising approach to improve reading in national languages and thus to finance through the PAQEEB-FA. « Nous, ce qu’on avait dit à l’époque dans le cadre du PAQUEEB, oui, on va l’inscrire dans notre financement parce qu’on pense que c’est une bonne approche. On l’a inscrit dans le PAQUEEB. Mais on attend les résultats de l’évaluation qui va être conduite par l’USAID pour voir quels sont les premiers résultats qu’on a et après one est ouvert. » - World Bank 73 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS D17. The World Bank is awaiting the final evaluation of the LPT model, with demonstrated evidence of improved student performance in reading in national languages and in French, to make a final decision on its financing. « Mais, je pense que vraiment il y a une dimension qui me semble aussi importante pour la pérennisation c’est la dimension recherche parce que plus on va faire de la recherche sur cette question, plus on aura des évaluations et des évidences pour montrer que ça marche, que les résultats sont là pour rendre évident que c’est une bonne approche qui donne des résultats, que les performances des élèves s’améliorent, qu’ils arrivent à faire la transition entre leurs langues maternelles et la langue étrangère le français. » - World Bank D18. The MEN cited the need for conclusive evidence of LPT’s impact on student reading performance in French as a determinant for the model’s expansion. D19. IFEF and the World Bank stated that the MEN needs to develop a clear policy in support of bilingual education to move forward. EQ2.2: To what degree is the GoS aware of and supporting ACR activities? E1. Respondents noted that the use of national languages is now addressed in the Assises Nationales but not by the President of Senegal. « Parce que jusqu’à présent … je n’ai jamais entendu, faire dans son discourt [le Président] et dire que : « à partir de maintenant on va utiliser les langues nationales » » - ARED The debates around the use of national languages in the education system in Senegal during the 2008 national conferences points to the Government’s nascent recognition of the importance of national languages for instruction. [E1, E2] The inclusion of improved reading as a key objective of the PAQEEB-FA indicates that the GoS recognizes student reading performance as a priority. Furthermore, linking improved reading performance to the disbursement of PAQEEB funds signals the GoS’s commitment to improved reading performance. [E3, E4, E6, E7] E2. The 2008 Assises Nationales included debates on the promotion of national languages and the use of national languages with the education system, and the 2014 Assises Nationales recommends the use of national languages in the first years of the education system. Le non emploi, à côté du français, des langues nationales parlées par la majorité de la population et le non achèvement de l’adaptation des contenus des programmes enseignés aux réalités africaines constituent, aujourd’hui encore, deux handicaps qui condamnent irrémédiablement à l’échec le système éducatif, s’il n’y est pas remédié. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 74 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS E3. According to respondents, reading is an essential component of the PAQEEB-FA. « Et ensuite, il faut amener le Ministère à sortir de la logique de Pilote et à inscrire ça comme un des éléments, un des leviers de sa politique éducative. C’est déjà inscrit dans le PAQUET en quelque sorte mais on a besoin d’aller au-delà de ça. » - World Bank However, the PAQEEB-FA does not specify improved reading performance in a specific language of instruction. Absent a clear and comprehensive bilingual education policy, the World Bank and the MEN at the central and decentralized levels consider improved reading in French as an indicator of the education system’s performance. [A12, A13, A19, D17, D18, E5, E7] Respondents could not provide concrete examples of the GoS’s knowledge of or actions in support of LPT, outside the MEN. E4. PAQEEB-FA states as an objectif : « introduire des mécanismes de reddition de comptes et des primes de motivation pour améliorer le niveau des résultats d'apprentissage en lecture et en mathématiques dans les premières années de l'enseignement primaire » E5. A language of instruction is not specified for reading instruction in the PAQEEB-FA, nor does it specify bilingual education as a focus. E6. Respondents noted that the GoS is now aware of students’ poor performance in reading. E7. Respondents noted that IAs and IEFs conducted yearly assessments in reading in French and in math as part of the results-based PAQEEB-FA contract. E8. PAQUET 2018–2030 identifies as a priority the development of bilingual education. EQ2.3: To what degree can costs be borne by the MEN or donors, as demonstrated through replication analysis and modeling? We will present three scenarios with cost modeling. 75 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX III: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK ALL CHILDREN READING MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK JULY 2019 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech Company, for the USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 76 ALL CHILDREN READING MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Statement of Work Contracted under AID-685-C-15-00003 USAID Senegal Monitoring and Evaluation Project 77 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CONTENTS ACRONYMS 78 1. STATEMENT OF WORK DETAIL 79 2. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 79 3. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS AND IMPLEMENTATION 79 4. EXISTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SOURCES 80 5. TASK PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND INTENDED USES 81 6. TASK REQUIREMENT 81 7. GENDER DISAGGREGATION AND GENDER DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS 82 8. APPROACH 82 9. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS 83 10. DELIVERABLES 84 11. TEAM COMPOSITION 84 12. PARTICIPATION OF USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS 86 13. SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS 86 14. DISSEMINATION 86 15. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 87 16. ATTACHED REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 87 17. AUTHORIZATIONS 88 APPENDIX I: BUDGET 89 APPENDIX II: DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX 90 APPENDIX III: RESULTS FRAMEWORK 91 APPENDIX IV: RESPONSE MATRIX 92 APPENDIX V: GANNT CHART 93 APPENDIX VI: CVS 94 APPENDIX VII: CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENTS 98 APPENDIX VIII: USAID CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT 99 APPENDIX IX: EVALUATION REPORT STRUCTUREERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 78 Acronyms ACR All Children Reading AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan COR Contracting Officer’s Representative EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment G2G Government to Government Agreement GoS Government of Senegal MEN Ministry of National Education MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Project MSI Management Systems International POC Point of contact SOW Statement of Work USAID United States Agency for International Development 79 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1. Statement of Work Detail USAID SOW Manager Badara Sarr Activity COR/AOR Kadi Cissé Abassi MEP SOW Manager Safyatou Diallo Activity Title All Children Reading Activity Period October 31, 2016-July 10, 2021 Award/Contract # AID-OAA-1-14-00055/AID-685-TO-16-00003 Funding $71,097,573(USD) Implementing Organization Chemonics International Geographic Coverage Dakar, Diourbel, Kaolack, Kaffrine, Matam and St. Louis Task Midterm Performance Evaluation Task Start and End Dates 09/23/2019-01/13/2020 2. Activity Description The Government of Senegal and its Ministry of National Education (MEN) launched a national reading program, “Lecture Pour Tous,” or All Children Reading to significantly increase reading outcomes for students in early grades. USAID’s primary technical assistance initiative to aid ACR¸ contracted under USAID/All Children Reading and referred to here as All Children Reading (ACR), is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Chemonics International and its consortium of partners in support of the Senegalese national reading program led by the MEN. All Children Reading began at the end of October 2016 and runs through July 10, 2021, aiming to greatly improve reading levels for students in Grades 1-3 through an effective, sustainable, and scalable national program. This technical assistance program targets three outcomes to achieve this goal: 1.) improved early grade reading instruction in public primary schools and daaras; 2.) delivery systems for early grade reading instruction; and 3.) parent and community engagement in early grade reading. To achieve this, the ACR team and partners are facilitating a process to consolidate efforts around early grade reading in national languages in Senegal, capitalize on Senegalese expertise and experience, and complement these local assets and resources with expertise from people who have applied the international evidence-base to achieve this kind of change in Senegal and elsewhere. Emphasis is placed on the idea that ACR is there to serve the Ministry and the program’s dedication to the concept of working together. All Children Reading’s goal is to ultimately render itself redundant. For this purpose, the MEN is implementing the national reading program with targeted support from ACR in the region of St. Louis. In principle, by the end of ACR, the Ministry should be taking over both core costs and full leadership of actions at scale. 3. Development Hypothesis and Implementation USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 80 ACR’s overall objective is to improve early grade reading skills of first, second and third year students in primary school and daaras. It has three major components through which it will achieve this: improving overall reading instruction in the classroom; improving education policy and systems in support of reading and community and parent support for reading. The results framework for the activity is outlined below. In terms of overall development of the activity, there have been delays in the roll-out of the capacity￾building and ICT components. 4. Existing Performance Information Sources USAID/Education will provide the Evaluation Team with a package of Activity background materials, including: • Cooperative Agreement and any modifications • Annual workplan and project description • Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plans (AMELPs); quarterly and annual reports and field visit reports; • ACR Scale-Up and Sustainability Plan; • EGRA baseline and midline data collected to date; 81 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • G2G Letters of Agreement and progress reports related to St Louis; and • Any relevant studies or background reports used to support the activity. All background documents will be provided to the MEP Team at least four weeks prior to the Evaluation Team arrival in-country. 5. Task Purpose, Audience, and Intended Uses The purpose of this midterm performance evaluation is to assess the progress to date of ACR and, in particular, the “readiness” of the Ministry of National Education (MEN) to manage the activity in St. Louis currently and its ability to scale the reading approach to the remaining regions of the country. Specific objectives are listed below: • Assess progress towards objectives and analyze the degree to which the project is progressing towards achieving its goals and objectives; • Measure advancements as outlined in ACR’s Scale-Up and Sustainability Plan, as well as the contract; • Review strategies for systems uptake, coordination, and financing by the MEN; and • Engage on key initial aspects of Government-to-Government (G2G) Agreement to ascertain whether activities are on track to succeed. The audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Senegal Education Office as well as the G2G Working Group that is involved in all G2G agreements with the Government of Senegal (GoS). Chemonics and the MEN are also key stakeholders and active players in this evaluation in terms of assessing progress and capacity and needs for scaling this reading program nationwide. The findings from the evaluation will be validated with USAID/Senegal Education; MEN officials and Chemonics/ACR staff. A co-elaboration workshop will be facilitated by MEP working with all stakeholders to develop practical, reasonable and actionable recommendations that can be completed quickly to improve the ultimate outcome of the activity. 6. Task Requirement The evaluation will center on the following key questions: I. To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) Strengthen policies; and (b) Enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake. 1.1 To what extent is implementation achieving expected policy results? To what extent have G2G activities in St Louis successfully replicated efforts made in the other regions of ACR? 1.2 To what degree is the MEN prepared to scale up ACR from seven to fourteen regions in order to take the program nationwide, and how can this be further facilitated? II. How is ACR’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress towards achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MoE, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? 2.1 To what degree is the current approach effectively identifying and involving relevant and committed MEN partners? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 82 2.2 To what degree is the Government of Senegal aware of and supporting ACR activities? 2.3 To what degree can costs be bourne by the MEN or donors, as demonstrated through replication analysis and modeling? 7. Gender Disaggregation and Gender Differential effects The evaluation team will look at any differences between male and female students in terms of progress in reading. This analysis will also explore reasons for gender differentials identified in schools in terms of any lessons learned for scaling activities. 8. Approach 1. Design The MEP Team is required to conduct a Midterm Performance Evaluation of the Activity entitled “All Children Reading”. The main source of data for this evaluation to answer to these evaluation questions will be interviews with MEN officials, field agents/supervisors, hschool directors and teachers as well as community members. A good deal of time will also be spent interviewing Chemonics and ACR staff in their home offices as well as field offices. The project quantitative data (statistics and EGRA data) will also be considered in the analysis. The contractor will measure the Activity’s outcomes through a review of program documentation and interviews with USAID, Chemonics, ACR staff and MEN officials. This statement of work requires that the Evaluation Team develop and submit for approval a work plan with detailed methodology within the first seven days of the evaluation schedule. A central part of the work plan will be the getting to answers matrix which will support the creation of the evaluation methodology based on the evaluation questions. The following is a sample of the matrix: EVALUATION QUESTIONS TYPE OF ANSWER NEEDED DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCE(S) SAMPLING OR SELECTION CRITERIA DATA ANALYSIS METHODS  Descriptive  Comparative (normative)  Cause and Effect 83 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The following should be included in the team’s methodology: • Completion of a document review prior to the arrival of the Team Leader in Senegal; • The Evaluation Team will use at least three data collection methods to address each of the identified evaluation questions in order to triangulate data. Suggested data collection tools are: survey, key informant interviews, and focus groups discussions. • A convenience sample of individual stakeholders including field supervisors, head teachers, teachers will be included as key informant interviews. Depending on the size of the schools, group interviews may be conducted with teachers. • The three methods (key informant interviews, group interviews and focus group interviews) will be coded separately. • Focus group transcripts will be analyzed using software. • Quantitative data (Statistics and EGRA data) generated by the project will be also used and analyzed to assess progress towards reading objectives indicators • Gender, geographic location, and role (beneficiary, implementer, MEN staff) disaggregation must be included in the data analysis where applicable. 2. Data Collection Methods The data collection methodology to be used by the team will consist of two phases: Phase 1: Document review The team will review a wide range of documentation including the Activity agreement, modifications, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plans (AMELPs), project databases, and reports as means of understanding and comparing both expected and actual performance. The team will also review G2G documents related to the St. Louis roll-out of the reading program. Phase 2: Quantitative and qualitative field research As part of its qualitative research, the team will find the best fit for purpose, including the following research instruments: • Key informant interviews: Open questions for interviewing MEN officials and Directions at the central and regional levels, program stakeholders: (implementing partner) project staff, participating national and local authorities, and USAID representatives. • Focus or discussion groups: Focus or discussion groups with municipal leaders, stakeholders, school teachers, and communities to discuss program effects on individuals and institutions. • Scalability Assessment: working with ACR staff and MEN officials, the evaluation team will facilitate a workshop to explore the strengths and weaknesses in taking the reading program to scale. • Detailed cost analysis and modeling. • Other emerging methodologies may be considered. Other data sources, such as secondary data available from the projects itself, research studies, or from the GoS will also be considered. 9. Strengths and Limitations USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 84 USAID’s evaluation policy states that any methodological strengths and limitations are to be communicated explicitly. The work plan developed by the evaluation team is required to include limitations in the methodology and approach, as well as limitations in the data to be used, either primary or secondary data, as part of the evaluation. The evaluation report will outline clearly any limitations in the methodology and approach, focusing on ways in which the evaluation team mitigated these limitations to arrive at collecting valid data. 10. Deliverables The deliverables for this evaluation include: • Work Plan: Detailed work plan which will indicate methodology, data analysis, detailed calendar, and data collection tools for the elaboration of the evaluation. The work plan will be submitted to the MEP COR and Technical POC for approval prior to fieldwork. • Progress Report: A brief written report of the data collection progress made in the field covering key scheduled activities, status of completion, and constraints encountered during the data collection process. • Data Walk/Initial Findings Presentation: In addition to bi-weekly check-ins either by phone or in￾person, a discussion with the Education Office, which will include a PowerPoint presentation, that reviews the initial findings of the evaluation team and the supporting evidence and data collected. • Initial presentation (s): A PowerPoint presentation on findings and conclusions of the evaluation to be presented for the entire Mission. The presentation should not be more than 15 slides. Additional presentations in French will be held with the ACR team and the MEN officials involved in the reading program. • Recommendations Workshop(s): A workshop in French with the key stakeholders, including USAID/Education; ACR and MEN to develop, discuss, and validate the recommendations. The exact number and audience will be determined through conversations with the Education Office. • A one-page evaluation infographic: highlighting target findings and lessons learned from the evaluation in English and in French. • Submission of Draft Evaluation Report: The team will submit a draft report to the MEP COR and Education Office POC who will provide comments for revision and finalization of the report ten working days following the draft submission. • Final Report: A written and electronic document that includes a table of contents, methodology, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations. The final report will be submitted in English and then in French once validated and should be comprised of the following parts: o A maximum 20-page report with a clear discussion of the data and evidence, the subsequent findings prompted by analysis of the data and evidence, conclusions driven by the findings, and recommendations (if applicable) generated from the conclusions. The other report details should be attached as an annex. The final report should include a database with all collected information and statistical analyses as an annex. o A three-page executive summary that provides a brief discussion of basic methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. o Other learning products and events may be developed during the course of the evaluation, based on availability of funds and interest. 11. Team Composition The Team Leader for this evaluation will be a reading specialist with a research and education background. Ms. Gaelle Simon will serve as the Team Leader and has over 15 years’ experience working in education and development, with a focus on Francophone countries. Ms. Simon is a reading and research specialist at MSI and previous served as the Team Leader on the Our Sisters Read final 85 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV performance evaluation in 2016. Ms. Simon will be accompanied by a Senegalese research counterpart. The team will be supported by the MEP Senior Evaluation Specialist (SES), Souleymane Barry who will serve as evaluation methodologist on the team. In addition, MEP will have a finance specialist to support the budget calculations and modeling to take the reading program to the remaining 7 regions of the country. The Finance Specialist will work closely with the evaluation team to collect technical aspects of the program that will need to be incorporated into the budget estimates. MEP’s M&E Manager, Safyatou Diallo as well as two enumerators will support the team in documenting interviews and focus groups in the field. All finalized team members are required to provide a signed statement attesting that they have no conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. TASKS/DELIVERABLES AND LOE Dates Tasks/Deliverables Estimated LOE (in days) Team Leader/Reading Specialist Finance Specialist Evaluatio n Methodol ogist July 26, 2019 SOW signed August 2019 Contracting with team members August 12 Saly group interviews with IAs 1 September 23-27, 2019 Desk review of background materials 4 3 5 September 30, 2019 Initial meeting with Education Office to discuss objectives of evaluation 1 1 1 October 1-4 Develop evaluation workplan and tools 2 2 4 October 8 Approval of workplan October 12 Team leader travels to Dakar 2 October 14-18 Dakar interviews begin 5 4 5 October 19 Depart for Kaolack and Kaolack 1 October 21- 24 Interviews in Kaolack 4 4 October 25 Travel to Matam 1 1 October 28-31 Interviews in Matam 4 4 November 1 Travel to St. Louis 1 1 November 2-5 Interviews in St. Louis 4 4 November 6 Return to Dakar 1 1 November 7-8 Prepare for workshop 2 2 1 November 11 Scalability Assessment Workshop 1 1 1 November 12-16 Data analysis and preparation of presentation 4 3 4 USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 86 12. Participation of USAID Staff and Partners It is expected that the USAID/Senegal Education Office will provide an initial in-brief with the evaluation team during the development of the evaluation workplan. Upon completion of the work plan and tool development, Education Office will be expected to review and approve the work plan and tools. In order to ensure USAID-MEP communication remains open, bi-weekly check-ins will take place, either by phone or in-person. As part of the evaluation, USAID/Education Office staff and key stakeholders will also be interviewed, including MEN officials and project staff. During high-level meetings with Ministry officials, Education Office will be expected to participate, and scheduling will take this need into account. For all formal interviews, USAID will not be present in order to ensure that MEN officials feel comfortable to speak freely. At the completion of the fieldwork, it is expected that USAID Education Office, ACR staff and MEN officials will participate in a presentation of the evaluation’s initial findings, and conclusions. Their active participation is also expected as part of the recommendations workshop. 13. Scheduling and Logistics MEP Senegal will arrange all logistics for fieldwork and workshops. MEP Senegal (for the USAID/Senegal Education Office) will request introductory communications for the evaluation team. All appointments will be made by MEP Senegal staff and team members. 14. Dissemination November 18 Data walk with Education Office 1 1 1 November 19 Additional analysis/revisions 1 1 1 November 20 Presentation to Chemonics/ACR 1 1 1 November 21 Presentation to MEN 1 1 1 November 22-23 Preparation of recommendations workshop 2 1 November 25 Recommendations workshop 1 1 November 26 FCR Table consolidation and final corrections 1 0 1 November 27 Submission of findings conclusions and recommendations table November 27 Team leader departs Dakar 1 November 28-Dec 11 Analysis and development of draft report 6 3 6 December 11- 15 MSI copy-editing and formatting December 16 Submission of draft report December 27 Consolidated comments from Education Office Dec 28-Jan 3 Revisions to report 4 2 January 6, 2020 Revised report submitted to Education Office Total Estimated LOE 57 23 51 87 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The findings from this evaluation will be shared and validated with the USAID/Senegal Education Office, MEN officials involved directly in the activity and ACR project staff. The report will be developed in English and will be translated into French. Copies of the report will be shared with the MEN; Chemonics and ACR staff as well as interested parties in USAID/Washington Education Office. 15. Reporting Requirements The report will be drafted and finalized in English and then translated into French. The report itself should not be longer than 20 pages total, excluding the Annexes. A draft evaluation report template is attached to this SOW in Annex IX, which is based on the USAID evaluation report template and guidance (http://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-template and How-To Note Preparing Evaluation Reports - http://usaidlearninglab.org/library/how-note- preparing-evaluation-reports). The report includes Appendix 1, which is the Mandatory Reference on Evaluation. The report will be branded with the standard USAID branding requirements and will be formally submitted to the DEC upon approval. Additional copies of the final report in French will be made available to all stakeholders participating in the initial findings workshop. Copies in English will be shared with relevant USG offices within USAID/Washington/E3/Education. 16. Attached Reference Documents Please check all that apply below. Budget Document review matrix Results framework Response matrix Gantt chart CVs Conflict of Interest Statements USAID evaluation policy USAID evaluation report structure USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 88 17. Authorizations The undersigned hereby authorize the following items (checked below) for the Statement of Work (SOW) described above: Completion of the SOW, as described above; SOW staffing, as described above; Concurrence with Contracting Officer’s Travel Approval for the Consultant(s), requested above (if received prior to review). [COR to either sign below or indicate approval in a return email] __________________________________________ ________________ Office Director Date __________________________________________ ________________ Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Date Fatou Thiam, or designate 89 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Appendix I: Budget USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 90 Appendix II: Document Review Matrix EXISTING DOCUMENT REVIEW TEMPLATE FOR MSI EVALUATION TEAMS Question Number Evaluation Question Relevant Findings/Partial Answers in Existing Documents Document Title Page Gaps to be Filled by Field Work Q1 Q2 91 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Appendix III: Findings, conclusions and REcommendations Matrix Question/Focus Area Findings (Facts – including analysis results) Conclusions Recommendations From this Finding From Multiple Findings (identify them) From this Finding From Multiple Findings (identify them) 1 2 3 4 USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 92 Appendix IV: Response Matrix Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection e.g. Records, structured observation, key informant interview, mini-survey Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods e.g. Frequency distributions, trend analysis, cross￾tabulations, content analysis Data Source Method 1. Yes/No Description Comparison Explanation (attribution) 93 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Appendix V: GANNT Chart The following chart is illustrative and should be completed based upon the actual sub-tasks, deliverables and dates envisioned for this task. ACR Midterm Performance Evaluation Sep Oct Nov Dec Steps Weeks From 23 to 30 From 1-8 From 12-18 From 19-5 From 5-21 From 21-27 From 28-11 From 11-16 From 13-27 From 28-6 Desk review of background materials Initial phone call with Education Office to 1 discuss objectives of evaluation Develop evaluation workplan and tools 2 Approval of workplan Team leader travels to Dakar 3-4 Dakar interviews begin Depart for Matam and Kaolack 5-7 Interviews in Kaolack Interviews in Matam Travel to St. Louis Interviews in St. Louis Return to Dakar 8-9 Prepare for workshop Scalability Assessment Workshop Data analysis and preparation of presentation Data walk with Education Office Additional analysis/revisions Presentation to Chemonics/ACR Presentation to MEN Preparation of recommendations workshop 10-11 Recommendations workshop Team leader departs Dakar Analysis and development of draft report 12 MSI copy-editing and formatting 13 Submission of draft report Consolidated comments from Education Office 14 Revisions to report Revised report submitted to Education 15-16 Office USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 94 Appendix VI: CVs Gaëlle Simon --- Team Leader Summary Gaëlle Simon is a technical director and education specialist with over 15 years of experience in planning, managing and evaluating education projects. She works closely with donors and contractors to design and implement education projects, monitoring and evaluation systems, project impact and performance evaluations, learning assessments and training programs. She is currently the technical director at MSI on the QITABI project in Lebanon and on the Monitoring and Evaluation Coordination Contract in the DRC. She provides guidance for the implementation of early grade reading and math assessments, standards settings, and capacity building of ministry counterparts in assessment. She has managed technical and administrative aspects of EGRA and EGMA assessments in Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan and Haiti; served as a reading specialist for the evaluation of the USAID-funded NECS project in Niger; was the team leader for the evaluation of the Our Sister Read project in Senegal; led the development of a reading program in Haiti; designed and implemented curriculum-based learning assessments in Tanzania and the DRC. Education Professional Certificate, Advanced Project Management, Stanford University Center for Professional Development; Stanford, CA, February 2013 M.A., Master of Education, concentration in International Education, Harvard University Graduate School of Education; Cambridge, MA, June 2001 B.Sc., Inclusive Elementary and Special Education, Syracuse University; Syracuse, NY, May 2000 Experience Technical Director, Management Systems International, Arlington, VA, Dec 2014 – Present • Manage the design and implementation of monitoring, evaluation and assessment systems on donor funded contracts • Lead the implementation of early grade reading (EGRA) and early grade math (EGMA) assessments, including the development of grade-level tools; recruitment and training of data collection teams; design and management of data quality assurance systems; drafting technical reports • Provide technical leadership for the Monitoring Evaluation and Coordination Contract (MECC) in the DRC which offers coordination, monitoring and evaluation, research, organizational learning, knowledge management, and other relevant technical and/or advisory services for USAID/DRC, DFID/DRC, the government of the DRC and implementing partners in the education sector • Developed the design and implementation plans for the ACCELERE! Activity 1 project endline impact evaluation and final performance evaluation in the DRC • Led a participatory workshop for the Ministry of Education in Lebanon on national assessment systems which led to the development of a national EGRA implementation plan to be operationalized by CERD • Served as a reading specialist for the final performance evaluation of the NECS project in Niger • Team leader for the mid-term performance evaluation of the Our Sister Read project in Senegal; developed the work plan and methodology; designed the tools; led the field work; drafted the performance evaluation report 95 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • Support business development by coordinating the proposal development process, identifying international and local partners and staff, drafting sections of the technical proposal, supporting the development of the cost proposal Senior Program Manager, School-to-School International, Washington, DC, Aug 2011 – Dec 2014 • Managed technical implementation of several USAID funded subcontracts in education • Primary contact with clients in Washington DC and with Chiefs of Party in the field; oversaw all financial, technical and contractual management of projects • Led the training of item writers, master trainers, quality control officers and enumerators for EGRA/EGMA baseline assessments in 8 provinces and in 3 languages of Pakistan • Coordinated and supervised field data collection in Pakistan; planned logistics and scheduled of activities for EGRA/EGMA assessments in 1680 schools in 2013 and 2014 • Led the technical design of a reading program for Grades 1 and 2 in Haiti; program used an “adapted methodology” (didactique adaptée) to transition students from Creole to a French-based curriculum • Developed items for curriculum-based student and teacher assessments in Tanzania and the DRC; trained item writers; led piloting and revision efforts; finalized tools • Worked with the field team and Ministry of Education in Zambia to design system for school-based assessments, including continuous assessment tools and implementation plan • Supported business development by drafting technical and financial proposals and recruiting staff Team Leader (Independent Consultant), Port-au-Prince, Haiti, May - June 2011 • Single-handedly wrote winning proposal to USAID/Haiti for rapid appraisal of schools • Co-developed accessibility audit tools to be used in rapid appraisal • Designed rapid appraisal methodology and led training of surveyors • Responsible for quality assurance and quality control of collected data • Drafted findings report with recommendations to USAID, the Ministry of Education and other partners Evaluator (Independent Consultant), Creative Associates International, Inc., Washington, DC, Jan - Feb 2011 • Wrote report on current USAID funded projects in the education sector in Haiti to assist in understanding potential opportunities for future assistance; determined possible future directions for education projects in Haiti based on current USAID strategies, reconstruction plans and Ministry of Education priorities • Reviewed information collected in previous sector assessments and updated reports with current data • Reviewed education program, collected data on project components and provided information on successes and problems in implementation; evaluated project achievements to date according to project objectives and expected results • Identified local and Diaspora organizations working in education in Haiti, reviewed current portfolios and analyzed capacity to support new education programs Program Manager (Independent Consultant), Global Relief Technologies, Portsmouth, NH, Jan - Aug 2010 • Led research and assessment projects during relief and early recovery phases following the January 12 earthquake in Haiti • Provided technical, administrative and financial leadership to teams in the field; ensured technical and financial contractual compliance of all contracts • Led assessments/data collection for first comprehensive database of amputees USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 96 • Developed and managed a $248,000 two-month IDP camp assessment project funded by US Military Southern Command (DOD) and follow-on project funded by USAID for an additional two months and $340,000 • Developed proposal to IOM for three-month data collection in IDP camps for $350,000 and managed initial two months of project implementation • Managed up to 51 surveyors in data collection for various and simultaneous projects • Developed training plans and led training sessions • Introduced Rapid Data Management System (RDMS) to various local and international organizations • Briefed Joint Task Force of the US military, USAID, IOM, the UN Inter-Cluster Coordination Committee on data collection methodology, assessment progress and results to date • Designed and oversaw implementation of quality assurance/quality control process; regularly reviewed data sets and provided on-going training to surveyors • Met regularly with partners to discuss project progress and troubleshoot areas of concerns • Edited reports on findings Project Specialist, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, Aug 2008 - Dec 2009 • Managed $27 million 3-year cost plus fixed-fee USAID funded education project in Haiti • Coordinated all technical aspects of project implementation with USAID, the Ministry of Education (MENFP) and subcontractors • Served as Chief of Party during leadership transition period • Negotiated changes in scope of work with client and communicated project status progress • Coordinated project support with home office team including the supervision of two project assistants • Provided support to subcontractor on program design for the development of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) modules • Provided technical assistance in early grade reading (EGRA) and math (TEMA) assessments, distance education, teacher training and certification, monitoring and evaluation, scholarship program • Responsible for research and technical report writing, finance review and budget monitoring, progress report review and editing, project compliance with contract deliverables, including PEPFAR requirements • Coordinated with local organization the distribution of scholarship packages • Worked with home office team to set-up and train field financial team on new procedures • Worked with project team to develop project management plan and annual implementation plan • Supported the design of the performance monitoring plan, including the development of project indicators • Drafted terms of reference for a geographic information system (GIS) school mapping activity • Wrote successful $5 million project expansion proposal Associate Project Director, Education Development Center, Inc., Washington, DC, Mar 2003 – Aug 2008 • Managed the implementation and contractual compliance of projects in various countries • Served as Chief of Party in Tanzania and as field based Technical Advisor in Haiti and Tanzania as needed • Provided technical assistance to local organization for the development of learning programs in basic education and lifeskills targeting out-of-school youth • Developed teacher training plans and materials for non-formal education centers • Evaluated program for children in kindergarten; oversaw changes to increase program efficacy and impact 97 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • Supported monitoring and evaluation specialists with the design and implementation of M&E systems and the development of data collection and evaluation tools • Trained field researchers in Guinea on observation and interviewing techniques for study on classroom reading practices • Co-developed winning proposal for new project in Tanzania; wrote program description for project extension in Haiti • Managed project technical activities, administrative and logistical procedures and project budget • Drafted project technical progress reports and maintained project technical and administrative records Project Coordinator • Helped implement a feasibility study for Sesame Street in West Africa; identified and supervised local research consultants; drafted sections of the findings report and edited final report • Served as main resource person and communicator during financial and technical audit mandated by donor in Tanzania • Coordinated projects start-up and close-down • Monitored program budgets • Assisted in the development of proposals • Fielded consultants and developed scopes of work • Coordinated work of sub-grantees Volunteer Teacher, Waldfrieden Primary School, Omaruru, Namibia, Jan - Dec 2002 • Developed and implemented curricula in English and social studies for Grade 6 • Planned lessons and activities for learners and wider community concerning HIV/AIDS • Administered school library and designed literacy enrichment activities for Grades 1- 6 • Organized fundraising campaigns for school athletics and computer literacy classes for local teachers • Wrote successful grant proposal to increase library resources • Successfully obtained scholarships for secondary schools for several Grade 6 leavers Admissions and Alumni Coordinator, WorldTeach, Cambridge, MA, Sept 2000 – Dec 2001 • Publicized international teaching opportunities and recruited volunteers • Reviewed and assessed volunteer applications to determine program eligibility • Managed database to compose reports about program participants for Board of Directors • Conducted market research to identify potential volunteers and donors • Served as liaison between returned volunteers and organization • Developed content for organization’s website Assistant Program Manager • Responded to prospective volunteer and donor queries • Helped write and revise program literature including cross-cultural reading materials • Assisted with the admission notification process and post-admission services • Updated program binders and files • Tracked and processed volunteer documents and fee payments Countries of Work Experience Haiti, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Tanzania, Zambia Languages English (functional native proficiency), French (functional native proficiency), Haitian Creole (functional native proficiency) USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 98 Appendix VII: Conflict of Interest Statements 99 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Appendix VIII: USAID CRITERIA TO ENSURE the quality of the evaluation report Per ADS 201, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report: • The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project or activity. • The evaluation report should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of the evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • The evaluation report shall adequately address all evaluation questions included in the statement of work. Or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report. • Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females. • Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action￾oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 100 ANNEX IV: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS This evaluation was led by a four-person team that included a team leader, a finance specialist, a senior evaluation specialist, and a MEP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) manager. The team leader for this evaluation was Ms. Gaëlle Simon, who provided subject matter expertise and methodological orientation to the team and led interviews, data analysis, and report writing. Mr. Mamadou Fall, the finance specialist, reviewed financial data from LPT and the G2G agreement, conducted budget calculations, and led cost replication analysis to inform the reading program’s sustainability and nationwide scalability by the MEN. The MEP senior evaluation specialist, Mr. Souleymane Barry, served as the evaluation methodologist. MEP’s M&E manager, Ms. Safyatou Diallo, supported the team in conducting and documenting interviews and focus groups in the field. Four enumerators administered the school surveys to school directors and led the group discussions with teachers, parents, and school directors. DATA COLLECTION METHODS The evaluation team relied on the following data collection methods for this evaluation: 1. Document review: The evaluation team reviewed and analyzed LPT and G2G design and implementation documents to understand the LPT model implementation components, contexts, and challenges. 2. Qualitative methods: The evaluation team conducted semi-structured key informant and group interviews with a wide range of stakeholders to gather data on their experiences with, appreciation for, and perceptions of LPT and G2G interventions, with a special focus on policy development in support of the LPT model, MEN capacity building at the central and decentralized levels, and support to the MEN to sustain and scale up the LPT model. The evaluation team used several data collection tools, including the following: a. Semi-structured interview guides for individual or group interviews with MEN officials at the central and decentralized levels, LPT project staff, USAID representatives, other MEN funders and partners, teachers, school directors, and community members. b. Scalability assessment: The evaluation team facilitated a workshop to explore the strengths and weaknesses in taking the LPT reading program to scale (see Annex VI). 3. Quantitative data analysis: The evaluation team collected limited primary quantitative data in 24 schools in Saint-Louis and analyzed secondary quantitative data, when available and pertinent, provided by the LPT, USAID, and/or the MEN. The quantitative data collected/reviewed and analyzed included participation rates of beneficiaries in key interventions such as trainings and attendance in community meetings. In addition, the evaluation team conducted detailed cost analysis and modeling. The team developed a draft budget simulation using data from the document review and key informant interviews with the MEN, USAID, and LPT (see Annex VII). SAMPLING STRATEGY The evaluation team used a purposive sample to collect data from schools, teachers, school directors, and parents in Kaolack, Matam, and Saint-Louis. In each region, the team visited LPT or G2G intervention sites in at least one urban IEF and one rural IEF. 101 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV For the primary quantitative data collection in schools in Saint-Louis, the team worked with the IEF serving as LPT focal persons in Saint-Louis Commune, Saint-Louis Département, and Dagana. The focal persons selected eight schools using the following criteria: 1. Distance from the main town ➢ Remote schools were not selected to minimize travel for the team and participants. 2. Implementation of the community engagement component (Outcome 3) ➢ At least two schools had community engagement interventions to reflect the proportion (20 percent) of schools targeted by LPT for this component. 3. Perceived level of success with the implementation of the LPT model ➢ At least one school was perceived to have difficulties in LPT implementation. The school survey was administered to the school directors of the 24 selected schools in Saint-Louis. In Kaolack and Matam, LPT team members used the selection criteria above to select three school communities in each of the two targeted IEFs for group interviews with beneficiaries. In Saint-Louis, group interviews were conducted with beneficiaries of three school communities selected from the eight schools that participated in the school survey. The team conducted group interviews with teachers, school directors, and parents from three school communities in each selected IEF in Kaolack, Matam, and Saint-Louis: • One group interview with three school directors, one school director per school. • One group interview with six Grade 1 and Grade 2 teachers, two teachers per school. • One group interview with six to nine community members, two to three parents per school. FIELDWORK The fieldwork for this evaluation lasted approximately three weeks (October 28 to November 19), during which the team conducted interviews in Dakar, Kaolack, Matam, and Saint-Louis. In total, the evaluation team completed 25 key informant interviews; 54 group interviews with 246 participants, including 21 school directors, 44 teachers, and 90 parents; and 24 school surveys. Figure 4: Group Interviews with School Communities 25 Key Informant Interviews 54 Group Interviews 246 Participants USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 102 ANNEX V: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Data collection instruments included eight semi-structured interview guides and one school survey: 1. LPT semi-structured interview guide. 2. Parents/community semi-structured interview guide. 3. School directors semi-structured interview guide. 4. Teacher semi-structured interview guide. 5. IA/IEF semi-structured interview guide. 6. MEN semi-structured interview guide. 7. Technical and financial partners semi-structured interview guide. 8. USAID semi-structured interview guide. 9. School survey. 103 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTEUR CLÉ ENTRETIEN SEMI-STRUCTURÉ ACR/LPT I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous (LPT). L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cet entretien va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cet entretien ? • (Consentement) La participation à cet entretien (ou à cette discussion) est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme LPT. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cet entretien pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cet entretien ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cet entretien à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (si non, fin de l’entretien) Questions Quels sont les grands succès du programme LPT ? Y a-t-il des projets similaires réalisés par d’autres PTF ? Quels partenariats, en dehors de votre collaboration avec le MEN, avez-vous établis pour appuyer la mise en œuvre et la durabilité de LPT ? Avez-vous identifié des partenaires dans le secteur privé ? Si oui, quels partenariats avez-vous établis ? Date Enquêteur(s) Personne(s) interrogée(s) Poste au sein du projet Partenaire du consortium USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 104 Questions Selon vous, les autorités étatiques sont-elles suffisamment sensibilisées sur la réforme de l’enseignement de la lecture (ministre, secrétaire général, conseiller technique, collectivités territoriales, conseiller spécial en éducation du président) ? Quelles sont les actions et décisions concrètes prises par les autorités étatiques pour soutenir la mise en œuvre de LPT ? A votre avis, comment s’inscrit l’apprentissage de la lecture et de la lecture en langue nationale parmi les priorités de PAQUET, (priorité élevée, moyenne ou faible) ? Selon vous, la mise à l’échelle de LPT nécessite-t-elle l’adaptation de certains textes législatifs et réglementaires ? (Arrêtés sur l’affection des enseignants, utilisation des langues nationales, code des marchés publics, directives des PTF…) Quel est le statut des politiques pour appuyer LPT ? (Programme national de la lecture, code des marchés publics, l'affection des enseignants selon les langues, la formation initiale pour la lecture en langue nationale, emploi du temps, coaching) Qui assure la coordination de LPT au niveau national ? Comment sont organisées les réunions (c-à-d qui participent, combien de fois par an, où, qui organise, qui détermine l'ordre du jour…) ? Quel est (ou devrait être) le rôle primordial de ce comité ? Comment ce comité peut-il assurer la durabilité et l'extension de LPT ? Quels comités techniques en appui à LPT sont fonctionnels ? Comment sont organisées les réunions (c-à-d qui participent, périodicité, où, qui organise, qui détermine l'ordre du jour…) ? Comment les décisions prises lors des réunions techniques influencent la prise de décision ou les politiques du MEN ? Comment fonctionne le « comité de pilotage » pour la mise en œuvre de LPT/G2G à Saint-Louis (rôle, composition et périodicité des rencontres) ? Quel est la stratégie de formation qui accompagne la mise en œuvre de LPT ? Quelles difficultés avez-vous confrontées lors des formations LPT dans les 7 régions ? Quelles ressources (humaines et financières) seront nécessaires pour la mise à l’échelle de la formation LPT ? Quel est le coût de financement pour les formations LPT ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il les financer ? Pouvez-vous décrire la stratégie adoptée pour l’évaluation des performances des élèves en lecture pour LPT ? Quels sont les besoins en capacité du MEN pour l’évaluation de la performance des élèves en lecture ? (Evaluation nationale/grande échelle et évaluation continue – LEMA) Quel est le coût de financement de cette stratégie ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il la financer ? Dakar et Saint-Louis seulement : Pouvez-vous nous décrire les grandes lignes de votre stratégie de communication à Saint-Louis ? Quel est le coût de financement de cette stratégie ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il la financer ? A votre avis, la pérennisation et la mise à l’échelle de l’approche LPT doivent-elles être accompagnées d’une stratégie de communication ? Pourquoi ? Si oui, que devrait être cette stratégie ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il la financer ? Comment appréciez-vous le niveau d’appropriation du programme LPT par les différentes instances du MEN (aux niveaux central, régional et opérationnel) ? Dakar et Saint-Louis seulement : Quelle est votre appréciation de la fidélité et de l’effectivité de la réplication de LPT à Saint-Louis ? Quelles sont les réussites ? Quelles difficultés ont été rencontrées ? 105 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Questions Selon vous, quel est le niveau de préparation du gouvernement pour mettre en œuvre cette approche dans les 14 régions ? Si bien préparé, comment ? Si non, quelles insuffisances avez-vous notées ? Selon vous, comment faudrait-il appuyer le MEN pour remédier à ces insuffisances ? Y’a-t-il des aspects critiques (ou clés) sur lesquels des efforts particuliers devraient être réalisés ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cet entretien ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 106 DISCUSSIONS DE GROUPE COMMUNAUTÉS I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous. L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cette discussion va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cette discussion ? • (Consentement) La participation à cette discussion est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme Lecture Pour Tous. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cette discussion pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cette discussion ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (Remerciez les participants qui refusent et continuez avec les autres. Si tous les participants refusent, fin de la discussion.) Questions Connaissez-vous le programme Lecture Pour Tous ? S’ils ne connaissent pas, expliquez que c’est un programme du MEN et ses partenaires qui vise à améliorer les apprentissages de la lecture chez les enfants du CI, CP et CE1. Si oui, comment l’avez-vous découvert ? S’ils les participants ne mentionnent pas par la radio, télévision, mobilisateur/rencontres communautaires et SMS, demandez s’ils ont entendu parler de LPT à travers ces médias. Comment l’appréciez-vous ? Pourquoi ? Date IA et IEF(s) Enquêteur(s) Noms et Fonctions des Participants 107 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Questions Avez-vous entendu parler de l’éducation bilingue ? Si oui, qu’est-ce que c’est ? Qu’en pensez-vous ? Pourquoi ? Que pensez-vous de l’apprentissage de la lecture en langue nationale d’abord, suivi d’une transition vers l’apprentissage de la lecture en français ? Que pensez-vous du niveau de performance des enfants de votre village/quartier en lecture ? Pensez-vous qu’il y a eu une amélioration de la performance des enfants en lecture depuis la mise en œuvre de Lecture Pour Tous ? S’ils disent avoir remarqué une amélioration, demandez leurs de donner des exemples (meilleures notes à l’école, plus d’activités de lecture par les enfants…) Qu’est-ce qu’il y a eu de nouveau ou de réussi dans le cadre de Lecture Pour Tous que vous souhaiteriez voir pérennisé ou étendu dans le système éducatif ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 108 DISCUSSIONS DE GROUPE DIRECTEURS D’ECOLE I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous (LPT). L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cette discussion va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cette discussion ? • (Consentement) La participation à cette discussion est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’éducation et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme LPT. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cette discussion pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cette discussion ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (Remerciez les participants qui refusent et continuez avec les autres. Si tous les participants refusent, fin de la discussion.) Questions Connaissez-vous le programme Lecture Pour Tous ? S’ils ne connaissent pas, expliquez que c’est un programme du MEN et ses partenaires qui vise à améliorer les apprentissages de la lecture chez les enfants du CI, CP et CE1. Quels sont les grands succès du programme Lecture Pour Tous dans vos écoles respectives ? Invitez les participants à fournir des détails concrets sur ce qui a changé dans leurs écoles depuis le démarrage de Lecture Pour Tous et comment ces changements ont-ils été obtenus (quoi, quand, où, comment, combien, …) Date Enquêteur(s) IA et IEF(s) Ecoles Représentées Noms des Directeurs 109 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Questions Avez-vous suivi la formation didactique et en « coaching » (encadrement) Lecture Pour Tous ? Etes-vous en mesure d’appliquer les techniques présentées ou apprises durant la formation en « coaching » ? Si non, pourquoi ? Vos enseignant ont-ils suivi la formation LPT ? Selon vous, sont-ils en mesure d’appliquer les techniques d’enseignement présentées ou apprises durant la formation ? Si non, pourquoi ? Avez-vous reçu le matériel (guide enseignants, livret des élèves…) Lecture Pour Tous pour votre école ? Quand l’avez-vous reçu ? Comment appréciez-vous la qualité et l’utilité de ce matériel ? Comment se fait le « coaching » (l’encadrement) de vos enseignants pour Lecture Pour Tous ? Si les directeurs ne mentionnent pas le programme SMS, demandez s’ils le connaissent et comment ils l’apprécient. Que pensez-vous du nouvel emploi du temps promu par Lecture Pour Tous ? Est-ce que vos enseignants l’utilisent ? Si oui, quel effet ce changement a-t-il eu sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la lecture ? Si non, pourquoi ? Est-ce que les habilités des enseignants en langues nationales sont prises en compte lors des affectations ? Pensez-vous que ce soit important d’être considéré ? Pourquoi ? Selon vous, quelle est la plus grande valeur ajoutée de LPT ? Qu’est-ce qu’il y a eu de nouveau ou de réussi que vous vous souhaiteriez voir pérennisé ou étendu dans le système éducatif ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 110 DISCUSSIONS DE GROUPE ENSEIGNANTS CI ET CP I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous. L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cette discussion va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cette discussion ? • (Consentement) La participation à cette discussion est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme LPT. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cette discussion pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cette discussion ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (Remerciez les participants qui refusent et continuez avec les autres. Si tous les participants refusent, fin de la discussion.) Questions Connaissez-vous le programme Lecture Pour Tous ? S’ils ne connaissent pas, expliquez que c’est un programme du MEN et ses partenaires qui vise à améliorer les apprentissages de la lecture chez les enfants du CI, CP et CE1. Quels sont les grands succès du programme Lecture Pour Tous dans vos écoles ? Invitez les participants à fournir des détails concrets sur ce qui a changé dans leurs écoles depuis le démarrage de LPT et comment ces changements ont-ils été obtenus (quoi, quand, où, comment, combien, …) Date Enquêteur(s) IA et IEF(s) Ecoles Représentées Noms des Enseignant du CI Noms des Enseignant du CP 111 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Questions Que pensez-vous du nouvel emploi de temps promu par Lecture Pour Tous ? L’utilisez-vous ? Si oui, quel effet ce changement a-t-il eu sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la lecture ? Si non, pourquoi ? Avez-vous reçu des séances de « coaching » (encadrement) de votre directeur d’école et/ou d’un IEF ? Si oui, comment les appréciez-vous ? Avez-vous reçu le matériel LPT (guide enseignants, livret des élèves…) ? Quand l’avez-vous reçu ? Comment appréciez-vous la qualité et l’utilité de ce matériel ? Avez-vous suivi la formation LPT ? Si oui, comment appréciez-vous la qualité et l’utilité de cette formation ? Etes-vous en mesure d’appliquer les techniques présentées ou apprises durant la formation ? Si non, pourquoi ? Est-ce que les habilités des enseignants en langue nationale sont prises en compte lors des affectations ? Pensez-vous que ce soit important d’être considéré ? Pourquoi ? Selon vous, quelle est la plus grande valeur ajoutée de LPT ? Qu’est-ce qu’il y a eu de nouveau ou de réussi que vous souhaiteriez voir pérennisé ou étendu dans le système éducatif ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 112 ACTEUR CLÉ ENTRETIEN SEMI-STRUCTURÉ IA/IEF I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous (LPT). L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cet entretien va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cet entretien ? • (Consentement) La participation à cet entretien est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme LPT. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cet entretien pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cet entretien ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cet entretien à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (si non, fin de l’entretien) Questions Quels sont les grands succès du programme Lecture Pour Tous dans votre IA/IEF ? Invitez les participants à fournir des détails concrets sur ce qui a changé dans les écoles de l’IA/IEF depuis le démarrage de LPT et comment ces changements ont été obtenus (quoi, quand, où, comment, combien, …) Y a-t-il des projets similaires réalisés avec d’autres partenaires dans votre IA/IEF ? Si oui, lesquels ? IA/IEF Saint-Louis seulement : Existe-t-il un organe de pilotage fonctionnel au niveau de la région ? Si oui, quel est son rôle, sa composition et la périodicité des rencontres ? Pouvez-vous partager les textes qui créent cet organe de pilotage et les procès-verbaux des rencontres ? Si non, pourquoi ? IA/IEF Saint-Louis seulement : Est-ce que le taux d’exécution des activités LPT/G2G est acceptable ? Pourquoi ? Date Enquêteur(s) Région Structure Personne(s) interrogée(s) Poste au sein de l'organisation 113 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Questions Les écoles de votre IA/IEF ont-elles reçu le matériel didactique de LPT (guide enseignants, livret des élèves…) pour l’année scolaire en cours ? Si oui, avez-vous été confronté à des difficultés pour la réception et la distribution de ce matériel ? Quels types de difficultés ? Si non, comment expliquez￾vous ce retard ? Est-ce que tous les inspecteurs et les directeurs d’école ont suivi la formation technique et en « coaching » (encadrement) de LPT ? Est-ce que tous les enseignants du CI et CP ont suivi la formation LPT ? Comment appréciez-vous la qualité et l’utilité de ces formations ? A votre avis, pensez-vous que le MEN puisse financer les formations LPT ? Pouvez-vous nous décrire les grandes lignes de la stratégie pour l’évaluation des performances des élèves en lecture ? (Evaluation continue – LEMA) Comment utilisez-vous les résultats de ces évaluations au niveau de votre IA/IEF ? Quel est votre niveau d’implication dans la mise en œuvre de la stratégie de communication qui appuie LPT/G2G ? Quelle est votre appréciation de l’efficacité de cette stratégie ? Selon vous, est-ce que la communication est un élément important de LPT ? Selon vous, la mise à l’échelle de LPT nécessite-t-elle l’adaptation de certains textes législatifs et réglementaires ? (Arrêtés sur l’affection des enseignants, utilisation des langues nationales, code des marchés publics, directives des PTF…) Comment les habilités des enseignants en langues nationales sont prises en compte lors des affectations ? Les écoles de votre IA/IEF utilisent-elles le nouvel emploi du temps promu par LPT ? Si oui, quel effet ce changement a-t-il eu sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la lecture ? Quel est votre niveau de préparation pour assurer la durabilité de LPT ? (Planification financière, système de suivi et évaluation, passation des marchés et distribution du matériel, recrutement, affection et perfectionnement des enseignants…) A votre avis, comment s’inscrit l’apprentissage de la lecture en langue nationale parmi les priorités de PAQUET, (priorité élevée, moyenne ou faible) ? Est-ce qu’il y a des aspects ou des éléments que le gouvernement devrait prendre en compte (renforcer) pour répliquer le programme dans les autres régions du Sénégal ? Si oui, lesquels ? Selon vous, quelle est la plus grande valeur ajoutée de LPT ? Qu’est-ce qu’il y a eu de nouveau ou de réussi que vous souhaiteriez voir pérennisé ou étendu dans les systèmes et les opérations du MEN ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cet entretien ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 114 ACTEUR CLÉ ENTRETIEN SEMI-STRUCTURÉ MEN I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous (LPT). L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cet entretien va durer environ 1h 30 minutes. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cet entretien ? • (Consentement) La participation à cet entretien (ou à cette discussion) est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme LPT. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cet entretien pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cet entretien ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cet entretien à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (si non, fin de l’entretien) Questions Quels sont les grands succès du programme LPT ? Y a-t-il des projets similaires réalisés avec d’autres PTF ? Comment les coûts de financement ont été déterminés avec les autres PTF ? Quel est le statut du modèle bilingue harmonisé du MEN ? Quels sont les différences et les complémentarités entre le modèle bilingue harmonisé et le modèle LPT ? Comment les autorités étatiques ont-elles été sensibilisées sur LPT (ministre, secrétaire général, conseiller technique, collectivités territoriales, conseiller spécial en éducation du président) ? Quelles sont les actions et décisions concrètes prises par les autorités étatiques pour soutenir la mise en œuvre de LPT ? Date Enquêteur(s) Personne(s) interrogée(s) Poste au sein de la direction Direction 115 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Questions Quel est le statut des politiques pour appuyer LPT ? Programme national de la lecture, code des marchés publics, l'affection des enseignants selon les langues, la formation initiale pour la lecture en langue nationale, emploi du temps, coaching) Comment se fait, au niveau national, la coordination des programmes du MEN pour l’amélioration de la lecture ? (Quel est le statut du comité national de coordination ?) Comment sont organisées les réunions (c-à-d qui participe, combien de fois par an, où, qui organise, qui détermine l'ordre du jour…) ? Quel est (ou devrait être) le rôle primordial de ce comité ? Comment ce comité peut-il assurer la durabilité et l'extension de LPT ? Quels comités techniques en appui à LPT sont fonctionnels ? Comment sont organisées les réunions (c-à-d qui participe, périodicité, où, qui organise, qui détermine l'ordre du jour…) ? Comment les décisions prises lors des réunions techniques influencent la prise de décision ou les politiques du MEN ? Comment fonctionne le « comité de pilotage » pour la mise en œuvre de LPT/G2G à Saint-Louis (rôle, composition et périodicité des rencontres) ? DAGE, DEE et DODP seulement : Quel est le processus de décaissement des fonds pour les activités LPT/G2G à Saint-Louis ? Est-ce que le taux d’exécution des activités LPT/G2G est acceptable ? Pourquoi ? DEE et DFC seulement : Quel est la stratégie de formation qui accompagne la mise en œuvre de LPT ? Quelles difficultés avez-vous confrontées lors des formations LPT dans les 7 régions ? Quelles ressources (humaines et financières) seraient nécessaires pour la mise à l’échelle de la formation LPT ? Quel est le coût de financement pour les formations LPT ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il les financer ? Comment pensez-vous que les autres partenaires pourraient être mobilisés dans le financement de cette extension ? DEE, INEADE seulement : Pouvez-vous décrire les grandes lignes de votre stratégie pour l’évaluation des performances des élèves en lecture ? (Evaluation nationale/grande échelle et évaluation continue – LEMA) Comment utilisez-vous les résultats de ces évaluations ? Quel est le coût de financement de cette stratégie ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il la financer lors de la mise à l’échelle ? Les évaluations de la performance en lecture seront-elles intégrées dans les évaluations nationales (à grande échelle) au Sénégal ? DEE, DFC seulement : A votre avis, la pérennisation et la mise à l’échelle de l’approche LPT doivent￾elles être accompagnées d’une stratégie de communication ? Pourquoi ? Si oui, que devrait être cette stratégie ? Selon vous, le MEN pourra-t-il la financer ? Comment appréciez-vous le niveau d’appropriation du programme LPT par les différentes instances du MEN (aux niveau central, régional et opérationnel) ? Quelle est votre appréciation de la fidélité et de l’effectivité de la réplication de LPT à Saint-Louis ? Quelles sont les réussites ? Quelles difficultés ont été rencontrées ? A votre avis, quels sont les prérequis et les préalables pour la mise à l’échelle de LPT dans les autres régions du pays ? Quelles sont les ressources et les compétences qui existent déjà au MEN pour la mise à l’échelle de LPT ? Selon vous, quel est le niveau de préparation du gouvernement pour mettre en œuvre cette approche dans les 14 régions ? Qu’est-ce que vous avez prévu pour la durabilité ? USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 116 Questions Selon vous, la mise à l’échelle de LPT nécessite-t-elle l’adaptation de certains textes législatifs et réglementaires ? (Arrêtés sur l’affection des enseignants, utilisation des langues nationales, code des marchés publics, directives des PTF…) A votre avis, comment s’inscrit l’apprentissage de la lecture et de la lecture en langue nationale parmi les priorités de PAQUET, (priorité élevée, moyenne ou faible) ? Est-ce qu’il y a des aspects ou des éléments que le gouvernement devrait prendre en compte (renforcer) pour répliquer le programme dans les autres régions du Sénégal ? Si oui, lesquels ? Selon vous, quelle est la plus grande valeur ajoutée de LPT ? Qu’est-ce qu’il y a eu de nouveau ou de réussi que vous souhaiteriez voir pérennisé ou étendu dans les systèmes et les opérations du MEN ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cet entretien ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? 117 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTEUR CLÉ ENTRETIEN SEMI-STRUCTURÉ PARTENAIRES TECHNIQUES ET FINANCIERS I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous (LPT). L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Cet entretien va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cet entretien ? • (Consentement) La participation à cet entretien (ou à cette discussion) est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Elle vous donne aussi l’opportunité de partager vos opinions et vos appréciations sur le programme LPT. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cet entretien pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. Toutefois, sachez que le contenu de cet entretien ainsi que les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne seront pas partagées avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. N'hésitez pas à interrompre cet entretien à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (si non, fin de l’entretien) Questions Pouvez-vous nous décrire l’assistance que vous offrez au MEN en éducation ? A votre avis, comment s’inscrit l’apprentissage de la lecture et de la lecture en langue nationale parmi les priorités de PAQUET, (priorité élevée, moyenne ou faible) ? Que connaissez-vous du programme LPT ? S’ils ne connaissent pas, expliquez que c’est un programme du MEN financé par l’USAID qui vise à améliorer les apprentissages de la lecture chez les enfants du CI, CP et CE1 en utilisant les langues locales suivi d’une transition vers le français. Quelle est votre appréciation de l’approche LPT qui vise à améliorer les apprentissages de la lecture chez les enfants en utilisant les langues locales suivi d’une transition vers le français ? Date Enquêteur(s) Organisation Personne(s) interrogée(s) Poste au sein de l'organisation USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 118 Questions Votre organisation collabore-t-elle avec le projet LPT au niveau stratégique ou opérationnel ? Si oui, quelle est la nature de cette collaboration ? Si non, pourquoi ? Votre partenariat avec le MEN inclut-il un appui pour la mise en œuvre d’un modèle d’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Quels sont les résultats attendus de votre programme ? Comment les coûts de votre financement ont été déterminés ? A votre avis, quels sont les éléments nécessaires pour la bonne mise en œuvre d’un modèle d’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Pourquoi sont-ils importants ? (S’ils ne mentionnent pas formation, stratégie de communication, matériel didactique, encadrement des enseignants, demandez-leur s’ils pensent que ces éléments sont importants et si oui pourquoi.) Envisagez-vous développer avec le MEN des stratégies de mise en œuvre de ces éléments cités ? Selon vous, les autorités étatiques sont-elles suffisamment sensibilisées sur la réforme de l’enseignement de la lecture (ministre, secrétaire général, conseiller technique, collectivités territoriales, conseiller en éducation du président) ? Quelles sont les actions et décisions concrètes prises par les autorités étatiques pour soutenir la mise en œuvre de l’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Y’a-t-il des réformes importantes que vous jugez nécessaires que le gouvernement fasse pour faciliter l’institutionnalisation de l’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale au Sénégal ? Selon vous, la mise à l’échelle d’un modèle d’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale nécessite￾t-elle de nouveaux recrutements, affectations et/ou l’adaptation de certains textes législatifs et réglementaires ? (Arrêtés sur l’affection des enseignants, utilisation des langues nationales, code des marchés publics, directives des PTF…) Comment se fait, au niveau national, la coordination des programmes du MEN visant l’amélioration de la lecture ? Votre organisation envisage-t-elle un appui financier au MEN pour la mise à l’échelle du modèle bilingue harmonisé, du modèle LPT ou d’un autre modèle de l’enseignement bilingue ? (si un autre modèle, demandez lequel et pourquoi) Selon vous, quel est le niveau de préparation du gouvernement pour mettre en œuvre un modèle d’enseignement bilingue en dans les 14 régions ? Si bien préparé, comment ? Si non, quelles insuffisances avez-vous notées ? Selon vous, comment faudrait-il appuyer le MEN pour remédier à ces insuffisances ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cet entretien ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? 119 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTEUR CLÉ ENTRETIEN SEMI-STRUCTURÉ USAID I. Introduction • Nous allons vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous dans le cadre de l’étude à mi-parcours que nous effectuons. L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • Cet entretien va durer environ une heure. Êtes-vous disponible pour participer à cet entretien ? • Nous vous demandons l’autorisation d’enregistrer cet entretien pour nous permettre de mieux capter les informations partagées. • Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (si non, fin de l’entretien) Questions Pouvez-vous nous rappeler les fondements théoriques/conceptuels sur la base desquels est bâtie l’approche LPT ? Dans quelle mesure LPT s’est-elle inspirée des modèles antérieurs sur l’enseignement bilingue soit du Ministère soit d’autres partenaires ? Quel sont les ressemblances et les différences avec ces autres modèles ? Quels sont les grands succès du programme LPT ? (Cadre réglementaire, des textes et politiques, pratiques pédagogiques, cadres institutionnels, apprentissages de la lecture, engagement communautaire, …) Y a-t-il des projets similaires réalisés par d’autres PTF ? Si oui, lesquels ? Comment se fait, au niveau national, la coordination des programmes du MEN pour l’amélioration de la lecture ? Quel est (ou devrait être) le rôle primordial du comité national de coordination de LPT ? Comment ce comité peut-il assurer la durabilité et l'extension de LPT ? Comment les autorités étatiques ont-elles été sensibilisées sur LPT (ministre, secrétaire général, conseiller technique, collectivités territoriales, conseiller spécial en éducation du président) ? Quelles sont les actions et décisions concrètes prises par les autorités étatiques pour soutenir la mise en œuvre de LPT ? Au-delà de LPT, pour soutenir la promotion de l’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale au Sénégal ? Comment fonctionne le « comité de pilotage » pour la mise en œuvre de LPT/G2G à Saint-Louis (rôle, composition et périodicité des rencontres) ? Pouvez-vous partager les textes qui créent le comité de pilotage et les procès-verbaux des rencontres ? Quel est le processus de décaissement des fonds pour les activités LPT/G2G à Saint-Louis ? Est-ce que le taux d’exécution des activités LPT/G2G est acceptable ? Pourquoi ? Est-ce que le matériel LPT/G2G a été distribué dans les écoles à Saint-Louis pour cette année scolaire ? Si non, pourquoi ? Date Personne(s) interrogée(s) – noms et postes USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 120 Questions Selon vous, la mise à l’échelle de LPT nécessite-t-elle de nouveaux recrutements, affectations et/ou l’adaptation de certains textes législatifs et réglementaires ? (Arrêtés sur l’affection des enseignants, utilisation des langues nationales, code des marchés publics, directives des PTF…) A votre avis, comment s’inscrit l’apprentissage de la lecture et de la lecture en langue nationale parmi les priorités de PAQUET, (priorité élevée, moyenne ou faible) ? Comment appréciez-vous le niveau d’appropriation du programme LPT par les différentes instances du MEN (aux niveau central, régional et opérationnel) ? Quelle est votre appréciation de la fidélité et de l’effectivité de la réplication de LPT à Saint-Louis ? Quelles sont les réussites ? Quelles difficultés ont été rencontrées ? Selon vous, quel est le niveau de préparation du gouvernement pour mettre en œuvre cette approche dans les 14 régions ? Si bien préparé, comment ? Si non, quelles insuffisances avez-vous notées ? (Risk mitigation plan) Selon vous, comment faudrait-il appuyer le MEN pour remédier à ces insuffisances ? Est-ce qu’il y a des aspects ou des éléments que le gouvernement devrait prendre en compte (renforcer) pour répliquer le programme dans les autres régions du Sénégal ? Si oui, lesquels ? Selon vous, quelle est la plus grande valeur ajoutée de LPT ? Qu’est-ce qu’il y a eu de nouveau ou de bien fait que vous vous souhaiteriez voir pérennisé ou étendu dans les systèmes et les opérations du MEN ? CONCLUSION • Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cet entretien ? • Avez-vous des questions à me poser ? 121 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ENQUETE DANS LES ECOLES (A compléter avec le directeur de l’école ou son représentant) I. Introduction • (Établir le contact et se présenter) Je m'appelle ______________ et je fais partie de l’équipe d’évaluation du programme Lecture pour Tous financé par l'Agence américaine pour le développement international. Merci d'avoir accepté de nous rencontrer. • (Exposer l'objectif) Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous poser quelques questions à propos du programme Lecture Pour Tous. L’étude a deux buts principaux : 1) identifier les réalisations accomplies à ce jour et les difficultés rencontrées (ou notées), et 2) comprendre comment le programme pourrait être étendu dans les autres régions du Sénégal. • (Durée) Ce questionnaire prendra entre 15 à 20 minutes. Êtes-vous disponible pour le compléter ? • (Consentement) La participation à cette étude est entièrement volontaire mais demeure très importante pour nous car elle permettra au Ministère de l’Education et à ses partenaires de savoir ce qui a marché dans ce programme et ce qu’il faudrait changer ou améliorer. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas y participer. Si vous acceptez d'y participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Sachez que le contenu de ce questionnaire sera utilisé uniquement par l’équipe d’évaluation et ne sera pas partagé avec des personnes externes à l'équipe d'évaluation. De même, votre identité ni aucune information permettant de vous identifier ne seront divulguées à de tierces personnes. • (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? • AUTORISATION : M'autorisez-vous à commencer ? OUI NON (si non, fin de l’entretien) 1.Oui 0.Non 2.N/A Saut Matériels 1 Pour l’année scolaire en cours, avez-vous reçu le guide de l’enseignant pour l’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale pour les enseignants du CI et du CP ? Si non aller à q4 2 Si Q1 oui, avez-vous reçu les guides de l’enseignant en quantité suffisante ? 3 Si Q1 oui, les enseignants du CI et CP utilisent-ils le guide de l’enseignant selon le chronogramme établi ? 4 Pour l’année scolaire en cours, avez-vous reçu les manuels de lecture initiale en langue nationale pour vos élèves du CI et du CP ? Si non aller à q6 5 Si Q4 oui, avez-vous reçu les manuels de lecture en quantité suffisante ? Date Enquêteur(s) IA IEF Nom et code de l’école Nom et coordonnées du directeur (ou de son adjoint) USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 122 1.Oui 0.Non 2.N/A Saut 6 Pour l’année scolaire en cours, les élèves du CI et du CP ont-ils reçu un livret maison de lecture initiale en langue nationale ? Si non aller à q9 7 Si Q6 oui, avez-vous reçu les livrets maison de lecture en quantité suffisante ? 8 Si Q6 oui, les élèves de CI et CP partent-ils chez eux avec les livrets maison ? Formations 9 Avez-vous suivi une formation sur la didactique de l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Si non aller à q11 10 Si Q9 oui, êtes-vous satisfait de cette formation ? 11 Avez-vous suivi une formation sur le coaching de l’enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Si non aller à q13 12 Si Q11 oui, êtes-vous satisfait de cette formation ? 13 Tous vos enseignants du CI et CP ont-ils suivi une formation sur la didactique l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Si non aller à q15 14 Si Q13 oui, selon vous, la formation sur la didactique l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale est-elle suffisante pour améliorer la pratique des enseignants ? Coaching/Encadrement 15 Effectuez-vous des séances de coaching pour les enseignants du CI et CP sur l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? Sinon aller à q18 16 Si Q15 oui, effectuez-vous les séances de coaching sur le chronogramme de Lecture Pour Tous, c.-à￾d. 2 fois par mois par enseignant ? 17 Si Q15 oui, observez-vous les enseignants durant une leçon de lecture en langue nationale ? 18 L’inspecteur a-t-il effectué des visites de coaching sur l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale pour les enseignants du CI et CP ? Si non aller à q21 19 Si Q18 oui, est-ce que l’inspecteur a observé les enseignants durant une leçon de lecture en langue nationale ? 20 Si Q18 oui, les séances de coaching par l’inspecteur sont-elles effectuées selon le chronogramme de Lecture Pour Tous, c.-à-d. 1 fois par trimestre par enseignant ? Engagement Communautaire 21 Le comité de gestion de l’école (CGE) a-t-il suivi une formation offerte par Lecture Pour Tous ? 22 Le CGE mène-t-il des activités de sensibilisation sur l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale au CI et CP pour les parents ? Si non aller à q27 123 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1.Oui 0.Non 2.N/A Saut 23 Si Q22 oui, est-ce que le CGE a organisé des forums communautaires sur l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale au CI et CP ? 24 Si Q23 oui, à votre avis, le niveau de participation de la communauté était-elle acceptable ? 25 Si Q22 oui, est-ce que le CGE a reçu le matériel promotionnel sur l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? 26 Si Q25 oui, est-ce que le CGE a affiché le matériel promotionnel sur l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale dans la communauté ? 27 Avez-vous entendu les annonces de service public à la radio concernant l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? 28 Avez-vous reçu des SMS concernant l'enseignement de la lecture en langue nationale ? MERCI ! USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 124 ANNEX VI: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources EQ 1: To what degree is the project on track to achieve planned results at goal level and within key areas: (a) strengthen policies; and (b) enable collaboration and Senegal government uptake? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - G2G document and reports - LPT staff - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials at the decentralized level - USAID - MEN education partners and donors - Beneficiaries: teachers, school directors, parents EQ 1.1.1: To what extent is implementation achieving expected policy results? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - LPT staff - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials at the decentralized level - USAID - MEN education partners and donors - Beneficiaries: teachers, school directors EQ 1.1.2: To what extent have G2G activities in Saint-Louis successfully replicated efforts made in the other regions of LPT? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - School surveys - LPT documents and reports - G2G document and reports - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials in Saint-Louis (IA/IEF) - USAID - LPT staff - Project beneficiaries: teachers, school directors, parents EQ 1.2: To what degree is the MEN prepared to scale up LPT from seven to fourteen regions in order to take the program nationwide, and how can this be further facilitated? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - G2G document and reports - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials at the decentralized level - USAID - LPT staff - MEN education partners and donors EQ 2: How is LPT’s collaborative approach facilitating the project’s progress toward achieving expected results, to what degree has it been appropriated by the MEN, and what would be the cost of replication nationwide? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - G2G document and reports - LPT staff - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials at the decentralized level - USAID - MEN education partners and donors EQ 2.1: To what degree is the current approach effectively identifying and involving relevant and committed MEN partners? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials at the decentralized level - USAID - LPT staff - Other MEN partners: IFEF, ARED, World Bank, UNICEF 125 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources EQ 2.2: To what degree is the Government of Senegal aware of and supporting LPT activities? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - G2G document and reports - LPT staff - MEN officials at the central level - MEN officials at the decentralized level - USAID - Other MEN partners: IFEF, ARED, World Bank, UNICEF EQ 2.3: To what degree can costs be borne by the MEN or donors, as demonstrated through replication analysis and modeling? - Document review -Key informant interviews - Group interviews/discussions - LPT documents and reports - G2G document and reports - MEN officials at the central level - USAID - LPT staff - Other MEN donors: World Bank, UNICEF USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 126 ANNEX VII: SOURCES OF INFORMATION NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS AND PARTICIPANTS Stakeholder Interviews Participants Individual Group Survey M F Total USAID - 3 - 3 1 4 Subtotal - 3 - 3 1 4 DEE 1 1 - 3 3 DAGE 2 1 - 2 2 4 DFC 1 - - 1 - 1 DRH 1 - - 1 - 1 INEADE 1 1 - 5 1 6 DPRE - 1 - 2 - 2 DALN 1 - 1 1 2 Inspection des daaras 1 - - 1 - 1 SIMEN 2 - - 2 - 2 CPM - 1 - 2 - 2 Division des statistiques et prospectives - 1 - 2 - 2 Subtotal 9 7 - 22 4 26 LPT Dakar 1 3 5 5 9 LPT Louga - 1 - 1 1 2 LPT Kaolack - 3 - 8 2 10 LPT Matam - 1 - 5 1 6 LPT Saint Louis - 1 - - 3 3 Subtotal 1 9 - 19 12 30 IA Matam 1 - - 1 - 1 IA Kaolack 1 - - - 1 1 IA Saint Louis (Point focal et 2 inspecteurs) 1 - 2 - 2 Subtotal 2 1 - 3 1 4 IEF Kaolack Commune 1 - - 1 - 1 IEF Guinguinéo 1 - - 1 - 1 IEF Matam Commune 1 - - 1 - 1 IEF Kanel 2 - - 2 - 2 IEF Saint Louis Département 2 1 - 3 1 3 IEF Saint Louis Commune 1 1 - 3 - 3 IEF Dagana 1 1 - 4 - 4 Subtotal 9 3 - 15 1 16 CRFPE Kaolack 1 - 2 1 3 CRFPE Saint Louis 1 - - 1 1 Subtotal 1 1 - 2 1 4 127 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Stakeholder Interviews Participants Individual Group Survey M F Total Directeurs IA Kaolack - 2 - 5 1 6 Directeurs IA Matam - 2 - 6 - 6 Directeurs IA Saint Louis - 3 24 8 1 9 Subtotal - 7 24 19 2 21 Enseignants IA Kaolack - 2 - 9 3 12 Enseignants IA Matam - 2 - 6 4 10 Enseignants IA Saint Louis - 3 - 3 19 22 Subtotal - 7 18 26 44 Communauté IA Kaolack - 5 - 16 26 42 Communauté IA Matam - 3 - 7 12 19 Communauté IA Saint Louis - 6 - 11 18 29 Subtotal - 14 - 34 56 90 PTF (UNICEF, IFEF, World Bank) 3 - - 3 - 3 Subtotal 3 - - 3 - 3 ARED - 2 - 2 2 4 Subtotal - 2 - 2 2 4 TOTAL 25 54 24 140 106 246 LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED Name M F Organization Position Badara Sarr 1 USAID Education Evaluation Specialist Ezra Simon 1 USAID Basic Education Team Leader Kadiatou Cissé-Abassi 1 USAID Education Officer Amadou Lamine Ndiaye 1 USAID Education Specialist Cheikh Bèye 1 DEE Inspecteur d’Enseignement Elémentaire/ Point focal G2G et homologue Résultat 3 Mor Dioum 1 DEE Inspecteur d’Enseignement Elémentaire/ homologue Résultat 1 Ibrahima Seck 1 DEE Inspecteur d’Enseignement Elémentaire/ homologue Résultat 2 Mme Tall 1 DAGE Point focal LPT Papa Sambaré Ndiyae 1 DAGE Directeur Amadou Diallo 1 DCI/DAGE Chef de la division Oumou Fall 1 Division des Marchés / DAGE Chef de la division Hubert Ndecky 1 DFC Inspecteur d’Enseignement Elémentaire/Point focal LPT Samba Diagne 1 DRH Point focal LPT Khalil Diarra 1 INEADE Psychométricien USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 128 Name M F Organization Position Amadou Moctar Sy 1 INEADE Chef de la division recherche Alioune Badara Diop 1 INEADE Chef de la division évaluation Massar Diop 1 INEADE Directeur Bineta Ba Ka 1 INEADE Directrice, Division des manuels scolaires Seydou Diop 1 INEADE Division des manuels scolaires Cheikhena Lam 1 DPRE Directeur Abdoul Sène 1 DPRE Division partenariat Ndèye Name Diouf 1 DALN Directrice Mohamed Diagne 1 DALN Point focal LPT Moussa Niang 1 Inspection des daaras Inspecteur enseignement élémentaire, Chef division enseignement apprentissage et point focal LPT Seyni Ndiaye Fall 1 SIMEN Coordonnateur Moussa Ba 1 SIMEN Coordonnateur FINPRONET Mamadou Fall 1 CPM Coordonnateur Cheikh Tidiane Mbaye 1 CPM Adjoint au Coordonnateur Oumar Diagne 1 Division des statistiques et prospectives Agent Omar Thiam 1 Division des statistiques et prospectives Chef bureau Amar Diaw 1 LPT Kaolack Reading System Liaison/Point focal Kaolack Commune Moustapha Kabe 1 LPT Kaolack Reading System Liaison/Point focal Guinguinéo Aminata Diallo 1 LPT Kaolack Reading System Liaison/Point focal Kaolack Département Vincent Mugisha 1 LPT Dakar COP Valery Manegabe Bujiriri 1 LPT Dakar DCOP Rokhaya Niang 1 LPT Dakar Directrice des programmes Ciara Rivera Vazquez 1 LPT Dakar Senior Education Advisor Rokhaya Thioune 1 LPT Dakar Résultat 3 Abdourahim Gaye 1 LPT Dakar Coordonnateur appui du développement des Politiques Déthié Ba 1 LPT Dakar Senior MEL Specialist Ndèye Marie Carvalho 1 LPT Dakar Spécialiste, amélioration de la performance Najib El Mdaghri 1 LPT Dakar Compliance Officer and SSFP Mamoudou Diallo 1 LPT Kaolack Teacher Professional Development Babacar Diop 1 LPT Kaolack Systems Strengthening Specialist Oumar Caltome Wade 1 LPT Kaolack Engagement parental Moustapha Thiam 1 LPT Kaolack Program Liaison Bilal Ndiaye 1 LPT Kaolack Coordinator 129 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Name M F Organization Position Mamadou Dièye 1 LPT Kaolack Daaras Liaison Oumar Ben Khatab Guèye 1 LPT Kaolack Senior Daaras Liaison Rokhaya Diop 1 LPT Saint-Louis Spécialiste renforcement du système Arame Guèye Diop 1 LPT Saint-Louis Agent de liaison engagement parental Salimata Dia 1 LPT Saint-Louis Agent de liaison engagement parental Khady Sall 1 LPT Louga Coordinatrice zone nord Babacar Niang 1 LPT Louga MEL Souleymane Sega Sow 1 LPT Matam Engagement parental Moussa Sall 1 LPT Matam Systems Strengthening Specialist Faustin Sagna 1 LPT Matam Reading System Liaison /Point focal IEF Matam Maimouna Kane 1 LPT Matam Teacher Professional Development Aliou Mbaye 1 LPT Matam Daara Liaison Oumar Diagne 1 LPT Matam Program Liaison Mbaye Babou 1 IA Matam Inspecteur Kadidiatou Diallo 1 IA Kaolack Inspecteur Mbaye Dièye 1 IA Saint Louis Inspecteur et Point focal G2G Cheikh Guèye 1 IA Saint Louis Inspecteur Thierno Habib Ba 1 IEF Kaolack commune Inspecteur Ousmane Ba 1 IEF Guinguinéo Inspectrice Serigne Bamba Seck 1 IEF Matam Inspecteur Birane Tine 1 IEF Kanel Inspecteur Haimouth Woppa Daff 1 IEF Kanel Inspecteur Cheikh Yaba Diop 1 IEF Saint-Louis Commune Inspecteur Papa Amadou Guèye 1 IEF Saint-Louis Commune Inspecteur Bassirou Sow 1 IEF Saint-Louis Commune Inspecteur et Point focal G2G Ndèye Selbé Badiane 1 IEF Saint-Louis Département Inspecteur Oumar Cheikh Tidiane Sarr 1 IEF Saint-Louis Département Inspecteur Mohamed Ly 1 IEF Saint-Louis Département Inspecteur Al Ousseynou Ka 1 IEF Saint-Louis Département Inspecteur et Point focal G2G Baye Birame Diakhaté 1 IEF Dagana Secrétaire général Diambar Sougou 1 IEF Dagana Inspecteur Samba Sy 1 IEF Dagana Inspecteur Bocar Sy 1 IEF Dagana Inspecteur et Point focal G2G Marguerite Ndiaye Faye 1 CRFPE Directrice USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 130 Name M F Organization Position Issa Ndiaye 1 CRFPE Directeur des études Babacar Diop 1 CRFPE Inspecteur et formateur Déthié Sall 1 CRFPE Directeur des études Fama Sidibé Ndoye 1 EE Babacar Diop Directrice d’école/ IEF Kaolack Commune Baba Diop 1 EE Ibrahima Fall Directeur d’école/ IEF Kaolack Commune Souleymane Diakhaté 1 EE Alassane Dieng Directeur d’école/ IEF Kaolack Commune Malick Sène 1 EE Mama Niokhor Directeur d’école/ IEF Guinguinéo Samba Bakhoum 1 EE Gagnick Mack Directeur d’école/ IEF Guinguinéo Lamine Diakhaté 1 EE Soumbel Directeur d’école/ IEF Guinguinéo Mamadou Diop 1 EE Danthiady 2 Directeur d’école/ IEF Matam Adama Barry 1 Thiancone Hiraye Directeur d’école/ IEF Matam Samba Seck 1 Thiancone Boguel Directeur d’école/ IEF Matam Ousmane Ali Mbengue 1 Semme Directeur d’école/ IEF Kanel Touradou Talla 1 Sinthiou Bamambe 3 Directeur d’école/ IEF Kanel Abdourahamne Ba 1 EE Wendou Bosseabe Directeur d’école/ IEF Kanel Fatou Diouck 1 EE Abdou Diouf Directrice / IEF Saint-Louis Commune Babacar Sarr 1 EE Limalé Ndiaye Directeur/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Assane Ndiaye 1 EE Khayar Mbengue Directeur/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Abdoulaye Dieng 1 EE Fass Ngom Directeur / IEF Saint-Louis Département Magatte Diop 1 EE Keur Youneby Directeur / IEF Saint-Louis Département Ibrahima Yade 1 EE El Hadji Cheikhou Wade Directeur / IEF Saint-Louis Département Ousmane Ndiaye 1 EFA Diangue Directeur/ IEF Dagana Abdoul Aziz Guèye 1 EE Khouma Thiarène Directeur/ IEF Dagana El Hadj Sady Guèye 1 EE Diangue Directeur / IEF Dagana Alioune Guèye 1 EE Alassane Dieng Enseignant CP/ IEF Kaolack Commune Aminata Thioune 1 EE Alassane Dieng Enseignant CP/ IEF Kaolack Commune Ibrahima Ngom 1 EE Alassane Dieng Enseignant CP/ IEF Kaolack Commune Seynabou Diop 1 EE Ibrahima Fall Enseignant CI/ IEF Kaolack Commune Babaou Sarr 1 EE Babacar Diop Enseignant CP/ IEF Kaolack Commune Aliou Camara 1 EE Ibrahima Fall Enseignant CI/ IEF Kaolack Commune Anouard Kama 1 EE Soumbel Enseignant CI/ IEF Guinguinéo Mamadou Thiaré 1 EE Soumbel Enseignant CP/ IEF Guinguinéo Catherine Fall 1 EE Mama Niokhor Enseignant CI/ IEF Guinguinéo Maurice Dione 1 EE Mama Niokhor Enseignant CP/ IEF Guinguinéo Waly Diop 1 EE Gagnick Mack Enseignant CP/ IEF Guinguinéo 131 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Name M F Organization Position Dioguine Lam 1 EE Gagnick Mack Enseignant CI/ IEF Guinguinéo Debbo Diao Tall 1 Thiancone Boguel Enseignant CP/ IEF Matam Penda Diallo 1 Thiancone Boguel Enseignant CI/ IEF Matam Ousmane Diarra 1 Thiancone Hiraye Enseignant CP/ IEF Matam Ousséni Dieng 1 Thiancone Hiraye Enseignant CP/ IEF Matam Debbo Diao Tall 1 Thiancone Boguel Enseignant CP/ IEF Matam Bassirou Kane 1 EE Semme 1 Enseignant CP/ IEF Kanel Magueye Guèye 1 EE Semme 1 Enseignant CI/ IEF Kanel Safiètou Diedhiou 1 EE Sinthiou Bamambe 3 Enseignant CP/ IEF Kanel Djiby Amadou Lo 1 EE Wendou Bosseabe Enseignant CP/ IEF Kanel Mohamed Cissé 1 EE Wendou Bosseabe Enseignant CP/ IEF Kanel Soukeyna Guèye 1 EE Khayar Mbengue Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Aissatou Guèye 1 EE Khayar Mbengue Enseignant CI/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Mame Fatou Fall 1 EE Abdou Diouf Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Mame Diarra Diop 1 EE Abdou Diouf Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Fatimata Sall 1 EE Limalé Ndiaye Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Farmata Diong 1 EE Limalé Ndiaye Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Commune Amy Seck 1 EE Keur Youneby Enseignant CI/IEF Saint-Louis Département Marietou Sow 1 EE El Hadji Cheikhou Wade Enseignant CI/ IEF Saint-Louis Département El Hadj Doudou Diagne 1 EE El Hadji Cheikhou Wade Enseignant CI/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Cheikh Tidiane Sarr 1 EE Fass Ngom Enseignant CI/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Fatou Ndiaye 1 EE Fass Ngom Enseignant CI/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Penda Diack 1 EE Fass Ngom Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Codou Mané 1 EE El Hadji Cheikhou Wade Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Tabara Diop 1 EE El Hadji Cheikhou Wade Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Marème Sène 1 EE Keur Youneby Enseignant CP/ IEF Saint-Louis Département Fatou Dia 1 EE Khouma Thiarène Enseignant CP/ IEF Dagana Kadidiatou Mané 1 EE Khouma Thiarène Enseignant CP/ IEF Dagana Absa Diallo 1 EE Diangue Enseignant CP/ IEF Dagana Mbaye Wade 1 EFA Diangue Enseignant CP/ IEF Dagana USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 132 Name M F Organization Position Fatou Ndiaye 1 EE Diangue Enseignant CP/ IEF Dagana Penda Ngom 1 EE Diangue Enseignant CI/ IEF Dagana Mariétou Faye 1 EE Diangue Enseignant CI/ IEF Dagana Communauté IEF Kaolack Commune 3 8 Communauté IEF Guinguinéo 13 18 Communauté Matam Commune 4 7 Communauté Kanel 3 5 Communauté Saint Louis Commune 5 1 Communauté Saint Louis Département 1 9 Communauté Dagana 5 8 Matthias Lansard 1 UNICEF Directeur, Education Mr. Hanafiou 1 IFEF Coordonnateur ELAN Kamil Hamoud Abdel Wedoud 1 World Bank Spécialiste senior en éducation Mamadou Ly 1 ARED Directeur Modou Mbaye 1 ARED Chargé de suivi et évaluation Awa Ka Dia 1 ARED Directrice des programmes Dior Diagne 1 ARED Responsable administratif et financier DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 1. Chemonics International. 2017. « Lecture pour tous : Annual report Year 1 » 2. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Annual report Year 2 » 3. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous : Annual report Year 3 » 4. Chemonics International. 2017. « All children read/Quarterly report year 1 Quarter 1: October 26, to December 31, 2016 » 5. Chemonics International. 2017. « All children read/Quarterly report year 1 Quarter 2: January1,2017 to March 31, 2017 » 6. Chemonics International. 2017. « All children read/Quarterly report year 1 Quarter 3: April 1,2017 to June 30, 2017 » 7. Chemonics International. 2018. « All children read/Quarterly report year 2 Quarter 1: October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 » 8. Chemonics International. 2018. « All children read/Quarterly report year 2 Quarter 2: January1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 » 9. Chemonics International. 2018 « All children read/Quarterly report year 2 Quarter 3: April 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018 » 10. Chemonics International. 2018c. « All children read/Quarterly report year 3 Quarter 1: September 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 » 11. Chemonics International. 2019. « All children read/Quarterly report year 3 Quarter 2: January1, 2019 to March 31, 2019 » 12. Chemonics International. 2019. « All children read/Quarterly report year 3 Quarter 3: April 1, 133 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2019 to June 30, 2019 » 13. USAID. sd. «All Children Reading Tas Order AID-685-To-16-00003 Section C – Description/ Specifications/ Scope of work » 14. Chemonics International. 2017. « USAID/ All Children Reading: year 1 Annual workplan January to September 30, 2017 » 15. Chemonics International « Lecture pour tous: year 2 Annual workplan October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018 ». 2017 16. Chemonics International « Lecture pour tous: year 3 Annual workplan October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 ». 2017 17. Chemonics International. 2017. « Lecture pour tous : EGRA Baseline report » 18. « Lecture pour tous : Enquête Baseline sur les Connaissances, Attitudes et pratiques sur l’engagement parental et communautaire pour la lecture » 19. Lecture pour tous : Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) SSME Questionnaire Enseignant(e) Midline » 20. Lecture pour tous : EGRA Midline Preliminary results (2019) 21. Entretien sur l’environnement de l’élève - Midline 22. Protocole enquête CAP Midline (2019) 23. Présentation des résultats EGRA Midline (2019) 24. Questionnaire quantitatif version après prétest (2019) 25. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Présentation du plan de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage » 26. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan » 27. Rapid Feedback MERL and Lecture pour tous Findings Memo Research Questions 3 Phase 1: Coaching 28. Rétroaction rapide MERL Lecture pour tous Findings Mémo de conclusions Question de recherche 3 phase 1 : coaching (Français) 29. Rapid feedback MERL and Lecture pour tous Lean testing phase 1 Findings memo (2019) 30. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous: Draft sustainability and scale-up plan ». 31. République du Sénégal. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Rapport de la cartographie linguistique de l’académie de Saint Louis » 32. République du Sénégal.2018. « Rapport trimestriel des activités du programme G2G de lecture pour l’académie de Saint Louis Février-Mars- Avril » 33. République du Sénégal.2018. « Rapport trimestriel des activités du programme G2G de lecture pour l’académie de Saint Louis Mai-Juin-Juillet » 34. République du Sénégal.2018. « Rapport trimestriel des activités du programme G2G de lecture pour l’académie de Saint Louis (Aout- décembre) » 35. République du Sénégal.2019. « Rapport de supervision de coaching dans des écoles élémentaires dans l’Inspection d’Académie de Saint Louis » 36. République du Sénégal.2019. « Rapport trimestriel des activités du programme G2G de lecture pour l’académie de Saint Louis (Janvier à mars 2019) » 37. République du Sénégal.2019. « Termes de Références – Formation des Directeurs du G2G en didactique de la lecture initiale » 38. USAID. 2016. Plan de mitigation des risques du Ministère de l’Education Nationale 39. République du Sénégal.sd. Synopsis des remarques et recommandations sur les supports produits pour l’an 1 de la mise en œuvre du Programme national Lecture Pour Tous 40. Plan de travail annuel G2G An 1 41. Plan de travail annuel G2G An2 42. Budget G2G An 2 43. USAID. 2018. « Sub activity implementation letter 685-013-12 » USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 134 44. USAID. « Sub activity implementation letter 685-013-12-1» 45. USAID. « Sub activity implementation letter 685-013-12-2 » 46. USAID. « Sub activity implementation letter 685-013-12-3 » 47. République du Sénégal.2014. « Rapport Général- Assisses de l’Education du Sénégal » 48. République du Sénégal.2018. « Lettre de politique générale pour le secteur de l’éducation et de la formation 2018-2030 » 49. République du Sénégal.2018. « Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et la Transparence- Education/ Formation (PAQUET-EF) 2018-2030 » 50. République du Sénégal. 2018. « Modèle Harmonisé d’Enseignement Bilingue au Sénégal » 51. Chemonics International. 2017. « Lecture pour tous Report on language mapping in the regions of Fatick, Kaffrine and Kaolack » 52. Chemonics International. 2017. « Lecture pour tous Report on language mapping in the regions of Diourbel, Louga, Matam, Fatick, Kaffrine and Kaolack » 53. Chemonics International. 2018. « Etude sur la chaine d’approvisionnement des manuels scolaires au Sénégal » 54. Chemonics International. 2017. « Lecture pour tous : Teacher Mobility Study » 55. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Data on cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 1 : October 1 - December 31, 2017) » 56. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous: Data on cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 2: January 1 - March 31, 2018) » 57. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Data on cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 3 : April1 - June 30, 2018 » 58. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Data on cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 4 : July 1 - September 30, 2018 » 59. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Data on cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 1 : October 1 - December 31, 2018 » 60. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous: Data on cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 2: January 1 - March 31, 2019 » 61. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous: Data on cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 3: April 1 - June 30, 2019 » 62. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous: Data on cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 4: July 1 - September 30, 2019 » 63. Chemonics International. 2017. « Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 1: October 1, 2017 - September 30, 2017 » 64. Chemonics International. 2018. «Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 2 : January 1 to March 31, 2018 » 65. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 2, Quarter 3 : April 1 to June 30, 2018 » 66. Chemonics International. 2018. « Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 1 : October 1 to December 31, 2018 » 67. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 2 : January 1 to March 31, 2019 » 68. Chemonics International. 2019. «Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 3 : April 1 to June 30, 2019 » 69. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous : Program cost and ingredient report Year 3, Quarter 4 : July 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019 » 70. Chemonics International. 2019. « Lecture pour tous : Quarter FY 2019 financial report » 71. MEN.2012. « Guide de formation des CGE à l’élaboration d’un plan d’action volontariste (PAV) » 72. ELAN. 2014. « Guide d’orientation à l’approche bi-plurilingue ELAN de l’enseignement du français » 135 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 73. PASEC.2014. « Education system performance in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa: Competencies and learning factors in primary education » 74. Miske Witt and Associates International. 2019. « Rapport de l’évaluation externe du programme d’appui de l’éducation de qualité dans les langues maternelles pour l’école élémentaire. » 75. Chemonics International. 2019. « Dispositif de rationalisation de la mobilité des enseignants intervenant dans des programmes tels que Lecture Pour Tous » 76. Chemonics International. 2019. « Cost options for World Bank funds » 77. Chemonics International. 2019. « Summary Budget cost options world Bank » 78. République du Sénégal.2019. « Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, et de l’Equité dans l’Education de base/Financement Additionnel de la Banque Mondiale : Note de couverture - Mise à jour du cadre de gestion environnementale et sociale (CGES) et du cadre de politique de réinstallation (CPR) du PAQEEB » 79. République du Sénégal. 2019.Document d’appui à la formation des élèves-maîtres en lecture￾écriture initiale/ Wolof » 80. Présentation : Mission de suivi de l’expérimentation du document d’appui dans les CRFPE de Kaolack, Louga et Saint Louis 81. ELAN. 2019. « Compte rendu d’exécution technique (2016-2019) » 82. G50. 2016. « Protocole d’Accord sur l’Harmonisation des coûts locaux appliqués au personnel local (Gouvernement, Société Civile) » 83. Données démographiques de l’ANSD : 2017 / 2030 84. Plan de mise en œuvre (PLEX) : Mise en œuvre de l'enseignement bilingue à l'école élémentaire au Sénégal 85. Modèle 3P BFSE. Politique Planification, Programmation, Budgétisation, Financement et Suivi￾évaluation. Révisé en 2018 USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 136 ANNEX VIII: COST ANALYSIS AND MODELING Scénario 1 Scénario 2 Scénario 3 137 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX IX: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 138 139 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 140 141 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 142 143 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 144 145 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV USAID.GOV ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 146 147 | ACR MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV