Report: 
Name of Project: 
Contract: 
Evaluation Duration: 
Date of Presentation: 
Name of Organization: 
Baseline 
Quality Education and Improved Feeding Focused 
on Sustainability - EDUCAMOS 
FFE-520-2016/008-00
4
th July – 4
th September 2017 
16th October 2017
Project Concern International - PCI 
Responsible for this Report: Julio Antonio de la Roca Cacacho 
2 
 Index 
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 6 
2. Introduction and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 9 
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9 
2.2. Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 9 
3. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 9 
4. Context of the Work Area ................................................................................................................... 11 
4.1. Huehuetenango ............................................................................................................................ 11 
4.2. The Municipalities ....................................................................................................................... 11 
4.2.1. Intervention: ........................................................................................................................ 11 
4.2.2. Control: ................................................................................................................................ 11 
4.2.2.1. Changes in Control Municipalities: ................................................................................. 12 
5. Baseline Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 12 
5.1. Secondary data review ................................................................................................................. 12 
5.2. Sample determination .................................................................................................................. 12 
5.2.1. Intervention schools ............................................................................................................ 12 
5.2.2. Control schools .................................................................................................................... 13 
5.2.3. Individual interviews ........................................................................................................... 13 
5.3. Instruments .................................................................................................................................. 14 
5.4. Sustainability Methodology ........................................................................................................ 15 
6. Result comparisons between intervention and control schools ........................................................... 16
6.1. Improvement of literacy in school aged children (MGD SO1) ................................................... 16 
6.1.1. Improvement in the quality of literacy instruction (MGD 1.1) ........................................... 18 
6.1.1.1. Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate improved literacy instruction as 
identified by supervisors, mentors, or coaches .................................................................................... 18 
6.1.1.2. Percent of schools in which at least 80% of teachers were present 90% of school days  19 
6.1.1.3. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use 
of new and quality teaching techniques or tools ................................................................................. 19 
6.1.1.4. Number of school administrators in targeted schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques or tools ............................................................................................................................... 19 
6.1.2. Improvement of student attendance (MGD 1.3) .................................................................. 21 
6.2. Increased use of dietary and health practices (MGD SO2) ......................................................... 25 
3 
6.2.1. Improve knowledge of health and hygiene practices (MGD 2.1) ....................................... 28 
6.2.2. Increase knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices (MGD 2.2) ................. 30 
6.2.3. Increase access to clean water and sanitation services (MGD 2.4) ..................................... 31 
6.2.4. Increase access to adequate food preparation tools and storage equipment (MGD 2.6) ..... 33 
6.3. Foundational Results ................................................................................................................... 33 
6.3.1. Increase the capacity of government institutions (MGD 1.4.1 / 2.7.1) ............................... 33 
6.3.2. Improve policies and regulatory frameworks (MGD 1.4.2 / 2.7.2) ..................................... 34 
6.3.3. Increase government support (MGD 1.4.3 / 2.7.3) .............................................................. 34 
6.3.4. Increase government support (MGD 1.4.3 / 2.7.3) .............................................................. 34 
6.4. Sustainability Result .................................................................................................................... 35 
6.5. Summary of results indicators ..................................................................................................... 37 
6.6. Results from Teachers ................................................................................................................. 40 
7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 41 
8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 44 
Annex No. 1. Methodology for Intervention Sampling .............................................................................. 47 
Anexo No. 2. Statistical Significance Tests (Spanish). ............................................................................... 54 
Annex No. 3. Mealtime Data Analysis; Lunch, Evening Snack, Dinner (Spanish) .................................... 58 
Anexo No. 4. Sustainability Readiness Tool Criteria (Spanish) ................................................................. 60 
Anexo No. 5. Notes on Specific Schools (Spanish) .................................................................................... 62 
Anexo No. 6. Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................... 68 
Anexo No. 7. Teacher Survey Results (Spanish) ........................................................................................ 85 
Annex No. 9. Techniques and Tools Used by School Administrators (Spanish) ........................................ 96 
Annex No. 8. Baseline Terms of Reference (ToR) ..................................................................................... 98 
Annex No. 9. Gender Analysis ................................................................................................................. 107 
Annex No. 10. Baseline Evaluation Team ................................................................................................ 114 
Tables Index 
Table 1. Characteristics of Intervention and Control municipalities ........................................................... 13
Table 2. People reached during the study .................................................................................................... 14 
Table 3. Category Descriptions ................................................................................................................... 16 
Table 4. Analysis of statistical significance for reading comprehension performance ............................... 17 
Table 6. Enrolled in intervention municipalities, 2017 school year ............................................................ 23 
Table 7. Sustainability Results per School .................................................................................................. 36 
4 
Illustration Index 
Illustration 1. Results of the reading comprehension test ............................................................................ 16 
Illustration 2. Reading comprehension performance ................................................................................... 17 
Illustration 3. Percent of achieved based on demographic characteristics .................................................. 18 
Illustration 5. Percent of students who are off task. .................................................................................... 20 
Illustration 6. Causes of classroom distraction ............................................................................................ 20 
Illustration 7. Students who indicate they are hungry ................................................................................. 21 
Illustration 8. School absences in the week prior to the interview .............................................................. 22 
Illustration 9. Reasons for student absences ................................................................................................ 23 
Illustration 10. School aged children enrolled in school ............................................................................. 24 
Illustration 11. Benefits of Education Identified. Comparison between FFE II and control ....................... 24 
Illustration 12. Benefits of Education Identified ......................................................................................... 25 
Illustration 13. Number of meals ................................................................................................................. 26 
Illustration 14. Meals eaten ......................................................................................................................... 26 
Illustration 15. Food Groups Received in the Breakfasts ............................................................................ 27 
Illustration 16. Food Groups Received in the Morning Snack ................................................................... 27 
Illustration 17. Minimum Acceptable Diet ................................................................................................. 28 
Illustration 18. Number of health and higiene habits .................................................................................. 29 
Illustration 19. Health/hygiene practices comparing FFE II - Control ........................................................ 29 
Illustration 20. Number of safe food preparation practices ......................................................................... 30 
Illustration 21. Safe food preparation practices mentioned ......................................................................... 30 
Illustration 22. Improved water sources ..................................................................................................... 31 
Illustration 23. Improved sanitary facilities ................................................................................................. 32 
Illustration 24. Schools with better food preparation and storage equipment ............................................. 33 
Illustration 25. Average Score from the sustainability tool ......................................................................... 35 
Glossary 
COCODE Community Development Council 
CSB Corn Soy Blend 
DIGEDUCA General Bureau for Educational Evaluation and Investigation 
DIGEFOCE General Bureau for Strengthening the Educational Community 
EBC Evaluation based on curriculum 
ENCOVI National Living Conditions Survey 
FFE Food For Education 
HDI Human Development Index 
INE National Statistics Institute 
MOE Ministry of Education 
MTE Mid-Term Evaluation 
NAC “National” in reading tests NAC – 1, NAC – 2, NAC - 3 
PADEP Academic Program for Teachers’ Professional Development 
5 
PC Parent Council 
PCI Project Concern International 
PO Parent Organization 
SAT Tax Registry 
STEG Education Workers of Guatemala Union 
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 
TAC Technical Administrative Coordinator 
UNDP United Nations Development Program 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
 
6 
1. Executive Summary 
1.1 Introduction 
The five year, Educate Us: Quality Education and Improved Feeding Focused on Sustainability 
(EDUCAMOS) program is being implemented by Project Concern International (PCI) in the 
department of Huehuetenango, Guatemala, from 2017 to 2021. There are six target 
municipalities; three in the Q´anjob´al area, (Santa Cruz Barillas, Santa Eulalia and San Pedro 
Soloma) and three in the Mam area, (Cuilco, San Gaspar Ixchil and San Pedro Necta). This 
program is the continuation of the two previous phases of the Food for Education program (FFE) 
which were implemented from 2010 to 2013 and 2013 to 2016 in the same coverage area. 
The EDUCAMOS results framework is focused on improving the literacy of school aged 
children. The lessons learned from the FFE program phases I and II are important in guiding the 
implementation of the current program so that it achieves the desired impact in the communities, 
especially in improvement of teaching quality for reading and writing, in improving student 
attention, and in increasing school attendance. For this a series of actions should be carried out 
with measurable indicators. The baseline is designed to find these values, generating information 
that subsequently can be measured and compared at the program’s mid-term and endline to 
determine its impact in the communities. 
A major challenge for the current program is the sustainability of intervention area schools in 
terms of school feeding and other topics such as promotion of good health, hygiene and nutrition 
practices, school gardens, infrastructure, school fairs, women’s empowerment groups, etc. 
1.2 Results 
Below a summary of the Results Framework and its respective indicators are presented. 
1.2.1 Improvement of literacy in school aged children 
The team conducted a standardized test with a positive achievement level of 32.6% in the 
intervention schools that is higher than the average for Huehuetenango (23.84%, General 
Education Bureau (DIGEDUCA)). The national average is 40.4% (National Reading 
Achievement Average 2014). It is important to mention that the difference in literacy levels 
between urban areas and the location of the EDUCAMOS program is dramatic, given that it is 
rural, remote and most schools are not easily accessible. The control schools showed an 
achievement level of 27.4%, which is slightly above the departmental average. 
Based on conversations with teachers it was noted that reading promotion, the time given to 
children to read in and out of school, along with their parents’ commitment, the school fairs 
organized by PCI and the tools that are being used, are critical for students’ progress in the 
intervention schools. In the control schools, any success depends on teachers’ initiative and the 
effort put in by the students themselves; in eight control schools, they use a reading gauge to 
support the reading process. 
7 
Reading comprehension difficulties are greater where Spanish is not the primary language. 
Reading is generally done out loud (even by the teachers) as observed during student testing and 
teacher interviews. 
1.2.2 Improvement in student attention 
A total of 27.45% of the intervention students and 30.8% of the control students were “off task” 
during class. 
1.2.3 Reduce short-term hunger 
This indicator is focused on determining how many students report being hungry. In the control 
schools, 25% of those interviewed said they were hungry. In the intervention schools, 8.5% of 
the students said they were hungry. 
1.2.4 Improved student attendance 
This indicator measures regular student attendance (minimum 80%). Of the students in the 
intervention schools, 97.7% comply with this indicator as do 95.3% in the control areas. 
1.2.5 Reduce illness related absences 
In the intervention schools, there is 16% student absence, while this rises to 17.5% in the control 
schools. Illness is the reason for 7.7% of absences in the intervention, and 7.5% in control 
schools. The children in control schools miss more school due to travel and work. 
1.2.6 Increase in school enrollment 
Based on Ministry of Education (MOE) data, there is a general country-wide decrease in school 
enrollment, as was observed in the six municipalities studied in the FFE II final evaluation where 
a reduction of 4.5% was observed for boys and 3.85% for girls from 2013 to 2015. 
Nevertheless, in 2017 the EDUCAMOS program has a coverage of 36,600 students in the 
intervention municipalities: a 528 student increase from 2016. 
According to the data obtained in the baseline, it was noted that 95% of school aged children in 
intervention communities are enrolled in school and 92.8% are enrolled in the control schools. 
1.2.7 Increase community understanding of the benefits of education 
84.6% of parents in intervention schools were able to identify three or more benefits of education. 
In the control schools, where they do not have the benefit of the training PCI offers, parents have 
limited knowledge of the advantages of education for their children. Only 50% could identify 
three or more benefits. 
1.2.8 Improved dietary and health practices 
The percent of students who receive a minimum acceptable diet (that is, those who eat three 
meals a day from four or more food groups) is 45.1% in the intervention schools and 29.9% in 
the control schools. 
8 
1.2.9 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices 
In the intervention area, 93.2% of parents could identify at least three important health and 
hygiene practices. In the control area, only 59.2% could do so. This again emphasized the 
importance of training for the community, especially parents, so that they can initiate change in 
their own homes. 
1.2.10 Increase knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices. 
Of the collaborating mothers in the intervention area, 99.1% could mention three or more 
practices, while in the control area, only 79.4% could. Handwashing is the most mentioned 
practice in both areas, followed by using separate tables for food preparation, and covering food. 
1.2.11 Increase in access to clean water and sanitation services 
Of the intervention schools sampled, 86.7% have access to improved water while 90% of the 
control schools do. Piped water is the most common option for all the schools, however, 40% of 
the intervention schools do not have this service and use other means such as rain water 
catchment or protected springs. Of the sampled intervention schools, 90% have improved 
sanitary installations, as do 96.7% of the control schools, especially septic systems followed by 
sewer systems. 
1.2.12 Sustainability readiness tool 
An ideal weighting was established to rate the schools according to a series of criteria to 
determine those that have the greatest possibility for becoming sustainable schools in the medium 
term. From the 30 school sample, nine schools had a Category A rating with the potential for 
becoming self-sustaining in the medium term, 15 schools had a Category B rating with potential 
for becoming self-sustaining in the medium to long term, and six schools had a Category C rating 
and will need more orientation towards self- sustainability. 
1.2.13 Gender analysis 
The study noted that teachers believe that girls are more dedicated and perform better in their 
studies compared to boys. Statistical comparisons showed that there were no significant 
differences between boys and girls with regard to reading tests, graduation and permanence or 
drop-out rates. 
 
9 
2. Introduction and Objectives 
2.1. Introduction 
School aged children in the rural areas of the department of Huehuetenango need support to be 
able to overcome their current conditions, and based on personal improvement through education, 
take advantage of opportunities for a better future. The EDUCAMOS program works in six 
municipalities of the department of Huehuetenango. It is focused on improving the literacy of 
school aged children and meeting the cross cutting needs in education so that they can achieve 
the level needed to become successful men and women. 
This baseline study focused on a sample of the program coverage area, including both 
intervention and control schools, studying the current status of indicators that will show the 
impact in the target communities at the end of the program. 
The study will provide reference values that define the situation at the beginning of the program 
in order to see their progress over the course of program implementation, to make comparisons 
regarding the quality of literacy teaching, and improvements in student attention and in school 
attendance. 
To learn and perform as needed in the different schools, students need certain minimum 
conditions to be present. They should not be hungry, and thus short-term reduction of hunger and 
increased access to food become the basic standard for any educational progress. Given that 
maintaining health is also key to school attendance, improvement in good practices that keep 
children healthy is very important for the impact that is expected in the community. The 
professionalization of the teaching staff through training for directors and teachers is also 
important to meet the students’ needs. Provision of books, complementary reading material and 
school supplies are also priorities for the EDUCAMOS program. These interventions will 
positively impact the educational future in the intervention municipalities of Huehuetenango. 
2.2. Objectives 
The scope of this baseline in accordance with the above was as follows: 
a. Provide reference values for key performance indicators that will be compared in the mid￾term and final evaluations 
b. Evaluate the skills, knowledge and practices of the beneficiaries, in order to update the 
training plan 
c. Validate the general program implementation strategies 
3. Background 
With cooperation from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), PCI implemented 
two phases of the FFE program from 2010-2013 and 2013-2016. Currently, there are 294 
implimentation schools in the municipalities of San Andrés Cuilco, San Pedro Necta, San Gaspar 
Ixchil, San Pedro Soloma, Santa Cruz Barillas and Santa Eulalia, all located in the department of 
Huehuetenango, Guatemala. Program activities are coordinated with the MOE, the Technical 
Administrative Coordinators (TAC), the Ministry of Health, Municipal Councils, Parent Councils 
10 
(PC) or Parent Organizations (PO), parents and school administrators. The project expects to 
work directly with 36,000 students, 1,400 teachers, 1,200 collaborating mothers, 294 PCs, 330 
lead mothers and 70 literacy promoters. 
The EDUCAMOS results framework is structured around three levels; strategic objectives, 
intermediate results and initial results: 
1. MGD SO1: Improve literacy of school aged children 
a. MGD 1.1: Improve the quality of literacy instruction 
i. 1.1.1: More consistent teacher attendance 
ii. 1.1.2: Better access to school supplies and materials 
iii. 1.1.3: Improved literacy institutional materials 
iv. 1.1.4: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers 
v. 1.1.5: Increased skills and knowledge of school administrators 
b. MGD 1.2: Improve (student) attentiveness 
i. 1.2.1: Reduced short-term hunger 
ii. 1.2.2: Increased access to food (school feeding) 
c. MGD 1.3: Improve student attendance 
i. 1.3.1: Increased economic and cultural incentives (or decreased 
disincentives) 
ii. 1.3.2: Reduced health-related absences 
iii. 1.3.3: Improved school infrastructure 
iv. 1.3.4: Increased student enrollment 
v. 1.3.5: Increased community understanding of benefits of education 
2. MGD SO2: Increase use of health and dietary practices 
a. MGD 2.1: Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices 
b. MGD 2.2: Increased knowledge of safe food prep and storage practices 
c. MGD 2.3: Increased knowledge of nutrition 
d. MGD 2.4: Increased access to clean water and sanitation services 
e. MGD 2.5: Increased access to preventative health interventions1
f. MGD 2.6: Increased access to requisite food prep and storage tools and equipment 
There are also four foundational results: 
a. Improve capacity of government institutions 
b. Improve policy and regulatory framework 
c. Increased government support 
d. Increase engagement of local organizations and community groups
The program will continue to address the barriers to education and will reduce hunger by means 
of food provision and the establishment of school gardens. It will also continue to improve 
school infrastructure using innovative designs, will promote school enrollment, and will increase 
knowledge about the benefits of education as well as other activities that are important for this 
process. 
                                                            
1 Addressed by Ministry of Health with support from international donors
11 
4. Context of the Work Area 
4.1. Huehuetenango 
The department of Huehuetenango is located in the north-western region of the country. The 
department borders Mexico to the north and west, the departments of El Quiché to the east, and 
Totonicapán, Quetzaltenango and San Marcos to the south. 
It covers 7,430 square kilometers and is the country’s fifth 
largest department with 33 municipalities. The departmental 
capital is the city of Huehuetenango which is located 269 
kilometers from Guatemala City. 
According to the National Population Registry (RENAP), in 
2016, Guatemala’s population was estimated at 17 million, 
and the department of Huehuetenango represents 7.9% of the 
total population with an annual growth rate of 2.4%. 52.5% 
are women and 47.5% men. The population under 18 years of 
age is calculated at 47.4%, those between 19 and 64 years 
represent 48.1%, and those over 64 years of age make up 
4.5% of the population. The UNDP’s Human Development Report 2015, states that the 
department of Huehuetenango holds the greatest ethnic-linguistic diversity at the national level 
with ten ethnic groups: Akateko, Awakateko, Chalchiteko, Chuj, K´iche´, Mam, Popti´, 
Q´anjob´al, Tektiteko and Mestiza. Approximately 56% of the population is indigenous and 44% 
mestizo. Approximately 70% of the population is rural. 
4.2. The Municipalities 
4.2.1. Intervention: 
The EDUCAMOS program has its main activities benefiting the educational communities in the 
six intervention municipalities. Of these, three are located in the Mam area and three in the 
Q´anjob´al area. 
4.2.2. Control: 
The control schools provide a parameter for comparison. The baseline measures the current 
situation in a comparative manner. In the mid-term and final evaluations, similar comparisons 
should be carried out and observable differences would be expected between the two areas, 
demonstrating positive and visible program impact. 
The control municipalities should be as similar as possible to intervention municipalities, both in 
language as well as socio-economic conditions. For this, the evaluation team analyzed each of 
the matches suggested in the baseline evaluation terms of reference (Annex No. 8) and discarded 
those that did not comply with the conditions. A final proposal was then made with the rationale 
for choosing the mirror municipalities. 
12 
4.2.2.1. Changes in Control Municipalities: 
In the terms of reference, the municipality of Santa Cruz Barillas (where Q´anjob´al is the 
principal language) was paired with the municipality of Nentón. Nevertheless, in the 
investigative process it was determined that the municipality of Nentón has two villages where 
Akateco is spoken, Chuj is used in part of its territory, and Popti (Jakalteco), in another part of 
the municipality, but there is no record of Q´anjob´al speakers according to the publication of the 
General Bureau of Intercultural Bilingual Education (DIGEBI, 2009). Since the language did not 
match, the team agreed with PCI staff to change the control schools for the municipality of 
Barillas and match them with another region with similar characteristics. For this reason, the 
municipality of Santa Eulalia was assigned in the rural areas where there is no program coverage. 
Cuilco was paired with La Democracia as a control. In meetings with staff from the Departmental 
Education Office of Huehuetenango it was determined, at their suggestion, that since La 
Democracia is a border municipality, it would have very different characteristics that could skew 
the results. They recommended that given its similar characteristics, the municipality of La 
Libertad should be chosen. This information was shared with PCI in order to make the change. 
Conflicts in the Q´anjob´al area, especially near San Mateo Ixtatán and the constant clashes with 
Santa Eulalia made it impossible to consider this as a control municipality, and it was changed 
for San Juan Ixcoy based on PCI’s recommendation. 
5. Baseline Methodology 
The methodology for the baseline was designed to determine the initial values of certain 
indicators that would be useful for the program and measurable in the future using specific tools. 
5.1. Secondary data review 
The evaluators asked PCI to provide the relevant documents for the new phase of the program; 
approvals by USDA, agreements, indicators and their definitions. Meetings were held with 
program personnel in Guatemala City and Huehuetenango. Research instruments were created, 
modified and piloted for subsequent use in the field.
5.2. Sample determination 
The terms of reference called for 30 intervention and 30 control schools. The schools to be 
included in the study were determined as follows: 
5.2.1. Intervention schools 
There are a total of 294 intervention schools, but for this study only the 291 which have been in 
the program since 2014 were considered. The 28 used in the FFE II final evaluation were 
eliminated to avoid survey fatigiue, leaving a total of 263 schools. A percentage weight was 
given to each of the municipalities based on the number of schools they contain. Subsequently, 
the team randomly selected the sample by municipality. 
13 
Each municipality was assigned one more additional school in order to have a reserve (substitute) 
in case it were necessary to use it due to climate, teacher or student absences, roadblocks, 
convenience determined by the TAC and/or PCI, or any other reason. A total of four schools 
were changed: two in Cuilco, one in Santa Eulalia and one in Santa Cruz Barillas (see Annex 
No. 1 for a full description of changes). 
5.2.2. Control schools 
Once the team defined the control municipalities, they met with the MOE Huehuetenango 
Departmental Office, to explain the procedure for pairings that should comply with two key 
criteria: homogeneity with the intervention schools and the lack of presence of other 
organizations providing support. They created a list of probable schools for each municipality 
based on MOE knowledge of the schools, and then he evaluation team randomly selected those to 
be studied. 
Collaboration was requested to ensure approval for carrying out the study and coordination was 
established with the TAC so that they would inform the directors of the schools to be evaluated. 
The characteristics of the intervention and control municipalities, as well as the number of 
schools per municipality are presented in the following table. The complete lists of schools are 
found in Annex No. 1. 
Table 1. Characteristics of Intervention and Control municipalities 
No. 
Schools Type Municipality % Illiteracy % Chronic 
Malnutrition HDI Main 
Language 
2 Intervention San Gaspar 
Ixchil 27.25 74.7 0.516 Mam 
2 Control Colotenango 34.65 73.8 0.513 Mam 
9 Intervention Cuilco 28.26 52.4 0.562 Spanish 
9 Control La Libertad 35.32 54 0.574 Spanish 
4 Intervention San Pedro Necta 23.6 66.5 0.562 Mam 
4 Control San Sebastián 
Huehuetenango 19.82 72.2 0.508 Mam 
4 Intervention Soloma 27.22 60.2 0.627 Q'anjob'al 
4 Control San Juan Ixcoy 35.27 71.3 0.474 Q'anjob'al 
5 Intervention Santa Eulalia 27.82 74.4 0.482 Q'anjob'al 
5 Control San Juan Ixcoy 47.7 79.7 0.474 Q'anjob'al 
6 Intervention Santa Cruz 
Barillas 24.17 73.2 0.562 Q'anjob'al 
6 Control Santa Eulalia 27.82 74.4 0.482 Q'anjob'al 
 Source: Compilation of various documents and the SEGEPLAN Municipal Development Plans 
5.2.3. Individual interviews and surveys 
To determine the specific samples for each target group to be interviewed, the team used a 95% 
confidence level. Sampling error varies for each element of the studied population and indicates 
the possible difference between the result of the survey and what would be obtained if 100% of 
the population were questioned. Annex No. 1, subsection 4 presents an explanation of the 
sampling methodology for sub-population: students, parents, teachers, directors, collaborating 
14 
mothers, gender forms for teachers, first grade student observations and reading tests for students 
who completed second grade. 
Table 2. People reached during the study 
Sample Per intervention 
school
Per control school Total 
Students from 4th, 5th and 6th grade 401 401 802 
Parents 177 76 253 
Teachers 54 49 103 
Directors 30 30 60 
Collaborating mothers 75 34 109 
Gender Forms for teachers 54 47 101 
First grade students observed for 
attention test 488 615 1,103 
Reading tests for students who 
completed second grade 509 456 965 
TAC 3 3 6 
See Annex No. 1, subsection 4. Determination of sample 
5.3.Instruments 
Specific tools were used for measurement depending on the group to be interviewed. These are 
presented in Annex 6 as follows: for measurement with administrators, subsection a.; for 
teachers, subsection b.; the gender form for teachers, subsection c.; for parents, subsection d.; for 
students from fourth to sixth grade, subsection e.; and collaborating mothers, subsection f. The 
interviews with directors and teachers were designed to be self-administered. Those for parents, 
collaborating mothers and students were carried out by the evaluation team who administered 
them in the local languages: Q´anjob´al in the highland areas of the Cuchumatanes region and 
Mam in the lower areas of Huehuetenango, based on the different linguistic zones being covered. 
The team carried out 60 observations to evaluate infrastructure conditions (subsection g.), 30 in 
intervention and 30 in control schools. The observations focused on: 
a. Sanitary installations 
b. Schools with soap and water 
c. Handwashing stations 
d. Kitchen and its current status 
e. Availability of improved water systems 
The team conducted observations of first grade students to determine how many were “off task” 
for any reason (subsection h.). They carried out one observation at the beginning of the day and 
another after the students had received food. 
The team carried out reading comprehension tests. These tests were standardized by the MOE 
and were administered under strict security measures including signing of a confidentiality 
agreement and other formalities. The test is designed for second grade students and was 
administered to students currently in third grade. 
15 
The reading test consists of an eight-page test booklet. There are three booklets (NAC 1, NAC 2, 
and NAC 3); the order of the questions is different in each booklet to prevent students from 
copying from each other. During the evaluation, students should only have a pencil, an eraser and 
a pencil sharpener on their desks. The evaluation team had the three elements available to loan in 
case any of the students did not have their own. 
The steps for the reading test were: 
a. Organize the students according to their enrollment number or in alphabetical order 
b. The students should be seated, the first student in the list in the first desk from front to 
back, then the next student on the list in the last desk of the next row towards the front, 
and so on. 
c. The booklets should be distributed from front to back, alternating the versions. When one 
row is completed, continue with the next. 
d. Delivery should never lose the rotation. In the first school, begin with booklet NAC 1, in 
the next school begin with the version that follows the last one used in the previous 
school. 
e. The evaluator instructs the students on how to fill out the cover of the test booklet 
f. The proctor reads the instructions for filling out the cover out loud. 
g. He/she explains examples A and B using a previously prepared flip chart that is placed on 
the blackboard or wall depending on the area that has been assigned. 
h. The students fill out the rest of the test by themselves. 
i. To grade each test, the digitized data was transferred to Juárez & Asociados (PCI’s 
implementing partner) who used a grading protocol for each student. 
Juárez & Asociados provided the confidentiality documents that were to be signed to protect the 
tests. They were printed under supervision for quality and quantity. Teachers were not allowed 
to read the tests nor copy or photograph them. All the test booklets were turned in, including 
those with errors and those that were left blank. 
Four evaluation teams carried out the field work simultaneously, two in the Q´anjob´al area and 
two in the Mam area. In order to have a complete view of the study areas, the teams rotated by 
working in two sectors. The translators did not move areas. 
Interviews were carried out with key informants based on open question guides, especially with 
the TAC, people from the municipal government and staff from USDA Washington. 
5.4. Sustainability Readiness Tool Methodology 
To evaluate the sustainability of program actions and its continuity over time, the evaluators used 
an evaluation tool designed by PCI. This considered five major conditions and 25 indicators, 
each indicator is weighted per compliance with the indicator. The maximum score for any school 
was 100 points. A score of 70 or more indicates that the school has been strengthened in the 
process of achieving sustainability of program actions, and could achieve it in the medium term. 
The table of evaluation criteria for this tool is presented in Annex No. 4. 
16 
6. Result comparisons between intervention and control schools 
The qualitative and quantitative data comparing intervention schools with control schools are 
presented below. In some cases, and based on the terms of reference, the intervention school data 
is taken from the final evaluation of the FFE II program, given that the results would not have 
significantly changed in the short term (the FFE II evaluation took place in March and April 2017 
and the baseline, in July and August of the same school year). 
6.1.Improvement of literacy in school aged children (MGD SO1) 
Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that 
they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text 
The team carried out a total of 965 reading comprehension tests. Of these, 509 correspond to the 
intervention schools (52.7%) and 456 to the control schools (47.3%). The test is designed for 
students who have completed second grade and was applied to students who are currently in third 
grade. Of the students who took the test, 53.6% were boys and 46.4% girls. Of these, 68.9% 
stated that they were of an indigenous ethnic group and the remaining 31.1% stated that they 
were mestizos (Ladinos). A total of 83.8% were in third grade for the first time and 16.8% were 
repeating the grade. The average age was 10.16 years. The categories for measuring 
performance levels were as follows: 
Table 3 . Category Descriptions 
Achievement 
level 
Performance Interpretation 
ACHIEVED 
Excellent 
In this level the students perform above the “Satisfactory” level. They 
show adequate and superior proficiency in the skills, abilities and 
knowledge expected for the grade.
Satisfactory 
In this level the students are proficient in the skills, abilities and 
knowledge required for the grade. It also includes skills from the 
previous level.
NOT 
ACHIEVED 
Should 
Improve 
In this level the students perform at a level close to but inferior to 
“Satisfactory”. Although they demonstrate abilities, skills and
knowledge, their proficiency is less than what is expected for the 
grade.
Unsatisfactory 
In this level the students perform at a level close to, and inferior to that 
of “Should Improve”. They lack proficiency in the skills, abilities and 
knowledge that they should develop or exercise in the grade.
 Source: National Reading Test 2014 
Students who are in the “Satisfactory” and “Excellent” levels have complied with the MOE 
standards for their grade level. 
Students who scored in the “Unsatisfactory” and “Should improve” ranges have not yet reached 
the necessary level of reading comprehension for their grade level. 
The study showed that 32.6% of the students in the intervention schools have reached the 
“Achieved” level for their grade level, while in the control schools only 27.4% did so. 
17 
Illustration 1. Results of the reading comprehension test 
The following graph shows the percent of achieved and not achieved to compare the intervention 
schools with the control schools. 
Illustration 2. Reading comprehension performance 
The analysis of statistical significance for achieved/not achieved for intervention and control 
schools, as well as other demographic variables, gave the following results: 
Table 4. Analysis of statistical significance for reading comprehension performance 
Contrasted 
Variables 
Pearson 
Chi- square 
GL Sig 
Asymptotic
Analysis 
Control - Intervention 3.089 1 0.79 No statistically significant difference 
between control and intervention 
schools 
Boy – Girl 2.352 1 0.125 No statistically significant difference 
between boy and girl students 
Indigenous - Ladino 56.34 1 0.000 Statistically significant difference 
between ethnic groups 
Repeating – Not 
repeating 
11.818 1 0.001 Statistically significant difference 
between students who repeated a grade 
and those who didn’t 
52.5%
14.9% 14.3% 18.3%
55.0%
17.5%
11.8% 15.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Unsatisfactory Should Improve Satisfactory Excellent
Reading comprehension
Intervention Control Intervention N = 509    
Control N = 456
32.6%
67.4%
27.4%
72.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Achieved Not Achieved
Reading comprehension
Intervention Control Intervention N = 509     
Control N = 456 
18 
The above is derived from the differences in percent of achievement obtained for the different 
groups, as shown in the following graph: 
Illustration 3. Percent of achieved based on demographic characteristics 
During the reading tests, it was noted that students generally read out loud, even though they 
were instructed to do so silently. In classrooms, a notable murmur was observed. The students 
have reading material and read in school and at home. Of the schools visited in control 
communities, eight (27%) had a visible reading chart, carried out speed tests with a timer and 
listed the winners on a chart that was exhibited in the classroom. This may exist in other schools 
but it was not visible. 
During the reading test, and after giving the instructions, students generally did not use the 60 
minutes available as the majority finished before that. The shortest time (14 minutes) was for a 
girl in the Tajlac intervention school in the municipality of San Pedro Soloma, the longest time 
was for a boy in the control school in Cantón Nueva Florida of the municipality of Santa Eulalia, 
who took 67 minutes to turn in the test. Although the test officially ends at 60 minutes, the 
teacher suggested waiting for this child to finish. 
6.1.1. Improvement in the quality of literacy instruction (MGD 1.1) 
6.1.1.1. Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate improved literacy 
instruction as identified by supervisors, mentors, or coaches 
At the time of the baseline, the USDA supported literacy instruction training process for teachers 
had not begun so this indicator could not be measured. However, data was collected from 
teachers in order to inform program interventions (results presented in Annex No. 7). 
30.2
32.6
27.4
28
32.6
22.7
46.7
32.4
18.6
69.8
67.4
72.6
72
67.4
77.3
53.3
67.6
81.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Total
Intervention
Control
Boys
Girl
Maya
Ladino
Not Repeated Grade
Repeated Grade
%
Reading Comprehension Test Comparison
Achieved Not Achieved
19 
6.1.1.2. Percent of schools in which at least 80% of teachers were present 90% of 
school days 
Due to problems with the Education Workers of Guatemala Union (STEG), it was not possible to 
access attendance books. In one intervention school (Nancultac, Santa Eulalia) the consultant 
team was not allowed in. To avoid conflict, the team chose not to request the attendance books 
and thus the attendance data was taken from data in the Information Corner (PCI instrument) 
from each of the intervention schools.
6.1.1.3. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools 
At the time of the baseline the USDA supported training process for teachers in the use of new 
and quality teaching techniques and tools had not begun so this indicator was not measured.
6.1.1.4. Number of school administrators in targeted schools who demonstrate use of 
new techniques or tools 
At the time of the baseline none of the administrators were applying or demonstrating use of new 
techniques or tools given that they have not yet had the USDA supported trainings. Thus, it was 
not possible to measure the indicator. However, as with teachers, data was collected from school 
administrators in order to inform program interventions (results presented in Annex No. 9). 
6.1.2. Improved student attention (MGD 1.2)
a. Percent of students who are off task 
To measure this indicator, the consulting team, together with PCI decided to carry out two 
observations in first grade at specific time intervals: one early in the morning and the other after 
the students have received their meal (in the schools where this is an option) or after recess in 
schools without school feeding. These two measurements were averaged and the team listed the 
causes for being “off task”. 
The team observed 488 students in 30 intervention schools and 615 students in 30 control schools 
for a total of 1,103 students. Overall, 27.45% of the students in the intervention areas were 
distracted in the classroom while in the control areas, 30.8% were distracted. The students who 
were off task tended to be those who had lost interest in the class and were turning around to look 
somewhere else.
20 
The second group of students who were off task were talking with a classmate. 
Based on calculations of statistical significance, the results for the students in the intervention 
and control areas were independent; that is the differences between control and intervention 
schools were not statistically significant. (See Annex No. 2). 
Illustration 5. Causes of classroom distraction 
Illustration 4. Percent of students who are off task. 
26.43
30.24
28.48
29.91
27.45
30.08
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Intervention Control
Students who are "off task"
First Observation Second Observation Total Intervention N = 488     
Control N = 615
9.0%
6.1%
7.2%
2.7%
2.5%
11.22%
6.50%
6.83%
2.76%
2.76%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%
Looking away
Moving around
Talking
Signs of tiredness
Distracting class
Cause of Student Distraction in Class
Control Intervention Intervention N = 488     
Control N = 615
21 
Intervention
91.5%
Intervention
6.7%
Intervention
1.8%
Control
75.1%
Control
18.7%
Control
6.2%
Students who report being hungry
No Very hungry A little hungry Intervention N = 401     
Control N = 401
b. Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are "hungry" or "very 
hungry" during the school day 
In the study carried out in 
the 30 intervention 
schools of the 
EDUCAMOS program, 
91.5% of the students 
stated that they were not 
hungry at the time of the 
interview while 8.5% 
said they were hungry, 
6.7% said they were very 
hungry and 1.8% said 
they were a little hungry, 
In the 30 control schools, 
24.9% of the students 
said they were hungry, 
18.7% were very hungry 
and 6.2% were a little 
hungry.
There is no PO is some of 
the control schools, 
therefore they do not 
receive a cash contribution from the MOE, just food, and frequency of support is lower than 
when there is a PO. The evaluators found that the municipality of La Libertad had the fewest 
schools with POs due to parents’ fear of being registered with the SAT (tax registry). Those 
children who bring money to school can purchase snacks. Up to four different food “suppliers” 
enter the schools with relatively low cost options, however, this necessitates a monetary outlay 
that is not possible for all the students. In other municipalities, government support finishes very 
quickly. 
The statistical significance analysis showed a dependency ratio between being hungry and 
studying in either a control or intervention school (see Annex No. 2). 
6.1.2. Improvement of student attendance (MGD 1.3) 
Number of students (males/females) regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools 
Given the difficulty in accessing attendance books in the majority of the control schools, the 
evaluation team used the teachers’ survey, which asked for the total number of students and, 
subsequently, how many students miss two or more days a week. The team carried out the survey 
in each of the control schools and based on the teachers’ responses it was determined that there 
Illustration 6. Students who indicate they are hungry 
22 
84
16
82.5
17.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Not Absent Absent
%
Student absence
Intervention Control
was 95.3% regular attendance (at least 80%) in the control areas. The final evaluation of FFE II 
showed 97.7% in the intervention areas. 
6.1.2.1. Increase economic and cultural incentives (or reduce disincentives MGD 
1.3.1) 
Within the EDUCAMOS program, women’s roles in the communities are highly valued, as an 
important force for promoting their children’s education and for welfare in the home based on the 
adoption of hygiene, health, nutrition and behavior practices that benefit the whole family. The 
Women Empowered component seeks the economic, social and political empowerment of 
women by developing individual and group leadership (Women Empowered PCI-2017). No 
baseline data was collected under this indicator, however PCI plans to measure progress through, 
for example, percentage of group members who participate in school or community 
organizations, percentage of members who receive loans and the purpose of those loans, etc. 
6.1.2.2. Number of saving and lending groups formed 
During the first year of the EDUCAMOS program, based on the data presented by PCI, the 
program will have 96 Women Empowered groups. Of these, 75 groups are continuing groups 
from the FFE II program and 21 will be formed within EDUCAMOS. 
The methodology for these groups consists of working over a 12 to 18-month period to complete 
the required modules. 
6.1.2.3. Reduce absences related to health (MGD 1.3.2)
Percent of students who state that illness is the primary reason they are absent from school 
To determine this indicator, students were 
asked if they had been absent in the week prior 
to the interview, and subsequently, the reason 
for their absence. The interviews showed that 
16% of students in the intervention schools and 
17.5% in control schools were absent as can be 
seen in the graph. 
A significance level of 0.570 indicated that 
there were no significant differences between 
the absences in intervention and control 
schools. 
Illness was the reason given for 7.7% of the 
absences in intervention schools, and 7.5% in 
control schools.
Intervention N = 401      
Control N = 401
Illustration 7. School absences in the week prior to 
the interview 
23 
The statistical significance analysis 
showed that there were no 
differences between the causes for 
absences in the two areas. (Annex 
No. 2) 
The administrators in the control 
schools stated that when “travel” is 
given as a reason for absences 
(6.5%) it generally means trips with 
one of their parents for work, to 
help carry items or for physical 
labor, not other types of trips. 
6.1.2.4. Improve school infrastructure (MGD 1.3.3) 
Investment in school infrastructure is a priority for improving student conditions in their school. 
PCI has carried out an infrastructure diagnostic to establish current needs in all 294 intervention 
schools and based on these needs, will program direct support. Project baseline values are derived 
from this diagnostic. 
6.1.2.5. Number of educational facilities (i.e., school buildings, classrooms and 
latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance 
The PCI database shows plans to support 70 projects in Year 1. Of these, 20 are kitchen 
construction projects and 50 are water system projects focused on latrines and multiple 
handwashing stations. 
6.1.2.6. Increase school enrollment (MGD 1.3.4) 
Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance 
During 2017, 36,660 students will be covered in the intervention municipalities of the 
EDUCAMOS program. School enrollment increased by 528 students compared to 2016 when 
36,132 students were enrolled. The numbers by intervention municipality are shown in the 
following table. 
Table 5. Enrolled in intervention municipalities, 2017 school year 
Municipality Boys Girls 
San Gaspar Ixchil 946 865 
San Pedro Necta 2,394 2,376 
Cuilco 4,440 4,115 
San Pedro Soloma 2,906 2,805 
Santa Eulalia 3,695 3,367 
Santa Cruz Barillas 4,610 4,141 
Total students 18,991 17,669 
 Source: PCI, based on official MOE statistics, 2017 
Illustration 8. Reasons for student absences 
7.7
4.5
2.9
0.9
7.5
6.5
2.9
0.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
Sickness Trip Work Others
%
Reason for absence
Intervention Control Intervention N = 401      
Control N = 401 
24 
6.1.2.7. Percent of primary school aged children enrolled in USDA assisted schools 
When administrators were consulted about the percent of school aged children enrolled in 
primary school in their community, they said that based on their knowledge of official MOE 
school enrollment statistics, in the intervention areas 95% of school aged children were enrolled 
and in the control areas there was an average enrollment of 92.8% without taking into account 
those who migrate and drop out of school.  
6.1.2.8. Increase community understanding of the benefits of education (MGD 1.3.5) 
Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education 
Of those parents surveyed in the FFE II final evaluation, 84.6% could name three or more 
benefits of primary education. In the control schools, only 50% of parents could identify three or 
more benefits. It is critical for the success of the program to increase community understanding 
Illustration 9. School aged children enrolled in school 
3.3
53.3
43.3
95
13.3
60
26.7
92.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
89% or less 90 a 95% 96 a 100% average
School‐aged children enrrolled in primary school
Intervention Control Intervention N = 30 
Control N = 30
Illustration 10. Benefits of Education Identified. 
Comparison between FFE II Final Evaluation and control
0.3
3.4
11.7
21.7
29.9
17.1
8.5
2.6 7.4
7.9
39.5
28.9
13.2
3.9
1.3 2.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or more
%
# of benefits mentioned
Benefits of Education
Intervention Control
Intervention FFE II N = 351 
Control N = 75
25 
of the benefits of education. According to the General Bureau for Strengthening of the 
Educational Community (DIGEFOCE), “When parents are involved, students have better 
academic achievement regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity or parents’ education level.” 
Illustration 11 (above) shows the data provided by the FFE II final evaluation for intervention 
schools, which are compared with data from control schools. For the survey in the control areas, 
due to poor organization or parents’ reluctance to respond to the survey, only 75 parents were 
interviewed. 
The analysis of statistical significance determined that the differences in the knowledge of the 
two groups of parents are statistically significant. (See Annex No. 2). 
Among the benefits recognized by each of the groups, knowing how to read and write was valued 
most highly, followed by being able to talk well. Students are sent to school so that they can 
support their parents. Mothers whose native language is Mam or Q´anjob´al expect their children 
to help them with Spanish.
See the survey results in the following graph (Illustration 11): 
Illustration 11. Benefits of Education Identified 
A larger percentage of parents in the intervention schools mentioned more benefits including 
topics like hygiene, nutrition and health than those in the control communities. 
6.2.Increased use of dietary and health practices (MGD SO2) 
Percent of school aged children receiving a minimum acceptable diet 
The response to this indicator leads to a series of sequential questions for students which begin 
with the number of meals they eat each day based on recall of what they ate the day before. The 
team asked this question in both the intervention and control schools. The results showed that 
94%
14%
66.10%
4.80%
24.20%
9.70%
12.30%
8.50%
40.70%
48.70%
45%
32.80%
1.70%
93.2%
14.9%
54.1%
4.1%
5.4%
1.4%
1%
1.4%
16.2%
31.1%
28.4%
31.1%
1.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Read and write
Do accounts and calculations
Speak well
Know and value your body
Hygiene practices
How to eat well
To have good health
Have good nutrition
Be good citizens
Respect others
Be able to get a job
Be able to study more
Other
Benefits of education
Control Intervention
26 
school aged children in the control areas tend to receive fewer meals than students in the 
intervention areas, as seen in the following graph: 
Illustration 12. Number of meals 
Of the students in the program intervention area, 92.1% received four or five meals a day, while 
in the control area, only 74.8% did so. The statistical significance test for numeric variable 
showed there was a relation between the number of meals and residence in the intervention or 
control area. The evaluation team noted that the efforts in training parents and the awareness of 
the diet that children should receive had a direct influence on the results. DIGEFOCE, in the 
document, Strategy for Parent Support of Education, noted in finding three, point e) “when 
parents are treated as partners and are given relevant information by people they are comfortable 
with, they put the involvement strategies they learn in the programs into practice”. (See Annex 
No. 2) 
Illustration 13. Meals eaten 
1.0
7.2
59.4
32.7
2.2
22.4
52.1
22.7
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
2 meal times 3 meal times 4 meal times 5 meal times
%
Number of meals
Intervention Control Intervention FFE II N = 401    
Control N = 401
97.5 93.8 95
36.7
96.3 94.3
78.8
97.5
36.2
94.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Breakfast Morning snack Lunch Afternoon snack Dinner
%
Meal times taken
Intervention Control
Intervention FFE II N = 401      
Control N = 401
27 
The main difference in meals eaten is seen in the morning snack given that 78.8% of students 
receive this in the control schools, while in the intervention schools 93.8% do. The 6.2% who say 
that they do not receive it were generally interviewed by the evaluation team on a Monday and on 
Sundays they do not have this benefit at home. This demonstrates the importance of community 
organization and the formation of the POs. The morning snack is the only meal that shows a 
statistically significant difference between the control and intervention areas. (See Annex No. 2). 
Illustration 14. Food Groups Received in the Breakfasts 
When food groups are analyzed, the difference between the intervention and control schools is 
noticeable. Students in the program area receive more variety in their diets especially in foods 
with vitamin A, such as vegetable oil, fruits and vegetables. 
In the intervention schools, where parents have received more training and know how to vary 
food groups to the extent possible, higher quality foods are available. In the control schools, 
there is greater consumption of corn in the form of tortillas. 
Illustration 15. Food Groups Received in the Morning Snack
61.4%
19.4%
5.7%
12.2%
19.7%
11.9% 8.3%
76.7%
30.9%
4.1% 8.7%
20.2% 16.1%
6.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Grains Vegetables Dairy products Meat Eggs Vegetable oil,
fruits and
vegetables
Other foods
Breakfast
Control Intervention Intervention FFE II N = 401     
Control N = 401
85.3%
4.8% 10.2%
1.0% 1.0% 2.4%
9.6%
85.0%
14.2%
14.2%
0.5% 0.3% 6.0%
2.7%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Grains Vegetables Dairy products Meat Eggs Vegetable oil,
fruits and
vegetables
Other fruits and
vegetables
Morning snack
Intervention FFE II N = 401       Control Intervention
Control N = 401
28 
Illustration 16. Minimum Acceptable Diet 
In the control schools, 21.2% of the students do not eat a morning snack, which is key for optimal 
student performance. 
The afternoon snack is least common among the students; 63.3% (253 students) in intervention 
schools and 63.8% (256 students) in control schools do not have it. Normally in the afternoons, 
students are helping with household chores, collecting firewood, carrying water, etc. in addition 
to their school homework. Dinner does not show important variations. Graphs with information 
about meals are in Annex No. 3: Mealtime Data Analysis; Lunch, Evening Snack, Dinner. 
The students who eat at 
least three meals with 
food from four or more 
food groups, are 
categorized as having a 
minimum acceptable 
diet. This group equals 
45.1% of the 
intervention students and 
29.9% of the control 
students. There is a 15.2 
percentage point 
difference between the 
two sectors. 
The statistical 
significance analysis 
showed a relationship between receiving a minimum acceptable diet and living in the program 
intervention areas; that is, there were statistically significant differences between the diets in 
intervention and control areas (Annex 2). 
6.2.1. Improve knowledge of health and hygiene practices (MGD 2.1) 
Percent of parents in targeted communities who can identify at least three important health 
/ hygiene practices 
In the FFE II final evaluation, 93.2% of the parents were able to identify at least three important 
health / hygiene practices. The indicator was measured in the control schools with the parents 
who were available and 59.2% were able to identify at least three health/ hygiene practices. 
Illustration 18 shows the results obtained. The differences between the number of health and 
hygiene practices mentioned by the two groups of parents are statistically significant (Annex No. 
2). 
45.1
29.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Intervention Control
%
Students receiving a minimum acceptable diet
Intervention FFE II N = 401 
Control N = 401
29 
Illustration 17. Number of health and higiene habits identified
The following health/hygiene practices were mentioned by the two groups of parents: 
Illustration 18. Health/hygiene practices identified
Daily baths were most frequently mentioned in both groups with 95.7% for the intervention 
schools and 86.7% in the control schools – there is an awareness of the need to keep the body 
clean. In the intervention schools, handwashing was mentioned as very important by 84.9%, and 
changing clothes, by 75.2%. The control schools also listed these activities but with lower 
percentages: 50.7% and 64% respectively. 
.06 .00
6.3
15.7
37.0
27.1
11.7
1.7 1.3
18.4 21.1
27.6
23.7
6.6
0
1.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
None1 2 3 4 5 6 7
%
Number of Practices
Number of health and hygiene practices mentioned
Intervention Control
Intervention FFE II N = 351     
Control N = 75
95.7
84.9
47.3
60.1
75.2
13.1
15.7
32.8
86.7
50.7
22.7
32
64
2.7
8
17.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Daily bath
Hand washing
Brushing teeth
Hair combing
Change of clothes
Use of shoes
Using latrine or toilet
Other
%
Health and hygiene practices
Control Intervention Intervention FFE II n = 351
Control n = 75
30 
6.2.2. Increase knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices (MGD 2.2) 
6.2.2.1. Percent of mothers (or care providers) who can identify at least three key 
practices aimed at safe food preparation and storage practices 
Of the collaborating mothers in the intervention schools, 99.1% mentioned three or more key 
practices for safe food preparation while only 79.4% did so in the control schools. In the control 
area, only 34 people were interviewed given that in several of the schools there is no food 
preparation, especially in La Libertad, where there is no PO and no monetary government 
support, only food. The 34 women interviewed were those who help in the kitchens. 
Illustration 19. Number of safe food preparation practices 
Illustration 20. Safe food preparation practices mentioned 
0 0.9 0
2.6
11.2
20.7
27.6
20.7
12.1
3.4
.8
11.8
0
8.8
26.5
14.7
11.8
11.8
5.9 5.9
0
2.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11
%
Number of Practices Identified
# Safe Food Preparation Practices Identified
Intervention (EF FFE II) Control
71.6
69.8
71.6
54.3
62.9
85.3
67.2
31
55.2
73.3
46.7
63.3
26.7
30
90
56.7
13.3
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Food must be covered
Use of piped water
The food is processed on separate tables
There must be a covered trash can
There should be no food waste
Cooks have to wash their hands before preparing food
When cooking, cooks do not use rings
Microbiological analyzes of water
There should be no loose animals in the kitchen
%
Basic food preparation
Control Intervention
Intervention FFE II N= 116
Control N=34
Intervention FFE II N=116
Control N= 34
31 
In both cases, handwashing was the most recognized practice for the collaborating mothers who 
were interviewed, followed by awareness that the food should be covered due to the insects that 
are prevalent in these communities. 
6.2.3. Increase access to clean water and sanitation services (MGD 2.4)
6.2.3.1. Number of schools using an improved water source 
In all the schools visited in both the intervention and control areas, special care was given to the 
topic of water as a priority for student health. PCI installations are new (toilets, handwashing 
stations) and those of the control schools are old and lack maintenance. It was noted that 86.7% 
of the sampled intervention schools have an improved water source, as do 90% of the control 
schools. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that 13.3% of the sampled intervention schools 
did not have an improved water source. 
The distance from population centers makes access to piped water difficult; 40% of the 
intervention schools and 43.3% of the control schools do not have piped water, so they collect it 
in other ways in order to have water at school. In spite of the rural nature of the schools, the main 
improved water source for both groups is the municipal system for 60% of the intervention 
schools and 56.7% in the control area. 
Between April and June 2017, PCI carried out an infrastructure diagnostic in all 294 schools 
included in the EDUCAMOS project, to be able to plan and prioritize interventions during 
project implementation. The diagnostic established, using the same methodology as the baseline 
data collection, that 289 schools (98%) had an improved water source. For the purpose of 
establishing baseline values for the EDUCAMOS project, the figures from PCI’s infrastructure 
diagnostic have been used (Section 6.5. Summary of results indicators). 
Illustration 21. Improved water sources 
13%
3%
60%
3%
0%
10%
10%
10%
3%
57%
3%
13%
0%
13%
None
Public faucet
Pipeline
Waterhole
Protected waterhole
Protected water source
Rainwater collection
School water fountain
Control intervention
Intervention N=30
Control N=30
32 
6.2.3.2. Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 
In general, the schools have acceptable sanitary facilities for the students to use. There is a 
division between boys’ and girls’ facilities with the minimum security measures for students. In 
the sampled intervention schools, 90%, and in the control schools, 96.7 % have sanitary facilities 
that have been improved in some way. 
Septic systems are the main sanitary installation in 56.7% of the intervention schools and 46.7% 
of the control schools. The functionality of the systems is unknown and in some cases these 
could be cesspits which are not advisable for student hygiene. 
The second system in schools is a connection to public sewers in 23.3% of the intervention 
schools and 30% of the control schools. 
Illustration 22. Improved sanitary facilities 
Three of the intervention schools (10% of the baseline sample) do not mention any improved 
sanitary facilities are in the Aldea Chanxac of San Gaspar Ixchil and Aldea Tres Ranchos of 
Santa Cruz Barillas. They have septic systems in very poor conditions. The third school is in 
Aldea El Chilcal of Cuilco, where the administrator did not allow the team to observe the 
facilities and the sanitary installations were padlocked shut. The control school with no 
improved sanitary facility, is in Guaxacoy, of the municipality of Santa Eulalia, and has 
deteriorated installations which the boys prefer not to use, and girls only use when absolutely 
necessary. 
PCI’s infrastructure diagnostic established that 224 schools (76%) had improved sanitary 
facilities, and that, as with improved water sources, those which were newer and functioning 
were those which have been supported by PCI in previous projects. As above, the figures from 
this diagnostic have been used to establish the baseline value for this indicator (Section 6.5. 
Summary of results indicators) 
10.0%
23.3%
56.7%
0.0%
6.7%
3.3%
0.0%
3.3%
30.0%
46.7%
10.0%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
None
Sewerage
Septic system
Waterhole latrine
Waterhole latrine with slab
Improved vented latrine
Composting toilet
Improved sanitary facilities
Control Intervention
Intervention N=30
Control N=30
33 
6.2.4.Increase access to adequate food preparation tools and storage equipment (MGD 
2.6) 
6.2.4.1. Percent of targeted schools with improved food prep and storage equipment 
To establish the percentage of schools with improved food preparation, instruments were 
prepared prior to the survey to measure schools with a working stove as this is the first step in 
achieving adequate food preparation. On observation, the team noted that in 60% of the 
intervention schools, the stoves functioned adequately. In the control schools, 33.3% had a 
functioning stove. 
The second condition needed to comply with the percentage was the availability of storage 
equipment; basically, a functional and secure warehouse. In 86.7% of the intervention schools a 
food storage area was available. In the control schools, 53.3% had a food storage space or 
equipment. 
Illustration 23. Schools with better food preparation and storage equipment 
A total of 61.5% of the intervention schools complied with both conditions while only 43.8% of 
the control schools complied with both conditions. The differences between the control and 
intervention schools were statistically significant (Annex No. 2). 
6.3. Foundational Results 
6.3.1.Increase the capacity of government institutions (MGD 1.4.1 / 2.7.1) 
PCI indicated that within the EDUCAMOS program, capacity of government officials will be 
strengthened at the local, regional and national levels so that they can exert positive influence 
over education and/or school feeding aspects. No baseline data was collected for this indicator, 
but PCI plans to measure, for example, the number of government officials trained in supporting 
principals and school managers for effective literacy education programs. 
38.5%
61.5%
56.3%
43.8%
No Yes
Functional stove and storage equipment
Intervention Control Intervention N=30
Control N=30
34 
6.3.2. Improve policies and regulatory frameworks (MGD 1.4.2 / 2.7.2) 
According to PCI staff, the EDUCAMOS program will directly promote support for municipal 
school feeding policies as linked to National Policy discussions where they participate actively. 
Each policy should have its regulatory framework (regulations) in order to be operational. No 
baseline data was collected for this indicator, but PCI plans to measure levels of municipal 
Government support to program schools in order to track progress. 
6.3.3. Increase government support (MGD 1.4.3 / 2.7.3) 
6.3.3.1. Value of government resources allocated for primary education (includes 
teacher payroll, infrastructure, materials and supplies, etc.) 
PCI technical staff indicated that on a monthly basis they record parent contributions in terms of 
supplies for school feeding, labor and others. PCI also records contributions from the MOE in 
terms of the rotating fund and cash transfers that each school manages. To date in 2017, this 
activity had not been registered, as PCI generally documents it at the end of the school year. 
6.3.3.2. Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance
The EDUCAMOS program will achieve a commitment from the public and private sectors to 
leverage the program in support of education, with new investments that will have a positive 
impact on schools. At the time of writing, PCI have not recorded or documented any new 
investments from the public or private sector. 
6.3.4. Increase government support (MGD 1.4.3 / 2.7.3) 
6.3.4.1. Number of Parent-Teacher Associations or similar “school” governance 
structures supported as a result of USDA assistance 
PCI continues working with the 294 POs which are the basis for managing the program at each 
school. The program also has 96 Women Empowered groups which have been supported by PCI 
to carry out productive activities which enable them to strengthen their economic capacities, 
discuss topics of interest to the group of women, and increase their capacity for involvement in 
community decision making, or become volunteer lead mothers who carry out tasks in the 
schools. For example, they verify school hygiene, training for other parents and for the 
collaborating mothers. 
6.3.4.2. Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance 
Apart from the Women Empowered groups, there are currently no other public-private 
associations although this is a commitment that PCI has in its objectives for the EDUCAMOS 
Program.
35 
6.4. Sustainability Readiness Tool 
Within the context of the baseline, the team carried out an evaluation of the sustainability of the 
schools in the EDUCAMOS program intervention areas using the sustainability readiness tool 
developed by PCI (Annex No. 4). Thus, there is a map of the current state of the schools which 
will serve as a guide for the program to improve over the course of program implementation. 
The parameters listed here should be measured again in the mid-term and final evaluations in 
order to evaluate the impact of the program with regard to sustainability. 
Illustration 24. Average Score from the sustainability tool 
This sustainability 
readiness tool is 
divided into five 
main criteria and 
25 indicators, each 
weighted based on 
compliance with 
specific conditions. 
The maximum 
score is 100 points. 
Each criterion can 
have a maximum 
of 20 points. 
The average score 
for each of the 
main criteria are 
shown in 
Illustration 25. 
In general, the criteria with the lowest score was municipal and community support, which 
indicates that several indicators are pending compliance, specifically the topic of public policies 
and increased municipal support for the communities. 
With regard to the criteria for hygiene and nutrition practices, in three of every four schools the 
students do not comply with handwashing practices in five of the eight steps. 
The remaining criteria obtained between 75% and 80% compliance of the respective indicators. 
Based on an ideal weighting to classify whether a school is on a realistic path towards 
sustainability, three categories are proposed: 
Category A: Schools with 70 or more points, are those with scores above 60% in all the criteria 
evaluated and are inclined to be sustainable in the medium term. 
Category B: Schools with 60 to 69 points, present scores above 60% in at least four of the 
criteria evaluated. 
Category C: Schools with 59 or fewer points, present scores above 60% in at least two of the 
criteria evaluated. 
15
16
12
15
9
School Breakfast Improving Literacy Hygiene and
Nutrition Practices
Adequate
Infrastructure
Municipal and
community
support
Average score of main criteria
Intervention schools n=30
36 
Table 6. Sustainability Results per School 
Municipality Community Total Classification 
Santa Cruz Barillas Caserío Buena Vista, Aldea Nucá 77 
A 
70 points or 
more 
San Pedro Soloma Caserio Jolomar, Aldea Ixnanconop 75 
San Andrés Cuilco Caserío San Pedro Ven 75 
Santa Eulalia Caserio Muqan Jolom 73 
Santa Eulalia Aldea Chival Grande 73 
San Pedro Necta Caserío Camposeco, Aldea Ajal 73 
San Andrés Cuilco Caserío Jalapa, Aldea Santa Rosa Canibal 73 
Santa Eulalia Aldea Paiconop 71 
San Andrés Cuilco Aldea Islam 71 
Santa Gaspar 
Ixchil Aldea Chanxac 69 
B 
60 to 69 
points 
Santa Cruz Barillas Aldea La Florida 69 
Santa Cruz Barillas Caserío El Cementerio, Aldea Jolomtaj 67 
San Andrés Cuilco 
Caserío El Naranjo, Aldea Santa Rosa 
Canibal 67 
San Andrés Cuilco Aldea El Chical 67 
San Pedro Soloma Canton Cotzán 65 
Santa Cruz Barillas Caserío Siglo XX, Rio Hermin 65 
San Pedro Necta Caserío El Nanzal, Aldea Chimiche 65 
San Pedro Necta Caserío Tuiscuz, Aldea Huixoc 65 
San Andrés Cuilco Caserío Flor del Café, 65 
San Andrés Cuilco 
Caserío Campamento Parte Alta, Aldea 
Hija Blanca 65 
Santa Eulalia Caserío B'olol Laq, Aldea Yich Tenam 61 
San Pedro Soloma Aldea Tajlac 61 
San Pedro Soloma Aldea Gema 61 
Santa Cruz Barillas Canton San José, Aldea Yulatizu 61 
Santa Eulalia Caserio Yulxaq, Aldea Temux Chiquito 59 
C 
59 points or 
less 
Santa Gaspar 
Ixchil Aldea Coxton 59 
Santa Cruz Barillas Aldea Tres Ranchos 57 
San Andrés Cuilco Aldea El Zapote 57 
San Andrés Cuilco Aldea Agua Dulce 51 
San Pedro Necta Aldea Siete Cerros 47 
Source: Baseline team 
37 
6.5. Summary of results indicators 
No. Result Performance Indicator Baseline 
(intervention) Control schools Source 
1 SO1 
Percent of students who, by the 
end of two grades of primary 
schooling, demonstrate that they 
can read and understand the 
meaning of grade level text 
32.6% 27.4% Baseline 
2 SO1 
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA- funded 
interventions 
0 N/A PCI 
3 SO1 
Number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA- funded 
interventions 
0 N/A PCI 
4 MGD 1.1 
Percent of teachers in target 
schools who demonstrate 
improved literacy instruction as 
identified by supervisors, mentors, 
or coaches 
0 N/A Baseline 
5 MGD 1.1.1 
Percent of schools in which at 
least 80 percent of teachers were 
present on 90 percent of school 
days 
100% N/A 
Baseline. 
Information 
Corner 
6 MGD 1.1.2 
Number of textbooks and other 
teaching and learning materials 
provided as a result of USDA 
assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
7 MGD 1.1.3 
Number of teachers, students, and 
PCI staff trained in management 
of school libraries 
0 N/A Baseline 
8 MGD 1.1.4 
Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching 
assistants trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
9 MGD1.1.4 
Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching 
assistants in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new and 
quality teaching techniques or 
tools 
0 N/A Baseline 
10 MGD 1.1.5 
Number of school administrators 
and officials trained or certified as 
a result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
11 MGD 1.1.5 
Number of school administrators 
in targeted schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques 
or tools 
0 N/A Baseline 
38 
No. Result Performance Indicator Baseline 
(intervention) Control schools Source 
12 MGD 1.2 
Percent of students who are “off 
task” (data collected in a single 
day, at specific intervals) 
27.45% 30.08% Baseline 
13 MGD 1.2.1 
Percent of students in target 
schools who indicate that they are 
"hungry" or "very hungry" during 
the school day (collected through a 
student survey) 
8.5% 24.9% Baseline 
14 MGD 
1.2.1.1 
Number of daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) provided 
as a result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
15 MGD 
1.2.1.1 
Number of school-aged children 
receiving daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) as a 
result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
16 MGD 
1.2.1.1 
Number of take-home rations 
provided as a result of USDA 
assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
17 MGD 
1.2.1.1 
Number of individuals receiving 
take home rations 0 N/A PCI 
18 
MGD 
1.2.1.1 / 
1.3.1.1/2.5 
Number of social assistance 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets as a result 
of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
19 MGD 1.3 
Number of students 
(males/females) regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools 
97.7% 95.3% 
Intervention: FE 
FFE II 
Control: 
Baseline 
20 MGD 1.3.1 Number of savings and lending 
groups formed 0 0 PCI 
21 MGD 1.3.2 
Percent of students who state that 
illness is the primary reason they 
are absent from school 
7.7% 7.5% Baseline 
22 MGD 1.3.3 
Number of educational facilities 
(i.e. school buildings, classrooms, 
and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a 
result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
23 MGD 1.3.4 Number of students enrolled in 
school receiving USDA assistance 36,660 N/A Baseline 
24 MGD 1.3.4 
Percent of primary school aged 
children enrolled in USDA 
assisted schools 
95% 
92.8% 
(without USDA 
assistance) 
Baseline 
25 MGD 1.3.5 
Number of parents in target 
communities who are members of 
a PTA (or a similar school-based 
community group) 
1,470 N/A 
Intervention: FE 
FFE II 
Control: Not 
measured 
39 
No. Result Performance Indicator Baseline 
(intervention) Control schools Source 
26 MGD 1.3.5 
Percent of parents in target 
communities who can name at 
least three benefits of primary 
education (collected through a 
survey) 
84.6% 50% 
Intervention: FE 
FFE II 
Control: 
Baseline 
27 SO2 
Percent of school-age children 
receiving a minimum acceptable 
diet 
45.1% 29.9% Baseline 
28 MGD 2.1 
Percent of parents in targeted 
communities who can identify at 
least three important 
health/hygiene practices (e.g. use 
of latrines) 
93.2% 59.2% 
Intervention: FE 
FFE II 
Control: 
Baseline 
29 MGD 2.2 
Percent of mothers (or care 
providers) in target communities 
who can identify at least three key 
practices aimed at safe food 
preparation and storage practices 
99.1% 79.4% 
Intervention: FE 
FFE II 
Control: 
Baseline 
30 MGD 2.3 
Number of people trained in child 
health and nutrition as a result of 
USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
31 MGD 2.4 Number of schools using an 
improved water source2 289 (98%) 90% Baseline 
32 MGD 2.4 Number of schools with improved 
sanitary facilities3 224 (76%) 96.7% Baseline 
33 MGD 1.4.2 / 
2.7.2 
Percent of targeted schools with 
improved food prep and storage 
equipment 
61.5% 43.8% Baseline 
34 MGD 
Number of local, regional, and 
national level government officials 
whose capacity was built on 
education and/or school feeding, 
by level of official (unduplicated) 
0 N/A PCI 
35 MGD1.4.2 / 
2.7.2 
Number of educational policies, 
regulations, or administrative 
procedures in each of the 
following stages of development 
as a result of USDA assistance 
(see Food for Progress and 
McGovern-Dole Indicators and 
Definitions) 
0 N/A PCI 
36 MGD 1.4.3 / 
2.7.3 
Value of government resources 
allocated for primary education 
(includes teacher payroll, 
0 N/A PCI 
                                                            
2 Indicators 31, 32 – PCI has carried out a detailed infrastructure analysis in all intervention schools - baseline values for 
intervention schools are taken from this analysis as apposed to the sample of schools in the baseline evaluation. Percentages are 
included for intervention school only for comparason with control school (and are not part of the baseline value). The baseline 
value for control schools is a percentage of the 30 school sample.
3 As above
40 
No. Result Performance Indicator Baseline 
(intervention) Control schools Source 
infrastructure, materials and 
supplies, etc.) 
37 
MGD 1.4.3 
/2.7.3 / 1.4.4 
/ 2.7.4 
Value of new public and private 
sector investments leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
38 MGD 1.4.4 / 
2.7.4 
Number of Parent-Teacher 
Associations or similar “school” 
governance structures supported as 
a result of USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
39 MGD 1.4.4 / 
2.7.4 
Number of public-private 
partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance 
0 N/A PCI 
Source: Indicators Table - PCI / field and survey work. 
Note – FE FFE II refers to indicators which were measured in the final evaluation of FFE II 
6.6.Results from Teachers Survey 
As part of the baseline, the team carried out a survey with 103 teachers as specifically requested 
by Juárez & Asociados in order to collect data on literacy teacher training and practices. This 
information will be useful in preparing the diploma program planned as part of the EDUCAMOS 
program. Juárez & Asociados provided the data collection instrument. The team carried out the 
survey in all 60 schools (30 intervention and 30 control). 
The questionnaire was self-administered (See Annex 6, section b.). The questions investigated 
the following aspects: 
a. Teacher data 
b. Learning Communities 
c. Parent Participation 
d. Pedagogical Accompaniment 
e. Attendance 
f. Literacy Teaching 
g. Materials 
h. Evaluation and monitoring 
i. Classroom management 
Annex 6 presents the results of the surveys. The table below shows some of the relevant data. 
Table 8: Summary Table for Teacher Survey 
Concept Intervention Percent Control 
Percent 
Teachers who ARE currently studying 26.9 15.6 
Attended the PADEP 44.9 47.9 
Participation in at least one learning community 44.4 57.1 
Received accompaniment to support teaching 
work 
38.5 46.9 
Received training in oral skills of monolingual 
Spanish students 
40.7 36.7 
41 
Concept Intervention Percent Control 
Percent 
Received training in oral skills of monolingual 
Mayan students 
5.6 6.1 
Received training in oral skills of bilingual 
process students 
37 38.8 
Received training in oral skills of bilingual 
students 
11.1 18.4 
Uses L1 textbook for literacy teaching 85.4 78.3 
Uses L2 textbook for literacy teaching 83.7 72.3 
The school has a library, box or collection of 
reading books 
90 97.9 
Teacher has a library, box or collection of 
reading books in the classroom 
51 75.5 
Has a period assigned for visiting the library 46.9 48.9 
Can take a book home from the library 39.2 46.7 
7 Conclusions 
a. General Aspects 
1. The intervention schools, in general, have better conditions with regard to organization, 
infrastructure, methodologies, technical tools and feeding benefits for students, compared to 
the control schools. The people in the intervention school communities are more open to 
participate and have more confidence in the processes that the teachers present. 
2. Public recognition of the PCI programs, especially by education authorities, is notable. The 
evaluation team enjoyed close collaboration with the education authorities of Huehuetenango 
and the TAC, especially in the control municipalities, where they were able to be received in 
100% of the programmed schools. 
3. The opportunity to generate statistics collected in the program intervention area and compare 
them with control schools, facilitates the design of strategies to confront the problems that 
interfere with students’ physical and intellectual development, for improvement of school 
environments and in all relevant activities in the PCI implementation area. 
b. Indicators 
4. The reading capacity of the students in the evaluated schools was within acceptable levels 
within national standards. 
a. The majority of children need to read out loud to be able to understand what they are 
reading, which is not adequate pedagogically. 
b. Difficulties in reading comprehension are directly related to the native languages; in 
municipalities with L1 Mam or Q´anjob´al there is less accomplishment. 
c. Many of the children who are repeating third grade failed the reading test. 
42 
5. The professionalization of teachers to learn to use instruments to improve literacy teaching is 
still an unsatisfied need. 
6. Students have a lot of free time in both the intervention and control schools. Free time is 
understood as time that they use to play, meet, walk or do any undirected activity in the 
school patio and in some cases, in the field that is next to the school. 
7. Multi-grade schools and those with only one teacher present greater distraction for students, 
with less effective use of class time. 
8. Food is a fundamental part of students’ integrated development. Its improvement will help 
them to have better quality of life, which will lead to a better future through their 
development and expansion of opportunities. 
9. The students of the control area who attend schools where there is no PO, are at a 
disadvantage because they do not receive direct financial support, just food support and this is 
with less frequency than those which have POs. 
a. In some schools in the control area, faced with the lack of a PO, some committed 
teachers promoted their own school garden to provide food for the students. The was 
the case in Guaxacoy of the municipality of Santa Eulalia, and the school in Aguacatillo 
of La Libertad (with support from FUNCAFE) 
b. The municipality of La Libertad has the fewest POs of all the control municipalities, 
given that there is internal coordination by the municipality to resist control by the SAT 
(tax authority). 
c. Of the students in the control schools, 25% said they were hungry at the time of the 
interview. 
d. The students who live in the control areas generally receive one meal less a day than 
those who live in the intervention areas; this is usually the school breakfast. 
e. The diet of the students in the control areas is of lesser quality in terms of diversity and 
frequency of food consumption than that of students in the intervention schools. 
10. Children’s school attendance is consistent both in the intervention as well as control schools. 
Absences are usually a result of circumstances out of the students’ control such as illness, 
parent ordered travel and work. 
11. Parents’ knowledge of topics related to the benefits of education in the control schools is 
significantly inferior compared to parents in the intervention schools given that they have not 
had the opportunity to receive the training that is part of the program. 
12. The intervention schools have fewer improved water installations and also fewer improved 
sanitary installations compared to the control schools, although with PCI’s support these 
installations are new or recent and a maintenance plan exists to increase their service life with 
support from parents. 
13. The students in the control schools have poorer hygiene in aspects related to water as well as 
in maintenance and cleaning of the latrines and the kitchen areas, than the intervention 
schools. 
43 
14. The usefulness of the Cleanliness Traffic Light that PCI promotes in the intervention area was 
recognized and facilitates substantial improvement in the hygiene of classrooms, kitchens, 
patios and general aspects of the school environment. 
15. A visible Information Corner promotes a greater sense of commitment and ownership on the 
part of teachers for the indicators measured in this venue. 
c. Sustainability 
16. Organization in POs or similar entities is fundamental within the school structure and they 
need constant training to be able to play their roles appropriately. 
17. The sustainability tool facilitates classification based on verifiable data from the schools 
which are on target for achieving it and which ones need greater support to initiate the 
process. 
18. Promotion of municipal policies to support program activities will facilitate tangible benefits 
by those who are part of this initiative and can be a model to be followed by other 
municipalities in the country. 
d. Gender 
19. The main cause of female school drop outs, according to teachers, is the need to help out at 
home, followed by poverty. 
20. There is no significant difference between boys and girls regarding literacy results. 
21. There is no statistical evidence that girls eat less in quantity or quality than boys. While boys 
eat more in the breakfast, girls eat more in the afternoon snack according to the statistical data 
collection from the interviews. 
22. Household decision making is generally shared. Fathers decide about issues related to 
staying in school and household economic focus; mothers make decisions about health and 
food. 
23. Women’s role in the POs has improved as they participate in important positions. The 
presidency in 48% of the organizations has been held by a woman and in 50%, women have 
been the treasurer. 
e. Final Conclusion 
The EDUCAMOS program is committed to maintaining the progress from the previous program 
(FFE II), but also will improve aspects that are still pending, especially with regard to the 
sustainability of school feeding, participation of the POs or PCs as decision making elements in 
school processes, women’s participation in official entities and as a cross cutting element, 
student’s school performance. Literacy improvement is of special importance and although the 
intervention schools had better results than the control schools, teachers in the earliest grades 
need more training especially in bilingual education in order to improve reading comprehension. 
44 
8 Recommendations 
a. General Aspects 
1. It is important to continue with good communication and coordination with local players in 
the different program intervention communities. While the communities are satisfied in 
general, there are some situations that could be improved through dialogue to avoid any 
tendency towards negativity in the parents’ response – this would include work load, 
continually being called to meetings at the school, contributions requested by the school, etc. 
2. It is important to take advantage of the public recognition that PCI currently has to coordinate 
with local governments for creation of a Municipal Public Policy to support school feeding in 
order to ensure sustainability in every intervention municipality. 
3. PCI should increase sharing of information on the achievements evidenced in the program 
evaluations (FFE II, Baseline), with local authorities and MOH staff which are now aware of 
PCI’s presence. It would be important for them to be able to quantify the magnitude of the 
scope of the results and impact achieved. 
4. The program should open dialogue with the Huehuetenango Teachers Union so that they will 
have the necessary connections to avoid interruption of program progress in some locations, 
especially in the municipality of Santa Eulalia. At the same time, it is important to not allow 
the program to become entangled with conditions and instructions beyond the mandate of the 
EDUCAMOS program. 
5. It is important to determine some timely solutions to situations that were detected during 
observation of the schools, but which are not covered by the indicators: 
a. Smoke in the schools and the damage it causes to student health. This was seen to be 
a generalized problem in intervention as well as control schools. 
b. The use of firewood and wise use of forest resources, which has been improved to 
some degree by the use of the firewood saving stoves that PCI promotes and by 
sensitization of parents so that the firewood that they contribute not come from trees 
cut only for this purpose. 
b. Indicators 
6. It is important to improve students’ reading ability, based on a training process for teachers, 
using new techniques that enable them to increase efficiency in the teaching process. 
a. Provide schools with adequate, grade appropriate reading material in sufficient 
quantities for it to be useful in classroom reading exercises. This would include 
bilingual educational material where appropriate. 
b. The speed of student conversion to becoming bilingual students should be increased 
so that the process of understanding will be greater and easier for the students. 
c. A bilingual education strategy should be contemplated in the teacher training process 
in the schools and municipalities where this applies. 
45 
d. Promote various activities outside the classroom to motivate children to read and to 
have more time dedicated to improving reading comprehension. 
e. Sensitize and inform parents about the importance of reading at home. 
f. Promote and facilitate improvement of audio-visual aids in the intervention schools. 
7. It would be important to create an incentive for teachers to get training and improve their 
teaching tools and apply this with their students. 
a. In conjunction with departmental authorities, create an incentive for 
professionalization of teachers. 
b. Create a measurement instrument that verifies application of what was learned. 
8. Reinforce administrative capacity of school administrators given that it was noted that a 
percent of directors still do not know or apply basic MOE procedures, leadership in the 
community, school and food management – only 76.7% are doing so and given its 
importance, a greater number of administrators need to improve their skills. 
9. Continue to motivate students to keep their school attendance up. The school breakfast is a 
good motivator although teaching techniques can be improved so that students are also 
motivated to attend classes that interest them and promote improvement of their levels of 
knowledge. 
10. In order to ensure the success of the existing saving and loan groups and help communities 
prosper, link them with a Local Economic Development Plan (LED) that will be viable based 
on the conditions of each municipality. Share success stories to motivate others. 
11. Continue the training process for parents in aspects that improve quality of life in the 
students’ homes. This would include topics on hygiene and diet as well as continuing to 
reinforce the importance of the benefits of education for their children. 
12. Continue carrying out training events for mothers on how to create a balanced diet for the 
students in their communities to improve the minimum acceptable diet. 
13. Give special attention to the 13.3% of intervention schools, which in spite of having new or 
improved installations do not have an improved water source. Additionally, increase the 
number of schools with improved sanitary installations given that 10% of schools lack these. 
14. The strategies for improving hygiene in the intervention schools have worked well. Promote, 
maintain and improve them so that there is no backsliding to the levels seen in the control 
schools. 
15. Continue managing the school information corners and integrate parents in the explanation of 
their content related to the work they do as POs or PCs to maintain infrastructure, work in 
school gardens, carry out negotiations for the benefit of the school, and any other 
responsibilities they carry. 
16. For all the indicators with satisfactory results, maintain these levels. Some are time sensitive 
(especially knowledge) and new parents and students will come in and thus continuity in the 
schools is important. 
46 
c. Sustainability 
17. Create a private initiative sponsorship strategy along with the municipal policy to support the 
intervention schools to achieve sustainability. Create regulations and control instruments to 
verify that the sponsorship processes promote adequate involvement. 
18. Continue supporting the Law for School Feeding, which would increase MOE contributions 
for school breakfasts. This will be highly effective after the program ends and the schools no 
longer have the valuable food support provided by PCI with support from USDA. 
19. The sustainability tool can be measured every year to observe progress, providing incentives 
for those who move into the “achieved” zone. 
d. Gender 
20. Develop sensitization programs on the new approach to masculinity with families to facilitate 
empowerment of women and for all gender relationships at the school and community level. 
21. Study the viability of success and if possible promote commercial exchanges by the women 
who participate in the Women Empowered initiative, savings groups, etc., in the different 
EDUCAMOS program locations, seeking business viability among remote communities 
(supply-demand). For example, channel supply-demand between Cuilco and Barillas, or San 
Pedro Necta and Santa Eulalia. 
22. Constantly promote talks on self-esteem and present motivating examples to the girls and 
women of the intervention schools. 
23. Keep gender equity as a cross cutting issue in all PCI activities as they are doing. However, it 
would be important to document this in order to guide staff in addressing it in the 
communities. 
e. Final Recommendation 
The EDUCAMOS program cannot finalize its mandate without an important number of schools 
(over 70%) having achieved or being close to achieving sustainability. If this is not 
accomplished, the communities will be heavily impacted by the finalization of the program and 
will always be seeking someone to solve their problems, asking for support or help which in 
many cases will be delayed or not materialize. Thus, it is critically important to achieve 
alliances, political commitments, institutional support, laws or regulations to ensure support for 
school feeding and self-sufficiency of the schools. 
 
47 
Annex No. 1. Methodology for Intervention Sampling 
Table 9. Weighting of Intervention Schools
Municipality Schools 
Percentage 
Weight Allocation1 Sample 
San Gaspar Ixchil 10 3.80% 1.14068 2 
San Pedro Necta 35 13.31% 3.99240 4 
Cuilco 82 31.18% 9.35361 9 
San Pedro San 
Pedro Soloma 31 11.79% 3.53612 4 
Santa Eulalia 41 15.59% 4.67681 5 
Santa Cruz Santa 
Cruz Barillas 64 24.33% 7.30038 6 
 Totals 263 100.00% 30 
 1Small changes as a result of approximating numbers 
1. Schools were introduced to the AZAR.INFO program by municipality to participate in the selection 
using random numbers. San Pedro Necta is presented below as an example: 
2. From the previous process, 30 intervention schools and the six reserve schools (substitutes) 
were selected: 
Table 10. List of Intervention Schools
 No. Municipality School Name and Address 
1 San Gaspar Ixchil EORM Aldea Coxton 
2 San Gaspar Ixchil EORM Aldea Chanxac 
48 
 No. Municipality School Name and Address 
R San Gaspar Ixchil EORM Caserío Tuiloj, Aldea Ixpaltzaj 
3 San Pedro Necta EORM Caserío Camposeco, Aldea Ajal 
4 San Pedro Necta EORM Caserío El Nanzal, Chimiche 
5 San Pedro Necta EORM Caserío Tuiscuz, Aldea Huixoc 
6 San Pedro Necta EORM Aldea Siete Cerros 
R San Pedro Necta EORM Caserío Nueva Esperanza, Aldea Agua de 
las Palomas 
7 Cuilco EORM Campamento Alto 
8 Cuilco EORM Aldea El Chilcal 
9 Cuilco EORM Caserío San Pedro Ven 
10 Cuilco E.O.R.M. Aldea Islam 
11 Cuilco EORM Cantón La Soledad, Caserío El Zapotillo, 
Aldea Buena Vista Las Mesas 
12 Cuilco EORM Caserío Jalapa, Aldea Santa Rosa Caníbal 
13 Cuilco EORM Aldea Agua Dulce 
14 Cuilco EORM Caserío Monumento, Aldea Haciendita las 
Flores 
15 Cuilco EORM Aldea El Zapote 
R Cuilco EORM Caserío El Naranjo Santa Rosa Caníbal 
16 San Pedro Soloma EORM Cantón Cotzan 
17 San Pedro Soloma EORM Aldea Gema 
49 
 No. Municipality School Name and Address 
18 San Pedro Soloma EORM Caserío Jolomar, Aldea Ixnanconop 
19 San Pedro Soloma EORM Aldea Tajlac 
R San Pedro Soloma EORM Aldea Quecchil 
20 Santa Eulalia EORM Aldea Nancultac 
21 Santa Eulalia EORM Caserío Muq'an Jolom Aldea Pett 
22 Santa Eulalia EORM Aldea Paiconop 
23 Santa Eulalia EORM Caserío Bololaq` 
24 Santa Eulalia EORM Caserío Yulxaq, Temux Chiquito 
R Santa Eulalia EORM Aldea Chival Grande 
25 Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Cantón San José, Aldea Yulatizu 
26 Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Caserío Cementerio Jolomtaj 
27 Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Aldea La Florida 
28 Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Caserío Buena Vista, Aldea Nuca 
29 Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Nueva Generación Maya 
30 Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Caserío Siglo XX, Rio Ermin 
R Santa Cruz Barillas EORM Aldea Tres Ranchos 
Note: The following replacement schools were used: 
a. Cuilco, Caserío el Naranjo, Aldea Santa Rosa Caníbal replaced EORM Canton La 
Soledad, Caserío El Zapotillo, Aldea Buena Vista Las Mesas, because of the same 
50 
situation of entry, the degree of possibility of not arriving and compromising the 
fulfillment of the goals 
b. Cuilco, Casrío Flor del Café, Aldea Agua Dulce replaced Escuela Monumento, Aldea 
Haciendita las Flores because it is not possible to reach that school in the winter. For this 
reason, a new school run was made but only placing those in the "farm" area within the 
program in order to choose randomly. 
c. Santa Eulalia, Chival Grande Village replaced Aldea Nancultac because the evaluation 
was not permitted to be carried out by the school’s director. 
d. Santa Cruz Barillas, Aldea Tres Ranchos replaced Nueva Generación Maya, at the 
suggestion of the Department of Education, because it is a Mam community within the 
Q'anjob'al culture. 
3. The schools in the control group were the following: 
For the selection of control group schools, the following criteria were considered as fundamental: 
a. Homogeneity within the intervention schools 
b. Superior linguistic quality 
c. No current or past presence of other NGOs. 
Because the knowledge of schools outside the PCI intervention area is in the MOE, the following 
protocol was followed: 
a. The official visit to the selected site proceeded. At that meeting, the MOE reviewed, by 
municipality, the intervention schools that are part of the EDUCAMOS program, to get an 
idea of the language, school size, rurality, etc. 
b. It was requested that for each municipality different locations of the schools be taken as 
far as possible, in a way that one could have a complete idea of the municipality. From 
this account, the communities were distributed by upper, middle and lower parts, where 
the names of the schools were selected at random. 
c. Based on the knowledge of the schools, the MOE proposed schools that were considered 
similar to those of the intervention group (by municipality). 
d. The Technical Administrative Coordinator (CTA) was consulted by telephone to verify 
that schools were not involved with organizations that have such interventions as literacy, 
food and health / hygiene activities. They discarded some schools that were currently 
involved with SADEGUA and others that were involved in previous years with SHARE 
or World Vision. 
Table 11. List of Schools in the Control Group 
 No. Municipality Name and Address 
1 Colotenango Caserío Santo Domingo Aldea La Vega 
2 Colotenango Caserío Siete Caminos Aldea La Vega 
3 San Sebastian Huehuetenango Caserío Sujal Aldea Quiajola 
4 San Sebastian Huehuetenango Caserío Sipal Aldea Quiajola 
5 San Sebastian Huehuetenango Caserío Chequequix I 
6 San Sebastian Huehuetenango Caserío Tuitzquimac Aldea T-Xe'joj 
51 
 No. Municipality Name and Address 
7 La Libertad Caserío Cerro Grande Aldea Cerro 
Grande 
8 La Libertad Aldea El Paraiso 
9 La Libertad Caserío El Aguacatillo 
10 La Libertad Aldea Cerro Grande 
11 La Libertad Caserío El Jute 
12 La Libertad Aldea Peña Roja 
13 La Libertad Aldea Huica 
14 La Libertad Aldea El Naranjo I 
15 La Libertad Aldea Santo Domingo Las Flores 
16 San Juan Ixcoy Aldea Yulchecan 
17 San Juan Ixcoy Cantón Nuca Sector Iii 
18 San Juan Ixcoy Caserío Cojcán 
19 San Juan Ixcoy Caserío Chenguay 
20 San Juan Ixcoy Aldea Sachan 
21 San Juan Ixcoy Aldea Tocal 
22 San Juan Ixcoy Aldea Jolomguitz 
23 San Juan Ixcoy Aldea Yulguitz I 
24 San Juan Ixcoy Caserío Txamaylaq Aldea Yulguitz I 
25 Santa Eulalia Aldea Guaxacoy 
26 Santa Eulalia Cantón Nueva Florida 
27 Santa Eulalia Cantón Alta Miranda 
28 Santa Eulalia Caserío Santa Rosa 
29 Santa Eulalia Caserío Nueva Reforma 
30 Santa Eulalia Cantón Nuevo Progreso 
4. Sampling of the direct collection tools: 
Sample Intervention Control Total 
No. Justification No. Justification Achievement 
4th, 5th and 
6th grade 
students 
401 
Population (294 schools): 
12,183 students in grades four 
through six (Source: PCI): 
95% confidence level of data, 
4.82% sampling error 
401 
It was planned to have the 
same number of intervention 
students, assuming the same 
population as intervention: 
95% confidence level of the 
data, 4.82% sampling 
error
802 
Fathers/ 
Mothers 
177 
Population (294 schools): 
18,897 Parents and mothers 
(source: PCI). 150 (according 
to TDR) had been planned and 
27 parents more were 
76 
It was planned to have the 
same amount as 
intervention, but it was not 
possible due to mistrust of 
parents in giving 
253 
52 
Sample Intervention Control Total 
No. Justification No. Justification Achievement 
interested in participating, so 
they were included; 95% data 
reliability level, 7.34% 
sampling error 
information. Assuming the 
same population as schools 
of intervention: 
95% confidence level of the 
data, 11.2% sampling 
error 
Teachers 54 
Sixty teachers had been 
planned (according to the 
ToR), which was not achieved 
because some schools had only 
one teacher, some only had 
two teachers and one of them 
was the principal. Population: 
1,400 teachers 
95% confidence level of data, 
13.1% sampling error 
49 
Same planning as 
intervention schools (60 
teachers). 
Assuming the same 
population as schools of 
intervention: 
95% confidence level of 
data, 13.9% sampling 
error 
103 
Directors 30 
30 were planned (according to 
ToR) and all 30 were 
achieved. 
30 
Same as the intervention 
schools 60 
Collaborating 
Mothers 75 
ToR did not specify a sample 
for collaborating mothers. The 
total number of mothers who 
prepared breakfast on the day 
of the visit were interviewed. 
34 
It was planned to interview 
the available mothers who 
prepared food, although 
there were than in the 
intervention schools, 
because they only prepared 
school lunches. 
109 
Teacher 
Survey 54 
Same case of the sample 
"teachers" 47 
Of the 49 teachers, two were 
not willing to answer this 
survey. 
101 
CPF / OPF 
Members 
Two were planned per school, 
(according to ToR), it was not 
possible because they were not 
in school or in the community 
Some schools do not have an 
organization, and others that 
do have it, or arrived the day 
of the visit, or did not want 
to respond. 
Primary 
School 
Students 
Observed for 
Attention Test 
488 
Population (294 schools): 
7,670 first grade students: 
95% confidence level of data, 
4.3% sampling error 
615 
Assuming the same 
population as intervention 
schools: 
95% confidence level of the 
data, 3.8% sampling error 
1,103 
Reading tests 
for upper 
primary 
students 
509 
Population (294 schools): 
5,461 third grade students: 
95% confidence level of data, 
4.14% sampling error
456 
Assuming the same 
population as intervention 
schools: 
95% confidence level of the 
data, 4.4% sampling error 
965 
Technical 
Administrative 
Coordinator 
3 3 6 
53 
5. Data Verification 
5.1. Statistical tests applied 
Three types of statistical tests were used to determine the level of significance between 
two or more study variables: 
a. Chi square test: Used to establish independence / dependence between nominal 
variables 
b. Student's T test: Used to establish the relationship between two groups or samples 
and a numerical variable. 
c. U Mann - Withney test: It was used to establish the relation between two groups or 
samples and a numerical variable when the distribution of data did not respond to the 
normal distribution. 
5.2. Data Audit 
a. In order to ensure data quality, frequency tables were used to enable the detection and 
correction of typing errors in the questionnaires 
c. The questionnaires were reviewed daily in the field to evaluate the quality of the 
surveys conducted and to detect and correct errors of the interviewer 
d. A typing "mirror" was used to measure the accuracy of the data entry. 
5.3. Limitations in fieldwork 
a. There is little time to observe the teachers’ performance in class, since there were two 
moments, each lasting ten minutes, observing the attention of the students in the 
classroom, which limits the observation of the literacy teaching techniques 
b. In the control groups, teachers felt that they were being overly scrutinized by being 
asked to show their teacher's notebook. 
54 
Annex No. 2. Statistical Significance Tests (Spanish) 
Tabla 7. Prueba de significancia de estudiantes que no hacen sus tareas (6.1.2-a). Ilustración 4 
Prueba de muestras independientes
Prueba de 
Levene para la 
igualdad de 
varianzas Prueba T para la igualdad de medias 
F Sig. t gl 
Sig. 
(bilateral) 
Diferencia de 
medias 
Error típ. de 
la diferencia 
95% Intervalo de confianza para 
la diferencia 
Inferior Superior 
Porcentaje Se han 
asumido 
varianzas 
iguales 
1.305 .258 .389 57 .699 2.3291983 5.9891102 -9.6637881 14.3221847
No se han 
asumido 
varianzas 
iguales 
.390 55.731 .698 2.3291983 5.9700488 -9.6315208 14.2899175
Tabla 8. Nivel de significancia estadística para estudiantes que indican tener hambre. (6.1.2-b) 
Ilustración 6 
Valor gl 
Sig. asintótica 
(bilateral) 
Sig. exacta 
(bilateral) 
Sig. exacta 
(unilateral) 
Chi-cuadrado de Pearson 39.028a 1 .000
Corrección por 
continuidadb
37.855 1 .000
Razón de verosimilitudes 40.501 1 .000
Estadístico exacto de 
Fisher 
.000 .000
Asociación lineal por 
lineal 
38.980 1 .000
N de casos válidos 802 
a. 0 casillas (.0%) tienen una frecuencia esperada inferior a 5. La frecuencia mínima esperada es 
67.00. 
c. Calculado sólo para una tabla de 2x2. 
55 
Tabla 9. Nivel de significancia estadística para causas de ausencia escolar (6.1.3.3).Ilustración 8. 
Valor gl 
Sig. 
asintótica 
(bilateral) 
Chi-cuadrado de Pearson 8.285 5 .141 
Razón de verosimilitudes 9.481 5 .091 
Asociación lineal por lineal .889 1 .346 
N de casos válidos 802
Tabla 10. Comprobación de significancia estadística Beneficios de la educación (6.1.3.8). Ilustración 10 
Valor gl 
Significancia 
asintótica 
(bilateral) 
Chi-cuadrado de Pearson 11.032a 7 .137 
Razón de verosimilitudes 11.181 7 .131 
Asociación lineal por lineal .236 1 .627 
N de casos válidos 253 
a. 6 casillas (37.5%) tienen una frecuencia esperada inferior a 5. La frecuencia mínima 
esperada es .60. 
 Fuente: Elaboración propia. Resultado de SPSS 
Tabla 11. Comprobación de significancia estadística, Beneficios de la educación (6.1.3.8). Ilustración 10 
Estadísticos de contrastea
Beneficios de la educación 
U de Mann-Whitney 6092.500 
W de Wilcoxon 9018.500 
Z -1.229 
Significancia asintótica. 
(bilateral) 
.219 
 a. Variable de agrupación: control intervención 
 Fuente: Elaboración propia. Resultado de SPSS
Tabla 12. Comprobación de significancia estadística, número de comidas realizadas (6.2). Ilustración 13 
Estadísticos de contrastea
Cuantas comidas hizo 
U de Mann-Whitney 64381.500 
W de Wilcoxon 144982.500 
Z -5.450 
Sig. asintót. (bilateral) .000 
a. Variable de agrupación: control intervención 
56 
Estadísticos de contrastea
Cuantas comidas hizo 
U de Mann-Whitney 64381.500 
W de Wilcoxon 144982.500 
Z -5.450 
Sig. asintót. (bilateral) .000 
Tabla 13. Significancia estadística de tiempos de comida realizados (6.2). Ilustración 13 
Variable Chi cuadrado 
de Pearson 
Gl Significancia 
Asintótica 
Análisis 
Desayuno 1.032 1 0.310 No hay diferencia entre 
intervención y control 
Refacción 
matutina 
37.930 1 0.00 Hay diferencia significativa 
entre intervención y control 
Almuerzo 3.463 1 0.063 No hay diferencia entre 
intervención y control 
Refacción 
vespertina 
0.022 1 0.883 No hay diferencia entre 
intervención y control 
Cena 0.00 1 1.00 No hay diferencia entre 
intervención y control 
Tabla 14. Dieta mínima de los estudiantes. Ilustración 16 
Pruebas de chi-cuadrado dieta mínima
Valor gl 
Sig. asintótica 
(bilateral) 
Sig. exacta 
(bilateral) 
Sig. exacta 
(unilateral) 
Chi-cuadrado de Pearson 19.789a 1 .000
Corrección por continuidad 19.146 1 .000
Razón de verosimilitudes 19.894 1 .000
Estadístico exacto de Fisher .000 .000
Asociación lineal por lineal 19.765 1 .000
N de casos válidos 802 
a. 0 casillas (.0%) tienen una frecuencia esperada inferior a 5. La frecuencia mínima esperada es 150.50. 
b. Calculado sólo para una tabla de 2x2. 
57 
Tabla 15. Comprobación de significancia estadística. Cantidad de hábitos / higiene mencionados (6.2.1). 
Ilustración 18 
Valor gl 
Sig. asintótica 
(bilateral) 
Chi-cuadrado de Pearson 12.374a 7 .089 
Razón de verosimilitudes 13.387 7 .063 
Asociación lineal por lineal 5.011 1 .025 
N de casos válidos 253
 a. 6 casillas (37.5%) tienen una frecuencia esperada inferior a 5. La frecuencia mínima esperada es .30. 
 Fuente: elaboración propia. Resultado de SPSS 
Tabla 16. Significancia estadística cantidad de hábitos de salud / higiene mencionados. (6.2.1) 
Ilustración 18 
Prueba de muestras independientes
Prueba de 
Levene para 
la igualdad de 
varianzas Prueba T para la igualdad de medias 
F Sig. t gl 
Sig. 
(bilateral) 
Diferencia 
de medias 
Error 
típ. de 
la 
diferen
cia 
95% Intervalo de 
confianza para la 
diferencia 
Inferior Superior
Se han 
asumido 
varianzas 
iguales 
.939 .333 -
2.25
7 
251 .025 -.38946 .17259 -.72936 -.04956
No se han 
asumido 
varianzas 
iguales 
-
2.18
8 
132.679 .030 -.38946 .17801 -.74156 -.03736
Fuente: Resultado de SPSS 
Tabla 17. Prueba de significancia estadística. Escuelas con una mejor preparación de alimentos y equipo 
de almacenamiento (6.2.4.1). Ilustración 23 
Variables Chi cuadrado 
de Pearson 
Gl Sig Asintótica Análisis 
Estufa funcionando – 
Intervención / control 
6.217 2 0.045 Existe diferencia 
significativa entre 
intervención y control 
Existe equipo de 
almacenamiento 
Intervención / control 
7.937 1 0.005 Existe diferencia 
significativa entre 
intervención y control 
58 
Annex No. 3. Mealtime Data Analysis; Lunch, Evening Snack, Dinner 
(Spanish) 
Ilustración 25. Grupos de alimentos recibidos en el almuerzo 
Fuente: Elaboración propia 
Ilustración 26. Grupos de alimentos recibidos en la refacción vespertina 
Fuente: Elaboración propia 
54.7%
15.6%
3.8%
19.7% 17.9%
10.5%
14.1%
66.7%
15.2%
2.6%
21.0%
16.8% 20.2%
15.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Granos Legumbres Lácteos Carne Huevos Aceite vegetal,
frutas y
verduras
Otras frutas y
verduras
Almuerzo
Control Intervención
76.6%
2.8%
14.5%
1.4% 2.1% 4.1%
9.0%
72.8%
10.2%
17.0%
2.7% 0.0%
7.5% 5.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Granos Legumbres Lácteos Carne Huevos Aceite vegetal,
frutas y
verduras
Otras frutas y
verduras
Refacción verpertina
Control Intervención
59 
Ilustración 27. Grupos de alimentos recibidos en la cena 
 Fuente: Elaboración propia 
54.2%
11.4%
4.0%
17.7%
22.2%
9.8% 11.9%
61.1%
16.9%
3.2%
19.6% 18.3% 19.0%
12.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Granos Legumbres Lácteos Carne Huevos Aceite vegetal,
frutas y
verduras
Otras frutas y
verduras
Cena
Control Intervención
60 
Anexo No. 4. Sustainability Readiness Tool Criteria (Spanish) 
Tabla 18. Criterios de evaluación de la herramienta de sostenibilidad 
Condición No. Actividades Ponderación 
1. Desayuno 
escolar proveído 
diariamente al 
100% de 
estudiantes 
1 Los padres o cocineros/as contratados están preparando y 
sirviendo la comida escolar todos los días de clase 2 
2 
Por lo menos 30% de los alimentos utilizados para la 
preparación de la merienda escolar vienen de recursos locales 
no-USDA (padres, huertos, grupos ME, comunidad) 
6 máximo 
(<15%=2, 15-20%=4, 
20-30% =5, >30%=6) 
3 
Comités de refacción escolar y las organizaciones de padres de 
familia (OPFs) implementan planes de compras y/o menús 
(incluyendo compra de alimentos nutritivos) para utilización 
óptima del subsidio del MINEDUC para conformar la ración 
base 
6 
4 
Se ha incrementado la cantidad de alimentos de fuentes no 
USDA (ej. padres, huertos, grupos ME, comunidad, alcaldías) 
desde la medición del año anterior. 
4 
5 Desembolso oportuno del subsidio MINEDUC a la escuela 2 
2. Mejoramiento 
de Lecto￾escritura de 
Estudiantes 
6 Estudiantes leen por lo menos 60 min diario (30 min dentro de 
la clase; 30 min fuera de la clase) 2 
7 
Maestros demuestran la aplicación de nuevas técnicas, 
herramientas o metodologías de mejora de la enseñanza de 
lectoescritura 
6 
8 100% de estudiantes con material de lectura permanente y 
disponible para alumnos 4 
9 Asistencia de los maestros es monitoreada y reportada a las 
escuelas y al nivel municipal 4 
10 Los padres asisten por lo menos 2 reuniones de los comités de 
padres (incluyendo maestros) por año 4 
3. Prácticas de 
Higiene y 
Nutrición para 
Rendimiento 
Escolar 
11 Los alumnos practican 5 de 8 pasos del lavado de manos en la 
escuela (una demostración, en un grado seleccionado al azar) 6 
12 Los maestros o directores, enseñan al menos tres buenas 
prácticas de salud, higiene o nutrición 2 
13 Los padres o madres, mencionan al menos tres buenas prácticas 
de salud, higiene o nutrición 4 
14 La escuela cuenta con interiores limpios (utilizando checklist de 
limpieza que incluye aulas, cocina y bodega de alimentos) 4 
15 
La escuela cuenta con exteriores limpios (utilizando checklist 
de limpieza que incluye letrinas, estaciones de lavado de manos, 
patio y alrededores de la escuela) 
4 
4. 
Infraestructura 
16 Cocina con estufa existente y funcionando 4 
17 Bodega escolar existente y funcionando 4 
61 
Condición No. Actividades Ponderación 
Adecuada 
18 Disponibilidad de agua 
8 máximo 
(Segura para consumo 
humano = 4 
Disponible por una parte 
del año = 2 
Disponible por todo el 
año = 2)
19 Letrinas existentes y funcionando 2 
20 Lavamanos o pilas existentes y funcionando 2 
5. Apoyo 
municipal y 
comunitario 
21 
Grupos de Mujeres Empoderadas funcionando y los miembros 
de la familia usan el ahorro para apoyar a sus hijos en la 
escuela. 
2 
22 La escuela recibe apoyo de otras iniciativas/programas 2 
23 
Una Comisión de Sostenibilidad (o algo similar) dentro del 
COMUDE está establecida y brinda informes de resultados en 
forma permanente 
5 
24 
Una política pública a nivel municipal en implementación para 
la sostenibilidad de la alimentación escolar y otras actividades 
del programa 
5 
25 
Un aumento anual del aporte municipal a las escuelas para 
transporte de alimentos, mano de obra calificada para 
infraestructura, compra de alimentos locales, etc. 
6 máximo 
(<1%=2, 1-3%=4, 
>3%=6) 
Total 100 
Fuente: M&E Project Concern International Huehuetenango, Guatemala. 
 
62 
Anexo No. 5. Notes on Specific Schools (Spanish) 
a. Escuelas de Intervención 
Escuela Caso específico 
Cuilco. Aldea El Chilcal 
1. Los niños no tienen acceso a los baños. Se encuentran bajo llave 
2. La escuela está llena de humo. Los niños respiran ese humo hasta 
después de su alimentación escolar. 
Cuilco. Aldea El Islam 
1. El director es el secretario del STEG en el municipio de Cuilco
2. Es una escuela bien organizada en donde todos cumplen una función. 
3. El profesor de primer año, tiene un método propio de lectoescritura. Dio 
una clase demostrativa a todos los que estuvimos presentes, incluyendo al 
personal de PCI en donde demostró cómo funciona su método. "Los 
otros no se aplican bien" dijo el profesor. 
4. Los niños de primero saben leer en Mam y en Español. 
Cuilco. Aldea El Zapote 
1. Normalmente la directora llega a las 9 de la mañana. 
2. Al momento de hacer la observación de 1ro primaria, se constató que la 
maestra comparte la clase con 6to primaria. El ruido proveniente del 
desorden de los estudiantes es constante. 
3. Las 3 maestra existentes se turnan cada semana de coordinar la 
elaboración de la alimentación de los estudiantes conjuntamente con la 
madre colaboradora, y mencionó que únicamente se les proporciona la 
refacción escolar a los estudiantes, ya que los padres de familia indicaron 
que ellos no estaban de acuerdo con esta actividad ya que son ellos los 
que les brindan el desayuno en sus hogares. La docente indicó que la 
hora estipulada para dar la refacción escolar es de 10:00 a 11:00 de la 
mañana, previo a darles la refacción se les da el tiempo de receso, pero en 
la visita a la escuela se constató la refacción se les sirvieron a las 11:45 
de la mañana. 
4. Se les solicitó a los padres de familia colaboraron para la construcción de 
dos cajones de madera grandes con división. Ya están en función y 
sirven para guardar los insumos que se utilizan para la elaboración de la 
refacción escolar, esto con el fin de proteger los alimentos de roedores 
(ratas) que proliferan en la escuela. 
5. En el tiempo de refacción de los estudiantes, se presentó la trabajadora 
social que labora para el Ministerio de Salud, comentándonos que ella 
asiste a las escuelas designadas a su persona, una vez al mes, con el 
programa de Escuelas Saludables. Implementa charlas a los niños de 3ro, 
4to, 5to y 6to. Primaria. 
63 
Escuela Caso específico 
Cuilco. Caserío el Naranjo, 
Aldea Santa Rosa Caníbal 
1. Es una escuela pequeña, que está bien organizada. 
2. Los niños leen en silencio, lo que no es muy común en las escuelas 
visitadas. 
3. El muro de contención de la escuela está quebrado. Es cuestión de 
tiempo para que colapse. La directiva de padres de familia hicieron las 
gestiones pertinentes a la municipalidad pero no han sido atendidos. 
También se acudió a CONRED pero por no haber hecho la denuncia en 
el tiempo prudencial luego de los temblores que la rajaron ya no entra en 
el presupuesto. Se hizo alguna gestión con la Cruz Roja pero igualmente 
no fueron atendidos 
3. Los padres son agricultores y generalmente no asisten a las actividades 
de la escuela, las que asisten y participan por lo general son las madres. 
4. En la comunidad hay jóvenes que migran a Chiapas, México para trabajar 
como parte de las migraciones temporales de toda la región. Cuando 
regresan vienen con costumbres ajenas que han adquirido, y cometen 
actos delincuenciales con la escuela, rompiendo vidrios, robándose lo que 
se puede. 
5. El profesor de 1ro que es el director utiliza su arte musical para enseñar a 
los niños a deletrear cantando. 
Cuilco. Caserío Jalapa. Aldea 
Santa Rosa Caníbal 
1. La escuela cuenta con 4 aulas. Únicamente utilizan tres, impartiendo en 
cada una dos grados por docente. Cada aula tiene material didáctico, 
(normas de las clases, horario de clases, los valores, figuras geométricas, 
los meses del año, días de la semana, el abecedario, mapas de 
Guatemala, hojas de trabajo que realizan los niños, trabajos manuales). 
2. En una de las aulas se observó que el mapa de Guatemala tiene muchos 
errores de ubicación, el aula restante la utilizan para bodega de insumos y 
salón de reuniones. 
3. En general la escuela se encuentra en buen estado, limpia, ordenada, y 
cada módulo se encuentra identificado. 
San Gaspar Ixchil. Aldea 
Coxtón. 
1. En esta escuela se encuentran asignados 3 docentes. Uno de los docentes 
fue reubicado, una maestra esta de licencia por maternidad, únicamente 
está el director. 
2. Para apoyarle se encuentra un maestro que está realizando su práctica 
docente, según manifiesta el director esto le dificulta, su labor porque los 
alumnos se encuentran en 3 aulas, pre primaria, primero, segundo; 
tercero, cuarto, quinto, y un aula para los alumnos de sexto. 
3. Desarrollan el Programa PEPS (Primaria para niños con sobre edad, para 
niños de 13 a 16 años, los niños que cursan 4to año primaria y tienen 13 
años o más pueden pasar automáticamente a 6to. Primaria, siempre que 
aprueben el grado). 
4. En esta escuela el inicio de la primaria se retrasa e inician a estudiar a los 
9 o 10 años. 
64 
Escuela Caso específico 
San Pedro Necta. CASERIO 
CAMPOSECO ALDEA 
AJAL 
1. Los docentes manifiestan que en ésta escuela las familias tienen 
posibilidades económicas un poco superiores al promedio de las otras 
comunidades. Los padres son migrantes en Estados Unidos y envían 
remesas familiares. 
2. Otras familias producen cultivos como el café, maíz y frijol que les da 
oportunidad de mejorar el ingreso familiar. 
3. En esta comunidad la mayoría de los estudiantes que salen de 6to 
primaria continúan sus estudios llegando a finalizar el diversificado. 
4. En el aula de 2do y 3ro primaria está realizando su práctica docente una 
señorita egresada de esta escuela. 
San Pedro Necta. Caserío 
Nanzal, Aldea Chimiche 
1. En el aula de Primer Grado el mobiliario es insuficiente. Los alumnos se 
encuentran trabajando pegados unos con otros y algunos deben de
compartir una silla y una mesa. 
2. En una de las dos observaciones realizadas, los alumnos reciben clase de 
inglés, cantan en inglés las letras del abecedario y buscan pronunciar 
correctamente las letras en dicho idioma. 
3. La directora y la maestra de primero primaria coincide en afirmar que los 
padres de familia en esta comunidad no valoran la educación de sus hijos. 
Si el alumno no quiere asistir a la escuela ellos lo permiten y la mayoría 
no vela porque realicen las tareas que se dejan para la casa. 
4. De los alumnos egresados de sexto primaria, 11 eran niños de los cuales 
1 continuó en primero básico. Las niñas eran 7 y 2 continuaron en 
primero básico. 
5. En el mes de septiembre la asistencia escolar disminuye debido a que los 
alumnos se va con sus padres a trabajar a algunas fincas. Los maestros 
adelantan las evaluaciones en dichos casos 
San Pedro Soloma. Aldea 
Tajlac 
1. En esta escuela los niños leen en silencio 
2. La escuela se encuentra llena de humo durante todo el tiempo que la 
cocina está funcionando. 
3. Los niños en las clases respiran ese humo. 
San Pedro Ven, Cuilco, 
Huehuetenango. 
1. La directora que desde hace dos años no se realiza el desayuno escolar, 
ya que los padres de familia no estaban de acuerdo a que se les diera el 
desayuno a los niños, debido a tenían que dar una cuota mensual para el 
pago de las señoras que se encargaban de realizar esta actividad, la cuota 
mensual era de Q20.00 
2. Únicamente se les brinda la refacción escolar, y está es elaborada por 
madres de familia colaboradoras 
3. Se les solicita también a los padres de familia colaboración con insumos 
para complementar la refacción escolar, que se les sirve a los niños a las 
10:00 am, teniendo 15 minutos de refacción y 30 minutos de receso. 
Santa Eulalia. Aldea Chival 
Grande 
1. Esta escuela se utilizó de reemplazo de la escuela de Nancultac del 
mismo municipio, en donde no se permitió el ingreso del equipo 
consultor por instrucción del STEG. 
2. Todos los estudiantes y los maestros leen en voz alta. 
3. Fue necesario realizar 6 explicaciones para que los estudiantes
entendieran el cuadernillo para la prueba de lectura 
4. Mucho humo en las instalaciones durante todo el tiempo antes del receso 
para la alimentación 
65 
Escuela Caso específico 
Santa Eulalia. Aldea 
Paiconop 
1. Cuentan con 7 letrinas con taza lavable para uso de las niñas, de estas son 
2 hechas por PCI y 5 construidas por gestión de la Organización de 
Padres de Familia 
2. 5 letrinas con taza lavable y 1 mingitorio para uso exclusivo de los niños, 
de estos 4 construidos por gestión de la OPF y el resto por PCI
3. Cuentan con lavamanos, con un depósito de agua exclusivo para estas 
instalaciones de la escuela. 
4. Escuela con 11 docentes y 293 alumnos 
Santa Eulalia. Caserio B´olol 
Laq. Aldea Yich Tenam 
1. Los docentes llevan en forma digital y escrita su registro de asistencia de 
los niños, ya que cada uno cuenta con una computadora personal, donada 
por XUMAK, una empresa privada establecida en EEUU y FUNCEPA. 
2. La escuela cuenta con 6 aulas donde imparten docencia, y 1 laboratorio 
de computación 
3. Las computadoras fueron donadas por FUNCEPA que maneja el 
Programa Tecnológico para Educar (2008), y la empresa privada 
XUMAK (empresa de la que es propietario una persona oriunda del lugar 
establecida en EEUU). 
4. La escuela cuenta con 106 alumnos y 5 docentes 
Soloma. Cantón Cotzán, San 
Pedro 
1. Escuela bastante grande, cuenta con 667 alumnos, 22 docentes 
2. La OPF es activa y colabora con los docentes y en todas las actividades 
de la escuela 
3. Es una de las pocas escuelas que cocina con estufa de gas 
4. Aprenden cantando en Q´anjob´al y español 
b. Escuelas Control 
Escuela Caso específico 
Colotenango. Caserío Siete 
Caminos, Aldea La Vega 
1. Escuela Multi-grado. 
2. Un profesor para pre-primaria, primero, segundo. El Director atiende: 
tercero, cuarto quinto y sexto. 
3. La escuela no cuenta con disponibilidad de agua, recolectan agua de 
lluvia en tinacos. 
4. Se dio un caso de 1 niño que ha repetido primero primaria, debido a que 
la madre es alcohólica, el niño se ausenta de clases por cuidar de su 
hermano menor. 
La Libertad. Aldea Huica 
1. Esta escuela tiene una campeona de lectura del municipio. 
2. Las clases están llenas de material didáctico. 
3. Las clases poseen lectometro y hacen pruebas de velocidad con 
cronometro. Hacen público los resultados cada mes. 
4. Al igual que las demás escuelas de la Libertad, no tienen OPF, por lo 
tanto no hay refacción. Sin embargo hay ventas de comida y los niños 
pueden comprar si tienen el dinero. 
La Libertad. Aldea Peña Roja 
1. En esta escuela los docentes fueron muy colaboradores. 
2. Al no haber padres de familia se envió a un alumno para guiar a una 
encuestadora a la casa de los padres. Si respondieron la encuesta. 
3. Es una escuela grande en estructura pero pequeña en el número de 
alumnos. 
4. No hay refacción para los estudiantes. Hay tiendas cerca y pueden salir a 
comprar. 
66 
Escuela Caso específico 
La Libertad. Caserío Cerro 
Grande 
1. En esta escuela, habían padres de familia al momento de la visita, pero no 
aceptaron ser entrevistados. 
2. En esta escuela no existe refacción. 
3. Los padres de familia se opusieron a hacer los trámites para inscribir la 
OPF. 
4. Es una escuela pequeña muti-grado con 3 docentes. 
 La libertad. Aldea Cerro 
Grande 
1. Tienen una cocina, la cual no se utiliza porque no hay OPF en la escuela 
2. Los padres de familia no quieren asumir los cargos que conlleva la OPF 
por temor de pagar la multa que se les está imponiendo por parte del 
gobierno 
3. No se les brinda la refacción escolar a los niños. 
4. El profesor de 4to grado aplica la técnica de lectómetro por lo menos 3 
veces al mes. 
5. Cuentan con un botiquín de primeros auxilios, donado por la Cooperativa 
Esquipulas, dicha donación la efectúan anualmente 
6. Otra actividad que realiza la Cooperativa es desparasitar a los niños 2 
veces por año 
7. La escuela no cuenta con energía eléctrica 
San Sebastián Huehuetenango. 
Caserío Sujal, Aldea Quiajolá 
1. Escuela Multigrado. Un maestro para primero, una maestra para segundo 
y tercero, una maestra para cuarto. El director quinto y sexto Grados. 
2. Según manifiesta el director y la maestra de primero, ha sido difícil que 
los padres se interesen en la educación de sus hijos no apoyan lo 
suficiente en la realización de tareas en casa. 
San Sebastián Huehuetenango. 
Caserío Tuitzquimac, Aldea T￾Xe´joj 
1. Todas las clases tienen material didáctico atractivo 
2. El profesor de tercero primaria daba instrucciones en Mam a sus
estudiantes en el momento de iniciar la prueba de lectura. Fue imposible 
desalojarlo del aula 
3. En esta escuela funciona la modalidad de Etapa II que es donde los 
estudiantes que abandonaron la escuela por migración, regresan ya 
"pasados de edad" estudian, para no mezclar jóvenes con niños. 
67 
Escuela Caso específico 
San Sebastián Huehuetenango. 
Caserío Tuitzquimac, aldea T￾Xe´joj 
1. Tienen una cocina informal la cual no es propia de la escuela, sino es de 
la comunidad, y no tiene las condiciones necesarias para elaborar la 
refacción escolar. 
2. Se les brinda refacción escolar (atol y un banano), en el horario de 10:00 
am, teniendo 15 minutos de refacción y 30 de receso, el director indica 
que no se les proporciona desayuno a los niños, porque el presupuesto que 
brinda el gobierno no alcanza, y no se cuenta con el apoyo de los padres 
de familia. 
3. La escuela únicamente cuenta con un corredor y 3 aulas multigrado. 
4. No se tiene circulación de la escuela. 
5. Las letrinas (pozo ciego) que utilizan los niños no son propias de la 
escuela (son de la comunidad), y están en pésimas condiciones, el lugar 
donde se encuentran es un riesgo para integridad física de los niños, no 
son accesibles. 
6. Lavamanos, se cuenta con tres lavamanos los que fueron donados por 
estudiantes de la Salle de la cabecera departamental de Huehuetenango, 
pero las autoridades comunales y vecinos indicaron que los tomaban 
como parte de la comunidad y no de la escuela. 
7. El director indicó que la comunidad es conflictiva, y por rumores entre 
ellos mismos que el MINEDUC quería apropiarse del espacio donde se 
encuentra la escuela, la comunidad restringió a los docentes únicamente a 
tres aulas, la dirección y el corredor principal de la escuela. 
8. No se tiene timbre en la escuela. Para alertar a los estudiantes de la hora 
de entrada y salida el director utiliza la bocina de su carro 
Santa Eulalia. Aldea Guaxacoy 
1. Es una escuela de un solo maestro 
2. Tienen una refacción muy buena. Todo el producto proviene del huerto 
que cuidan entre los alumnos. Una madre es la coordina el trabajo de la 
cocina y los turnos. 
3. Poseen ayuda del gobierno central. 
4. En toda la escuela solo hay una niña que recibe clases en sexto primaria 
los demás son niños. 
5. Hay mucho humo, pero como se encuentra en un lugar abierto, depende 
de las corrientes de aire para que la clase reciba el humo. 
6. Los niños parecen tener más edad. Los niños son más grandes en tamaño 
para el grado que cursan 
Santa Eulalia. Canton Nueva 
Florida 
1. No existe energía eléctrica en la escuela 
2. Esta escuela es más lejana de la cabecera del municipio que Guaxacoy, 
pero están en el mismo sector. Los niños son más pequeños en tamaño 
que los observados en aquella escuela. 
3. De refacción sirven un atol a los estudiantes. 
 San Juan Ixcoy. Aldea 
Yulgüitza 
1. Como en todas las escuelas, se realizaron dos observaciones en los niños 
de primer año primaria. Durante la segunda observación, los alumnos 
están más inquietos. 
2. La maestra de grado atribuye la situación a que no desayunaron. 
3. No se observó ninguna venta de alimentos 
4. La escuela tiene OPF, y está actualizada en 2017 como lo solicitó el 
MINEDUC, sin embargo no recibieron apoyo para la compra de los 
alimentos hasta el momento 
68 
Annex No. 6. Evaluation Tools 
d. Instrumento No. 1-LB-EDUCAMOS. Directores 
Escuela: __________________________________________________________ 
Municipio:________________________________________________________ 
Comunidad:_______________________________________________________ 
Nombre:__________________________________________________________ 
Intervención_______ Control_______ 
1. ACOMPAÑAMIENTO PEDAGÓGICO 
2. Gestión Escolar Si No 
1. ¿Tiene una recopilación de la legislación educativa que se utiliza en la 
dirección? 
 
2. ¿Conoce algún Manual de funciones del director? 
2.1 ¿Aplica el manual de funciones del director? 
 
3. ¿Comparte con el personal docente el contenido de las instrucciones, 
circulares o correspondencia que emanan del CTA y DIDEDUC? 
 
4. ¿Qué medio(s) usa el CTA para comunicarse con el director? 
5. ¿Tiene un protocolo / archivo que recopila los diferentes formatos para 
reportar al MINEDUC? 
 
6. ¿Tiene conocimiento de los procesos administrativos que se usan en la 
69 
dirección (Planificación, organización, dirección y control? 
3. EDUCACION BILINGÜE Si No 
1. ¿Se desarrolla el proceso de la enseñanza del idioma materno de los 
estudiantes? 
 
2. ¿Aplica la planificación curricular a nivel regional? 
3. ¿Desarrolla el proceso de educación bilingüe? 
4. ADMINISTRACION DE ALIMENTOS Si No 
1. ¿Cuenta con registro (Kardex y calendario) para el control y manejo de 
los alimentos dentro de la bodega escolar? 
 
2. ¿Se practica en la escuela los principios básicos para mantener los 
alimentos almacenados? 
 
3. ¿Se aplica en la escuela el principio de primero en entrar y primero en 
salir (productos alimenticios) y observan fechas de vencimiento? 
 
4. ¿Se practican normas de higiene al momento de manipular y preparar 
los alimentos? 
 
5. ¿Conocen y aplican técnicas de almacenamiento de alimentos 
perecederos y no perecederos? 
 
5. Asistencia de maestros 
Indicador Situación a 
verificar / días 
faltados 
En Fb Mz Ab My Jn 
Asistencia 
maestros 
Primer Grado 
Segundo Grado 
Tercer Grado 
Cuarto Grado 
Quinto Grado 
Sexto Grado 
6. Asistencia estudiantes (2017) : 
Indicador Situación a 
verificar / días 
faltados 
Total 
estudiant
es 
inscritos 
En Fb Mz Ab My Jn 
Asistencia 
estudiantes 
Primer Grado 
Segundo Grado 
Tercer Grado 
Cuarto Grado 
Quinto Grado 
Sexto Grado 
7. Desayuno escolar 
Observación SI NO 
Los padres o cocineros/as contratados están preparando y sirviendo la comida 
escolar todos los días de clase 
 
Por lo menos 30% de los alimentos utilizados para la preparación de la merienda 
escolar vienen de recursos locales no-USDA (padres, huertos, grupos ME, 
 
70 
comunidad) 
Comités de refacción escolar y las organizaciones de padres de familia (OPFs) 
implementan planes de compras y/o menús (incluyendo compra de alimentos 
nutritivos) para utilización óptima del subsidio del MINEDUC para conformar la 
ración base 
 
Se ha incrementado la cantidad de alimentos de fuentes no USDA (e.g. padres, 
huertos, grupos ME, comunidad, alcaldías) desde la medición del año anterior. 
 
Desembolso oportuno del subsidio MINEDUC a la escuela 
8 Aspectos varios 
Observación SI NO 
Maestros demuestran la aplicación de nuevas técnicas, herramientas o 
metodologías de la enseñanza de lectoescritura 
 
Los padres asisten por lo menos a 2 reuniones al año de los OPF (incluyendo 
maestros) 
 
Los maestros o directores, enseñan al menos tres buenas prácticas de salud, 
higiene o nutrición 
Grupos de Mujeres Empoderadas funcionando y el ahorro es utilizado para 
apoyar a los hijos en la escuela. 
 
La escuela recibe apoyo de otras organizaciones /programas 
9. Lectoescritura 
1. ¿Cuáles de las siguientes técnicas de la enseñanza de lectoescritura aplican sus docentes de primer 
a tercer grado? 
Aspectos de lecto escritura Si No 
1. ¿Tienen disponible el Libro Aprendizaje de la Lectoescritura? 
2. ¿Lo usan? 
3. ¿Qué temas del libro aplican? 
4. ¿Cuentan con CNB? 
5. ¿Sus docentes usan y manejan el CNB de su respectivo grado? 
6. ¿Sus docentes participan en comunidades de aprendizaje? 
Instrumento No. 1B-LB-EDUCAMOS. 
Directores – Género complemento 
1. En los hogares de ésta comunidad, por lo regular ¿quién toma siguientes decisiones? 
a. Cuando llevar a los hijos al centro de salud Padre madre ambos 
b. Quien lleva los hijos al centro de salud Padre madre ambos 
c. Quien decide si los hijos siguen o no 
estudiando 
Padre madre ambos 
d. Quien decide si la familia puede / debe 
invertir en algún tipo de negocio 
Padre madre ambos 
2. ¿Se cuenta con OPF / comité de padres en la escuela? Si No 
71 
2.1 En caso de ser así, me puede indicar quienes ocupan los siguientes puestos: 
Presidente Hombre mujer 
Vicepresidente Hombre mujer 
Secretario Hombre mujer 
Tesorero Hombre mujer 
Vocal I Hombre mujer 
Vocal II Hombre mujer 
Vocal III Hombre mujer 
3. ¿Cuáles son los principales trabajos que desempeñan los padres y madres? 
Hombres Mujeres 
 
4. Por lo general, ¿quiénes dedican más tiempo a las actividades de la escuela? 
Mujeres Hombres Iguales Depende del cargo 
5. ¿cuánto tiempo a la semana dedican las madres colaboradoras a venir a la escuela a cocinar? 
________________________________________________ horas 
6. En la comunidad quienes asisten con mayor frecuencia a: 
Reuniones de padres de familia en la escuela Padre madre ambos 
Reuniones con los miembros del cocode y 
autoridades locales 
Padre madre ambos 
Actividades deportivas Padre madre ambos 
Quienes participan en política para ser electos 
alcaldes auxiliares 
Padre madre ambos 
Quienes son parte del Cocode Padre madre ambos 
7. ¿Se podría decir que en esta comunidad predomina la cultura machista? 
Si predomina No predomina 
72 
e. Instrumento No. 2A-LB-EDUCAMOS Docentes 
73 
74 
75 
76 
f. Instrumento No. 2B-LB-EDUCAMOS 
Docentes – Género 
Cuestionario Docentes 
1. Principales causas del abandono del ciclo escolar: 
a. Niñas: 
 Falta de dinero 
 Por obligaciones en la casa para el cuidado de hermanos/as menores 
 Es costumbre que la niña no estudie 
 Ayuda a los oficios domésticos en la casa 
 Se casan a temprana edad 
 No les gusta estudiar 
 Otros 
b. Niños: 
 Falta de dinero 
 Ayuda al padre con actividades en la agricultura 
 Tiene que trabajar para ayudar a la economía del hogar 
 La familia es numerosa 
 Se casan a temprana edad 
 No les gusta estudiar 
 Otros 
2. ¿Sabe de algún caso de niños/niñas que trabajen para aportar dinero a su familia. 
Si _____ No: _______ 
¿Qué trabajo(s) realiza? 
Niñas Niños 
 
3. ¿Se han dado casos de desnutrición en niñas y niños en la Escuela? 
Niñas: ______ Niños: _________ 
4. ¿En lectoescritura, quienes manifiestan mayor rendimiento? 
Niñas: Niños: 
¿Cuáles considera que son los motivos en la diferencia del rendimiento? 
77 
5. ¿En la escuela se han dado casos de embarazos de niñas los últimos 2 años? 
SI: NO 
¿A qué edad? ______________ 
6. En la escuela se ha impartido temas de salud sexual y reproductiva para los estudiantes? 
Si: No: 
¿En qué grados?____________________________________ 
7. ¿Participan mujeres en las OPF o comités de padres de familia? 
Si: No: 
 Que cargos ocupan: 
8. ¿Se han detectado casos de Violencia de Género en estudiantes de la escuela? 
No: Si: ¿Dónde?________________________________ 
¿Quién está más expuesta/o? ____________________________________________ 
¿Qué acciones de protección se han tomado? ____________________________________ 
g. Instrumento No. 3-LB-EDUCAMOS 
Padres / Madres 
Cuestionario para padres de familia 
Municipio: 
Cuilco Municipio: 
San Gaspar 
Ixchil 
San Pedro Necta 
San Pedro 
Soloma Comunidad 
Santa Cruz 
Barillas 
Santa Eulalia 
 
0. Buenos días, ¿cómo se siente el día de hoy? 
1. ¿Está de acuerdo en participar en este estudio respondiendo a las preguntas? 
Si 
No
2. ¿Cuáles son esas prácticas o hábitos de salud o higiene que debe tener toda persona? 
1. Baño diario 5. Cambio de ropa 
2. Lavado de manos 6. Uso de calzado 
78 
3. Cepillado de dientes 7. Uso de letrina o inodoro 
4. Peinado 8 
 
¿Cuántas 
marcó? 
3. ¿Cuáles son esos lugares donde se puede aprender o conseguir información sobre las prácticas o hábitos 
de salud e higiene que debe tener toda persona? 
1. Puesto de salud /Centro de convergencia 6. Iglesias 
2. Centro de salud 7. Bibliotecas 
3. Hospital 8 
4. Clínicas de ONG / Clínicas privadas 
5. Escuelas / Institutos / colegios 
¿Cuántas 
marcó? 
4. ¿Qué cosas o aspectos de nutrición o alimentación se deben tomar en cuenta a la hora de preparar 
alimentos? 
1. Buen aporte energético 
5. De acuerdo con formas locales de 
preparación 
2. Proteína de alto valor biológico 
6. Servidos con higiénicas , y 
temperatura adecuadas 
3. Buen aporte de vitaminas y minerales 
(vitamina “A”, hierro y zinc) 
7. Con sabor, textura, y/o colores 
localmente aceptados
 
4. Adecuados según requerimientos de edad y/o 
sexo 8 
¿Cuántas 
marcó? 
5. ¿Cuáles es lugar/es donde se puede aprender o conseguir información sobre buenas prácticas o hábitos de 
alimentación, dieta y nutrición? 
1. Puesto de salud /Centro de convergencia 6. Iglesias 
2. Centro de salud 7. Bibliotecas 
3. Hospital 8 
4. Clínicas de ONG / Clínicas privadas 
5. Escuelas / Institutos / colegios 
¿Cuántas 
marcó? 
6. ¿Qué cosas aprenden o que ganan para su vida los niños/as que van a estudiar en la escuela primaria de 
esta comunidad? (beneficios de la educación) Aprenden: 
1. A leer y escribir 
8. Sobre como nutrirse bien/ evitar 
desnutrición 
2. A Hacer cuentas y cálculos 9. Ser buenos ciudadanos 
3. A hablar bien 10. Respetar los demás 
4. A conoce y valorar su cuerpo 11. Para entrar a un trabajo 
79 
5. Prácticas de higiene 
12. Cómo base, para poder estudiar 
más 
6. Cómo alimentarse bien 
13. Otro (Especifique) 
_____________________________
_____ 
7. Tener buena salud / prevenir enfermedades 
8. ¿Ha observado si su(s) hijo(s) leen por lo menos 30 minutos en la casa? 
Si 
No 
9. ¿Qué libros lee? 
 
h. Instrumento No. 4-LB-EDUCAMOS 
Estudiantes 
Cuestionario para estudiantes
Municipio: 
Cuilco Municipio: 
San Gaspar Ixchil Comunidad: 
San Pedro Necta Escuela: 
San Pedro Soloma Entrevistada/o: 
Santa Cruz Barillas Edad: 
Santa Eulalia 
1. ¿Estás de acuerdo en participar en este estudio respondiendo a las preguntas? 
Si 
No 
2. ¿En qué grado estás? 
4. Cuarto 
5. Quinto 
6. Sexto 
3. En este momento, ¿tienes hambre? 
No (Pasar a siguiente pregunta) 
Si ¿Tienes… Mucha Hambre
Poca 
4. ¿Cuáles son esos lugares donde se puede aprender o conseguir información sobre las prácticas o hábitos de 
salud e higiene que debe tener toda persona? (MARCAR LAS QUE RESPONDA EL/LA ESTUDIANTE) 
1. Puesto de salud / Centro de convergencia 
2. Centro de salud 
3. Hospital 
80 
4. Clínicas de ONG / Clínicas privadas 
5. Escuelas / Institutos / colegios 
6. Iglesias 
7. Bibliotecas 
8. Otro (Especifique) _____________________________________ 
9. No sabe 
¿Cuántas marcó? 
5. ¿Cuáles es lugar/es donde se puede aprender, o conseguir información sobre buenas prácticas o hábitos de 
alimentación, dieta y nutrición? 
1. Puesto de salud / Centro de convergencia 7. Bibliotecas 
2. Centro de salud 8. No sabe 
3. Hospital 
4. Clínicas de ONG / Clínicas privadas ¿Cuántas marcó? 
5. Escuelas / Institutos / colegios 
6. Iglesias 
6. La semana pasada, ¿faltaste algún día a clases? 
Si (Pasar a la siguiente pregunta) 
No (Dar gracias y terminar) 
7. ¿Cuántos días faltaste? 
8. ¿Por qué faltaste a clase? 
1. Por enfermedad 8.1 ¿De qué te enfermaste? 
2. Trabajo en casa 1. Del estómago 
3. Trabajo en parcela 2. Fiebre 
4. No tuve ganas 3.Gripe 
5. viaje familiar 4. Tos 
6 
5. Dolor de 
muela 
6. Dolor de oído 
7 
9. Hablemos sobre tu alimentación del día de ayer, tu: 
 
S
i No ¿Qué comiste? 
Desayunaste 
Refacción mañana 
Almuerzo 
Refacción tarde 
Cena 
81 
i. Instrumento No. 5-LB-EDUCAMOS 
Madres Colaboradoras 
Cuestionario para Madres Colaboradoras 
Municipio: 
Cuilco Municipio: 
San Gaspar Ixchil 
San Pedro Necta 
San Pedro Soloma Comunidad 
Santa Cruz Barillas 
Santa Eulalia 
 
1. ¿Qué cosas o aspectos de nutrición o alimentación se deben tomar en cuenta a la hora de preparar 
alimentos? 
1. Buen aporte energético 
5. De acuerdo con formas 
locales de preparación 
2. Proteína de alto valor biológico 
6. Servidos con higiénicas , y 
temperatura adecuadas 
3. Buen aporte de vitaminas y minerales (vitamina 
“A”, hierro y zinc) 
7. Con sabor, textura, y/o 
colores localmente aceptados
 
4. Adecuados según requerimientos de edad y/o sexo 
¿Cuántas 
marcó? 
2. Cuando se hacen preparaciones o comidas para grupos grandes de niños/as, ¿Qué cuidados 
básicos de almacenamiento y seguridad higiénica de alimentos y preparaciones, se deben tomar en 
cuenta? (inocuidad de alimentos) 
1. La comida debe taparse 
2. Uso de agua entubada, si no hay agua entubada, el agua está almacena en recipientes 
donde no quepan las manos, para servirla usan algún chorrito o tipi tap. 
3. La comida se procesa en mesas o tablas separadas según sea carne, verdura o fruta 
4. Debe de haber un basurero, tapado 
5. No debe de haber residuos de comida o basura en el piso 
6. Los cocineros tienen que lavarse las manos antes de cocinar, y hacerlo bien (lavado con 
jabón y agua corriendo, y por lo menos 20 segundos, y secarse bien con toallas limpias no 
con gabacha) 
7. Al cocinar, las cocineras no usan anillos ni tienen pintadas las uñas 
82 
8. Se hace análisis microbiológico al agua (que no haya presencia de bacterias E.coli o 
coliformes) 
9. No deben de haber animales sueltos en la cocina (perros, gatos, gallinas, etc). 
10. Otro (Especifique) __________________________________ 
 
11. No sabe / No responde 
j. Instrumento No. 6-LB-EDUCAMOS 
Observación 
Instrumento de observación 
Municipio:________________________Escuela_______________________________ 
Indicador Situación a verificar Respuestas 
Número de 
escuelas con 
instalaciones 
sanitarias 
mejoradas 
Sistema de alcantarillado Si No 
Sistema Séptico Si No 
Letrina de pozo (tiene un revestimiento que 
evita la contaminación del suelo) 
Si No 
Letrina de pozo con una loza Si No 
Inodoro de compostaje Si No 
Letrinas mejoradas ventiladas Si No 
Indicador Situación a verificar Respuestas 
Porcentaje de escuelas 
con agua y jabón en una 
estación de lavado de 
manos frecuentemente 
utilizado por los 
estudiantes 
¿Existe un lugar para lavado de manos? Si No 
Si la respuesta, es afirmativa: 
¿Se dispone de agua? 
Si No 
¿Se dispone de jabón? Si No 
¿Es utilizada frecuentemente por los estudiantes? Si No 
Cumple con criterios de agua + jabón + uso Si No 
¿Los estudiantes se lavan correctamente las 
manos con 5 de 8 pasos? 
Si No 
Observaciones (Nota) hablar y verificar con el encargado de comisión de limpieza 
Indicador Situación a verificar Respuestas 
Porcentaje de escuelas 
que tienen la cocina 
limpia y utensilios de 
comida, previo a su uso, 
de acuerdo con los 
estándares aceptados 
¿Cómo se encuentra los trastos o utensilios que se 
usan para cocinar, previo a su uso? (Ollas, 
sartenes, cacerolas, jarillas, comales, cuchillos): 
1. Limpios Si No 
2. Secos Si No 
3. Cubiertos o tapados Si No 
4. Colocados en lugar especial Si No 
Cumple con 3 de los 4 criterios Si No 
Observaciones: 
83 
Indicador 33: 
1. La comida debe taparse 
2. Uso de agua entubada, si no hay agua entubada, el agua está almacena en recipientes 
donde no quepan las manos, para servirla usan algún chorrito o tipi tap. 
3. La comida se procesa en mesas o tablas separadas según sea carne, verdura o fruta 
4. Debe de haber un basurero, tapado 
5. No debe de haber residuos de comida o basura en el piso 
6. Los cocineros tienen que lavarse las manos antes de cocinar, y hacerlo bien (lavado 
con jabón y agua corriendo, y por lo menos 20 segundos, y secarse bien con toallas 
limpias no con gabacha) 
7. Al cocinar, las cocineras no usan anillos ni tienen pintadas las uñas 
8. Se hace análisis microbiológico al agua (que no haya presencia de bacterias E.coli o 
coliformes) 
9. No deben de haber animales sueltos en la cocina (perros, gatos, gallinas, etc). 
10. Otro (Especifique) __________________________________ 
11. No sabe / No responde 
Disponibilidad de agua mejorada. 
Como la escuela tiene acceso a una fuente disponible de agua de la 
comunidad, grifo público, tubería, pozo, pozo protegido, nacimiento 
protegido, recolección de agua de lluvia. Hay que preguntar si el agua 
esta normalmente disponible de la fuente identificada(al director) 
k. Instrumento No. 7-LB-EDUCAMOS 
Observación de atención de estudiantes 
Observación de la atención de los estudiantes 
Observaciones Intra-aula de lo siguiente: 
Durante 10 minutos, el observador selecciona un minuto en forma aleatoria, y durante el mismo 
se dedica a observar el comportamiento de los estudiantes con respecto a la clase que se estaba 
impartiendo, se hace solo en períodos de clase que implicaban al profesor dando una “clase 
normal”, en la que éste interactuaba con sus estudiantes, utilizando frecuentemente ayudas 
audiovisuales tales como el pizarrón. 
Las observaciones se hacen en primero primaria durante períodos de clase tales como 
matemáticas, estudios sociales, ciencias naturales y lenguaje; evitando la observación de clases 
donde se hizo un dictado o aquellas de corte artístico, o en las que los estudiantes necesitaban 
84 
salir o entrar constantemente a las aulas. El observador, durante el minuto de evaluación, cuenta 
cuántos estudiantes encajan en la siguiente división 
a. Distraídos: mirando hacia las puertas, ventanas o techo, hablando en voz baja o 
murmurando, pensando o meditando, jugando con algo, comiendo, bebiendo y o 
masticando 
b. Con atención hacia algo diferente: mirando, leyendo o revisando algo insistentemente, 
escribiendo o dibujando algo sin levantar la cabeza, recostado completamente sobre el 
pupitre/mesa 
c. Haciendo actividad distractora: riendo a carcajadas o con sonidos audibles, golpeando 
algo (con pies o manos), caminando o corriendo dentro o hacia fuera del aula 
d. Sin motivación: con señales de sueño, bostezando, cabeceando, o durmiendo en el aula 
e. Con actividad distractora grupal: platicando con toro compañero, tocando a otro 
compañero/a, tirando algo a un compañero/a, pegando o golpeando a un compañero. 
Observación de Atención de los estudiantes 
Nombre de la escuela ____________________________________________ 
Nombre del Municipio ___________________________________________ 
Nombre de la comunidad____________________________________________________ 
Número total de estudiantes en clase__________ 
Observación de lo que hace el docente: 
Observación 1 2 
Estudiantes distraídos viendo hacia otro lado 
Estudiantes distraídos en una actividad motriz 
Estudiantes distraídos en comunicación 
Estudiantes distraídos con señales de sueño o cansancio 
Estudiantes con una actividad distractora del grupo 
85 
Anexo No. 7. Teacher Survey Results (Spanish) 
1. Respuestas Generales 
1.1. Datos de los Maestros 
Concepto Descripción 
Sexo: Masculino 38.8%, Femenino 61.2% 
Idioma materno: Español 50%, Mam 20.2%, Q´anjob´al 28.7% 
Edad: Media 34.57 años, Hombre 35.63, mujer 33.87 
1.2. Datos escolares 
Concepto Descripción 
Idioma en el que imparte clases: Español 96%, Mam 17.2%, Q´anjob´al 33.33% 
Idioma materno español: Idioma maya entiende 19.1% 
Idioma maya habla 14.9% 
Idioma maya Lee 14.9% 
Idioma maya escribe 12.8% 
Idioma materno maya: Idioma español entiende 100% 
Idioma español habla 100% 
Idioma español Lee 100% 
Idioma español escribe 100% 
Tipo de contrato: Renglón 011 80.6%, Renglón 021 13.6%, 
Renglón 029 1%, Renglón 031 1%, Municipal 
1.9%, otro 1.9% 
Título: MEPR 8.7%, MEPU 35%, PEM 15.5%, 
Universitario 5.8%, Otros 35% 
Promedio de estudiantes que atiende: 28 estudiantes 
Grados que atiende: Unigrado 34% 
Dos grados 42.7% 
Tres grados 15.5% 
Cuatro grados 1.9% 
Seis grados 3.9% 
86 
1.3. Formación académica 
En relación a la situación de estudios actual y a la formación recibida en el PADEP/ D los 
maestros manifestaron lo siguiente: 
Ilustración 28. Situación académica 
El 26.9% de los maestros de intervención estudian actualmente, y el 15.6% de los maestros del 
área de control lo hacen de igual manera. De acuerdo a las respuestas obtenidas el 44.9% de los 
maestros de áreas de intervención asistió al PADEP y el 47.9% de maestros de control 
igualmente asistieron al PADEP. La gráfica número 26 muestra los datos agrupados tanto de 
intervención como de control, haciendo un promedio para obtener un total. 
((44.9+47.9)/2=46.4%) 
Sobre la asistencia actual al PADEP / D el 11.1% de los docentes en las áreas de intervención lo 
hace mientras que de control asisten 3.6% de los maestros. 
El 49.3% de los maestros reporto estar graduado del PADEP/ D, un 6.7% dijo estar por graduarse 
y un 44% no está graduado. 
En relación a la especialización del profesorado, un 5.9% de los entrevistados lo hizo en 
preprimaria intercultural, un 54.4% en primaria bilingüe intercultural y un 45.6% en primaria 
intercultural. 
El 27.7% de los docentes dice haber participado en algún diplomado de lectoescritura durante los 
últimos tres años. 
En cuanto a la formación en servicio, los docentes afirmaron haber recibido formación en los 
siguientes temas: 
21.25
46.4
7.35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Estudia actualmente Asistió PADEP/D Asiste PADEP/ D
%
Situación academica 
87 
Ilustración 29. Formación recibida en servicio 
En las áreas de intervención el 53.7% de los maestros han recibido formación en 3 o más técnicas 
de calidad para la enseñanza mientras que en las áreas de control, el 67.4% de los maestros ha 
recibido formación en 3 o más técnicas. 
Por otro lado, el 81.6% de los docentes no ha recibido capacitación alguna durante el presente 
año. 
1.3.1. Comunidades de aprendizaje 
La siguiente tabla muestra las principales prácticas sobre comunidades de aprendizaje que 
afirman realizar los maestros: 
Tabla 19. Principales prácticas de comunidades de aprendizaje 
Concepto Porcentaje
Planifica clases de lectura con otros docentes 50.5 
Conversa con otros docentes sobre técnicas para mejorar la enseñanza 93.7 
Observa impartir clases a docentes más experimentados 37.9 
Elabora materiales con otros docentes 45.3 
Revisa evaluaciones de los estudiantes de un colega 68.4 
Participa en, al menos, una comunidad de aprendizaje 54.7 
 Fuente: Elaboración propia 
En áreas de intervención un 44.4% participa en al menos una comunidad de aprendizaje, mientras 
que en áreas de control el 57.1% participan en al menos una. 
58.8%
45.9%
35.3%
43.5%
69.4%
9.4%
77.6%
43.5%
5.9%
42.4%
21.2%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
metodologia enseñanza L1
metodologia enseñanza L2
Educacion Bilingue
Evaluación Lectura
Uso de materiales
Vocabulario académico
Comprensión lectora
Lenguaje oral
Principios neurocognitivos
Manejo del aula
Estrategias de trabajo con padres
Formación recibida
88 
El 14.1% de los docentes se reúne semanalmente con la comunidad de aprendizaje, un 9.9% lo 
realiza quincenalmente y el 76.1% restante lo hace de manera bimensual. 
En el 85.9% de los casos la comunidad de aprendizaje donde participan los docentes está 
integrada por docentes de la misma escuela, en un 25.6% por docentes de otras escuelas, en un 
28.2% con los directores de la escuela y en un 7.7% de los casos participa algún supervisor del 
ministerio de educación. 
1.3.2. Participación de los padres y madres 
Entre los roles que cada padre y madre realizan con relación al apoyo escolar de los hijos en casa, 
se encontró que las madres son quienes juegan un mayor papel en la educación de los hijos, 
mientras que los padres participan principalmente en aquellas donde el juegan el rol de 
proveedor: 
Ilustración 30. Participación de los padres y madres 
1.4. Acompañamiento pedagógico 
Entre los aspectos encontrados en relación a la práctica del acompañamiento pedagógico se 
encuentran los siguientes: 
Tabla 20. Prácticas de acompañamiento pedagógico 
Concepto Respuesta 
Recibe acompañamiento para apoyar su 
labor docente 
Si en escuelas de intervención 38.5% 
Si en escuelas de control 46.9% 
42.7% en promedio 
85.6
59.8
52.6
39.2
56.7
18.6
68
49.5
54.6
41.2
48.5
15.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Se preocupan que los hijos asistan a la escuela
Ayudan con tareas escolares a sus hijos
Proveen materiales necesarios para tareas
Participan en actividades promotoras de lectura
Apoyan en casa el aprendizaje de lectoescritura
Participan en escuela de padres
%
Participación de los padres y madres
Padre Madre
89 
Quien lo visito la última vez que recibió 
acompañamiento 
CTA 40% 
Personal departamental 6.7% 
Acompañante / tutor 11.1% 
Director 55.6% 
Acompañamiento ONG 8.9% 
Así mismo, los docentes evalúan las prácticas que realiza su acompañante pedagógico de la 
siguiente manera: 
Tabla 21. Prácticas del acompañante pedagógico de los docentes 
Concepto Porcentaje 
Acompañante pedagógico conoce sus fortalezas y debilidades 95.5
Acompañante pedagógico lleva un registro sobre su avance en mejoras 72.7 
Acompañante pedagógico le orienta para mejorar 95.5 
1.5. Asistencia 
Al calcular la relación entre estudiantes inscritos y estudiantes que faltan dos o más días a clases 
a la semana, se determinó el porcentaje de estudiantes que asisten regularmente a clases de 
acuerdo a la información proporcionada por los docentes es el siguiente 
Tabla 22. Asistencia de estudiantes a clase 
Intervalos Intervención Control 
Menos del 70% 2.1 0 
70-79% 10.7 4.7 
80-89% 27.6 37.2 
90 – 100% 59.6 58.1 
1.6.Enseñanza de Lectoescritura 
Se determinó que cuando el idioma L1 es el Maya, ya sea Mam o Q´anjob´al que son los idiomas 
de las áreas estudiadas, se enseña el Español como L2 en todos los casos, mientras que cuando el 
idioma L1 es el Español no necesariamente el L2 es un idioma Maya, tal como se observa en la 
siguiente gráfica: 
90 
Ilustración 31. Idioma de enseñanza de la lectoescritura 
El tiempo promedio semanal que se dedica al desarrollo de las sub-áreas del idioma maya es de 
4.86 horas y de idioma español es de 7.94 horas. El promedio de períodos semanales dedicados a 
la enseñanza de la lectoescritura es de 4.94 
En relación a la habilidad oral de los estudiantes, los docentes informaron lo siguiente: 
Tabla 23. Habilidad oral de los estudiantes 
Habilidad oral estudiantes Promedio Intervención Control 
Aula monolingüe español 38.7% 40.7% 36.7% 
Aula monolingüe maya 5.8% 5.6% 6.1% 
Aula bilingüe en proceso 37.9% 37.0% 38.8% 
Aula bilingüe equilibrada 14.75% 11.1% 18.4% 
Se observa que en las comunidades control es menor la prevalencia de aulas monolingües en 
idioma español. 
En las áreas de control se reportó un mayor porcentaje de aulas bilingües equilibradas (18.4%) en 
relación las áreas de intervención (11.1%) 
Sobre la enseñanza de la lectoescritura, las formas reportadas por los maestros mostraron los 
siguientes datos: 
Tabla 24. Enseñanza de lectoescritura en el aula 
Enseñanza Lectoescritura Promedio Intervención Control 
Enseñanza de lectura en idioma maya y enseñanza 
de español como L2 
14.75% 11.1% 18.4% 
Enseñanza de lectura en idioma español y enseñanza 
de idioma maya como L2 
27.02% 29.6% 24.5% 
51
53.1
51
16.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Maya como L1
Español como L2
Español como L1
Maya como L2
Enseñanza de lectoescritura
91 
Enseñanza Lectoescritura Promedio Intervención Control 
Enseñanza de lectura en español pero se respeta y 
valora la cultura de los estudiantes 
25.3% 24.1% 26.5% 
Se enseña a leer en los 2 idiomas 28.2% 25.9% 30.6% 
Las destrezas que más realizan los docentes con sus estudiantes fueron: 
Tabla 25. Destrezas que más realizan con estudiantes. 
Promedio Intervención Control 
Ortografía 38.2 31.5 44.9 
Caligrafía 37 35.2 38.8 
Escritura de palabras 34.35 29.9 38.8 
Fluidez lectora 32.35 25.9 38.8 
Vocabulario 30.3 25.9 34.7 
Estrategias de comprensión oral 30.25 27.8 32.7 
Escritura de oraciones 30.6 20.4 40.8 
Escritura de párrafos 16.75 11.1 22.4 
Gramática 14.55 14.8 14.3 
Principio alfabético 12.8 14.8 10.8 
Fluidez oral 12.9 7.4 18.4 
Conciencia fonológica 12.05 3.7 20.4 
1.7. Materiales 
En promedio el 81.85% de los docentes utiliza libro de texto en L1 para la enseñanza de la 
lectoescritura. Desglosado se obtiene que el 85.4% es en escuelas de intervención y 78.3% en 
control. 
El promedio de docentes que utiliza libro de texto L2 es de 78.1%. En escuelas de intervención 
es el 83.7% y 72.3% en control. 
El 93.9% de los establecimientos en promedio cuentan con biblioteca, caja o colección de libros 
de lectura, correspondiendo el 90% a escuelas de intervención y 97.9% en control, mientras que, 
en el aula, solamente el 63.3% cuentan con biblioteca, caja o colección de libros de lectura en 
promedio, siendo el 51% en intervención y 75.5% en control. 
En promedio el 47.9% de los docentes cuentan con un periodo asignado para visitar la biblioteca; 
46.9% en intervención y 48.9 en control. 
92 
El 42.7% de los casos, los estudiantes pueden llevarse un libro de la biblioteca a su casa en 
promedio, correspondiendo el 39.2% en intervención y 46.7% en control. 
Entre las actividades que se realizan en las bibliotecas figuran las siguientes: 
Tabla 26. Actividades que se realizan en la biblioteca 
Concepto Promedio 
Lectura individual 80.90% 
Lectura grupal 27.70% 
Talleres de literatura 3.40% 
Presentación de autores nacionales 6.70% 
Juegos literarios 15.70% 
Consultas para tareas 41.60% 
Consulta para actividades en clase 40.40% 
Los libros de lectura no existen en abundancia especialmente si es en idioma Maya, el 21.9% en 
promedio se encuentran disponibles en las escuelas correspondiendo el 31.4% a los docentes de 
áreas de intervención y 11.1% en áreas de control. 
Los docentes manifestaron tener acceso a los siguientes recursos: 
Tabla 27. Recursos a los que los docentes tienen acceso 
Recursos Promedio Intervención Control 
Libro aprendizaje de la 
lectoescritura 83.35% 82.6% 84.1% 
Libro herramientas de evaluación 44.50% 41.3% 47.7% 
Guía orientación perfil lingüístico 8.95% 4.3% 13.6% 
Libro enseñanza comprensión 
lectora 44.50% 41.3% 47.7% 
Guía de lecciones modelo 5.50% 6.5% 4.5% 
Los materiales que los docentes han utilizado para la enseñanza de la lectoescritura se encuentran 
los siguientes: 
Tabla 28. Materiales utilizados por los docentes para la enseñanza de la lectoescritura 
Materiales ha utilizado Promedio Intervención Control 
Folleto con lecturas para el 
estudiante 12.45% 15.8% 9.1% 
Folleto con lecturas español 72.85% 68.4% 77.3% 
Serie de 8 mega libros Leo y me 
divierto 7.50% 10.5% 4.5% 
93 
Rotafolio de la serie aprendo a leer 31.70% 31.6% 31.8% 
Antología arcoíris intercultural 2.65% 5.3% 0 
1.8.Evaluación y monitoreo 
Las principales formas de comprobación del avance en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes se listan 
a continuación: 
Tabla 29. Formas de comprobación de avance 
Método de comprobación Promedio Intervención control 
Exámenes escritos 80.15% 72.50% 87.80% 
Preguntas orales 81.00% 80.40% 81.60% 
Tareas 77.95% 80.40% 75.50% 
Observación 48.95% 51% 46.90% 
Hojas de trabajo 81.00% 82.40% 79.60% 
Listas de cotejo 43.20% 33.30% 53.10% 
En cuanto a las herramientas de evaluación utilizadas por los docentes, se observa que predomina 
el uso de las preguntas y de pruebas objetivas, seguido de listado de cotejo como las más 
utilizadas 
Tabla 30. Herramientas de evaluación utilizadas en el aula 
Herramienta evaluación más 
utilizada Promedio Control Intervención 
Preguntas 82.40% 79.60% 85.20% 
Pruebas objetivas 70.15% 75.50% 64.80% 
Lista de cotejo 50.70% 55.10% 46.30% 
Portafolio 30.05% 28.60% 31.50% 
Resolución de problemas 25.20% 24.50% 25.90% 
Diario de clase 24.10% 20.40% 27.80% 
Mapa conceptual 21.25% 18.40% 24.10% 
Escala de calificación 17.70% 22.40% 13% 
Debate 13.70% 16.30% 11.10% 
Ensayo 8.80% 10.20% 7.40% 
Texto paralelo 8.55% 4.10% 13% 
Proyecto 7.95% 12.20% 3.70% 
Rúbrica 5.65% 2% 9.30% 
Mapa mental 5.80% 6.50% 5.10% 
Estudio de casos 4.90% 6.10% 3.70% 
94 
2. Otros resultados de Docentes 
2.1. Formación Recibida 
El 91.8% de los docentes utiliza alguna herramienta para diagnosticar el nivel de lectura de sus 
estudiantes. Sin embargo, solamente el 59.5% utiliza la evaluación Basada en Currículo EBC 
para medir el progreso de sus estudiantes en lectura. 
En cuanto a la evaluación del dominio del idioma español, el 80.7% de los docentes utiliza 
alguna herramienta para diagnosticar el dominio, aunque solamente el 49.4% ha utilizado el perfil 
lingüístico para diagnosticar el dominio oral del idioma español. 
Los docentes fueron consultados sobre su formación en técnicas de calidad para la enseñanza, las 
cuales después de aprendidas pueden ser aplicadas en su respectiva actividad magisterial. La 
respuesta que se obtuvo de los 103 maestros 54 de intervención y 47 de control fue la siguiente: 
Tabla 31. Formación recibida en servicio 
Tema Intervención Control 
Metodología enseñanza L1 48.8% 68.2% 
Metodología enseñanza L2 46.3% 45.5% 
Educación Bilingüe 36.6% 34.1% 
Evaluación Lectura 41.5% 45.5% 
Uso de materiales 70.7% 68.2% 
Vocabulario académico 9.8% 9.1% 
Comprensión lectora 65.9% 88.6% 
Lenguaje oral 46.3% 40.9% 
Principios neurocognitivos 7.3% 4.5% 
Manejo del aula 34.1% 50.0% 
Estrategias de trabajo con padres 24.4% 18.2% 
2.2. Gestión del aula 
Dentro de las estrategias que les permiten ser más eficaces, los docentes organizan el aula en un 
solo grupo con todos los estudiantes en un 57%, en grupos por dominio de idioma en un 3.2%, en 
grupos por conocimiento / habilidad 5.4% y un 34.4% en grupos por grado en las escuelas 
multigrado 
95 
En la situación cuando un estudiante no sabe la respuesta correcta, el 9.7% de los maestros le 
dicen la respuesta correcta y pasan a otro niño, 25.8% escriben la respuesta correcta en la pizarra, 
4.3% pasa a otro niño y el 60.2% le da tiempo para pensar en otra respuesta. 
En cuanto a estrategias de disciplina el 13.8% de los docentes dan premios a sus estudiantes, el 
44.4% explican el problema, 3.1% quitan los privilegios, 38.1% buscan el apoyo de los padres, 
mientras que, solamente el 1% utiliza el castigo como estrategia de disciplina. 
 
96 
Annex No. 9. Techniques and Tools Used by School Administrators
(Spanish) 
Para determinar las técnicas y herramientas que utilizan actualmente los directores se evaluaron 
los siguientes aspectos: 
a. Procedimientos básicos del MINEDUC: Se midieron once prácticas sobre el 
acompañamiento pedagógico que realizan los directores con los maestros los cuales son: 
i. Planifica con los docentes de su escuela 
ii. Visita las aulas diariamente 
iii. Observa a los docentes impartir clases 
iv. Modela clases a los docentes de su escuela 
v. Orienta la reflexión con cada docente sobre su práctica de enseñanza 
vi. Sugiere técnicas de enseñanza a los docentes 
vii. Sugiere herramientas de evaluación a los docentes 
viii. Promueve la conformación de comunidades de aprendizaje entre docentes 
ix. Trabaja con los docentes de su escuela materiales didácticos 
x. Revisa evaluaciones de los estudiantes con los docentes de su escuela para 
mejorar la enseñanza 
xi. Retroalimenta a los docentes de la escuela sobre cómo mejorar la enseñanza 
b. Liderazgo en la comunidad: Se midieron tres prácticas sobre la promoción que realizan 
los directores en la comunidad para la participación de los padres de familia en el proceso 
de enseñanza – aprendizaje de sus hijos 
i. Promueve la participación de padres y madres en actividades de la escuela 
ii. Se realizan actividades para promover actividades de lectoescritura 
iii. Se realizan talleres para padres y madres enfocados en la lectoescritura 
c. Gestión Escolar: Se midieron cinco prácticas relacionadas con el Conocimiento y
aplicación de formularios administrativos del MINEDUC. 
i. Tiene una recopilación de la legislación educativa que se utiliza en la dirección 
ii. Conoce el manual de funciones del director 
iii. Comparte con el personal docente el contenido de las instrucciones, circulares o 
correspondencia que emana del CTA y DIDEDUC 
iv. Tiene una recopilación de los diferentes formatos para reportar al MINEDUC 
v. Tiene conocimiento de los procedimientos administrativos que se usan la 
dirección 
d. Administración de alimentos: Se midieron cinco prácticas relacionadas a la 
administración y manejo de alimentos. 
i. Cuentan con registros para el control y manejo de los alimentos dentro de la 
bodega escolar 
97 
ii. Se practica en la escuela los principios básicos para mantener los alimentos 
almacenados 
iii. Se aplica en la escuela el principio de primero en entrar y primero en salir y se 
observan fechas de vencimiento de los productos alimenticios 
iv. Se practican normas de higiene al momento de manipular y preparar los 
alimentos 
v. Conocen y aplican técnicas de almacenamiento de alimentos perecederos y no 
perecederos. 
Se establecieron los siguientes criterios para determinar el cumplimiento de cada uno de los 
aspectos: 
Tabla 32. Criterios de evaluación del indicador 
Aspecto Cantidad de 
prácticas evaluadas 
Mínimo de 
prácticas que 
deben cumplir 
punteo 
Procedimientos básicos del 
MINEDUC 11 6 1 
Liderazgo en la comunidad 3 2 1 
Gestión Escolar 5 3 1 
Administración de alimentos 5 3 1 
Definidas por el equipo consultor 
Los directores para cumplir con el 
indicador deben de poseer 4 puntos. 
Para obtener un punto es necesario 
realizar al menos 6 procedimientos 
básicos del MINEDUC, 2 de 
liderazgo en la comunidad, 3 de 
gestión escolar y 3 de administración 
de alimentos, lo que demostrará que 
usan nuevas técnicas o herramientas 
administrativas. 
En áreas de intervención el 76.7% de 
los directores mostró el uso de 
herramientas administrativas, 
mientras que, en áreas de control el 
65.5% de los directores lo hizo. 
Ilustración 32. Porcentaje de directores que cumplen con 
el mínimo de prácticas 
86.4
89.8
89.8
91.5
60 70 80 90 100
Procedimientos básicos
Liderazgo en la comunidad
Gestión escolar
Administración de alimentos
%
Prácticas más utilizadas por directores 
Fuente: Elaboración propia N=60
98 
Annex No. 8. Baseline Terms of Reference (ToR) 
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANCY FOR THE EDUCAMOS GUATEMALA PROGRAM 
BASELINE   
Project  Concern  International  (PCI)  has  received  funding  from  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture (USDA) to implement the third phase of the Food for Education program, called “Education 
with Quality and Improved  Feeding  Aimed at  Sustainability  (EDUCAMOS),”  from  2016  to  2021.   These 
terms of reference have been prepared in order to solicit offers from consultancy firms to carry out the 
baseline  study  for  this program. The proposal document should include a  technical as well as  financial 
proposal. 
I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM 
PCI,  in  cooperation  with  the  USDA,  has  implemented  two  phases  of  the  Food  for  Education  (FFE) 
program from 2010 to 2013, and from 2013‐2016, respectively. Currently it is working in 294 schools in 
the municipalities of Cuilco, San Pedro Necta, San Gaspar Ixchil, Soloma, Barillas and Santa Eulalia in the 
department of Huehuetenango, Guatemala. Activities are coordinated with the Ministry of Education of 
Guatemala (MOE), Technical Administrative Coordinators (CTA), the Ministry of Health (MOH), Municipal 
Councils, Parent Councils (CPF), parents, and directors. The project expects to work directly with 36,000 
students, 1,400 teachers, 1,200 collaborating mothers, 294 parent councils, 330 mother leaders, and 70 
literacy promoters.  
The EDUCAMOS results framework is based on lessons learned from Phases I and II. There are four main 
intermediate results: 1) Improve the quality of literacy education, with activities such as promotion of 
teacher  attendance;  distribution  of  school  supplies  and  materials;  production  of  books  and 
complementary  reading  materials;  and  training  of  teachers  and  directors;  2)  Improve  student 
attentiveness,  which  will  be  achieved  by  means  of  school  feeding  and  the  establishment  of  school 
gardens;  3) Improve  School  Attendance.  This  will  be  addressed  by  means  of  rehabilitation  of  school 
kitchens, enrollment campaigns, raising awareness of the importance of education, and 4) Increased Use 
of Health and Dietary Practices for reduction of health‐related absences, by providing training on health, 
nutrition and hygiene practices, training in food preparation and storage practices, and the construction 
or rehabilitation of water and latrine systems.  
To  promote  sustainability,  EDUCAMOS  includes  four  basic  results:  a)  Increase  capacity  of  government 
institutions, b) Improve policies and the regulatory framework, c) Increase governmental support, and d)
Increase  commitment  by  local  organizations  and  community  groups.  These  results  will  facilitate  the 
involvement  of  key  players  to  provide  follow  up  for  the  activities.    For  example,  through  local 
government funding and collaboration with community authorities the program will continue to address 
barriers to education, hunger will be reduced by means of financial contributions to purchase food, and 
the  establishment  of  school  gardens.    The  program  will  also  continue  improving  school  infrastructure 
based  on  innovative  designs;  enrollment  of  school  age  boys  and  girls  will  be  promoted;  community 
understanding  of  the  benefits  of  education  will  be  increased,  along  with  other  activities  that  are 
expected to continue. See Annex 1: EDUCAMOS Results Framework. 
Based on the agreement with the donor, PCI plans to carry out a Baseline study for the 2016‐2021 phase, 
which  will  allow  it  to  analyze  the  current  status  of  indicators  for  this  new  phase  and  will  provide  a 
reference  point  for measuring  impact  at  the end  of  the  program.   See  Annex  2:  EDUCAMOS  Indicator 
99 
Table.  Note that indicators measured during the final evaluation of the predecessor FFE II program will 
not be re‐measured during the EDUCAMOS baseline. 
II.  PURPOSE AND SCOPE 
The baseline study will provide baseline values for key performance indicators that will be compared at 
mid‐term and endline evaluations, assess the skills, knowledge and practices of beneficiaries in order to 
update the training plan, and to validate the program’s general implementation strategies.  
III.  METHODOLOGY 
The baseline will use a mixed methods approach which includes quantitative  techniques  (for example, 
household and individual surveys collected from a representative sample of participants) and qualitative 
methods (focus groups, key informant interviews, observation). 
In  order  to  better  understand  program  impact,  a  quasi‐experimental  design  will  collect  data  in 
intervention schools as well as control schools that have similar characteristics in terms of four criteria: % 
of illiteracy, % of chronic malnutrition, Human Development Index (HDI) and main language. The external 
evaluation team will review and add additional criteria as needed to refine the final selection criteria for 
the control municipalities  to guarantee  that  the comparison and program schools are similar and valid 
comparisons can be made. For example: Average height of students, number of students and teachers, 
lack  of  interventions  that  are  comparable  to  those  planned  in  EDUCAMOS  (e.g.,  lack  of  NGO  that 
supports  literacy,  nutrition  or  health,  school  feeding,  etc.), socio‐economic  status,  and  household  size 
can  all  be  used.    The  table  below  presents  the  intervention  municipalities  and  the  proposed  control 
municipalities. 
Intervention and control municipalities based on application of initial criteria 
  
No.  Type  Municipality  No. 
Inhabitants % Illiteracy   % Chronic 
Malnutrition HDI  Main language 
1 
Intervention  San Gaspar Ixchil         6,800    27.25  74.7  0.516  Mam 
Control  Colotenango       25,900    34.65  73.8  0.513  Mam 
2 
Intervention  Cuilco       57,100    28.26  52.4  0.562  Spanish 
Control  La Democracia       43,200    29.94  47.9  0.605  Spanish 
3 
Intervention  San Pedro Necta       32,300    23.6  66.5  0.562  Mam 
Control  San Sebastian H.       27,800    19.82  72.2  0.508  Mam 
4 
Intervention  Soloma       47,700    27.22  60.2  0.627  Q´anjob´al 
Control  San Juan Ixcoy       25,800    35.27  71.3  0.474  Q´anjob´al 
5 
Intervention  Santa Eulalia       43,700    27.82  74.4  0.482  Q´anjob´al 
Control  San Mateo Ixtatán       38,000    47.7  79.7  0.494  Q´anjob´al 
100 
6 
Intervention  Barillas     127,200    24.17  73.2  0.562  Spanish, Q´anjob´al
Control  Nentón       41,600    27.09  60.2  0.511  Spanish, Q´anjob´al
Sources: Plan for Zero Hunger Pact, Secretariat for Food and Nutrition Security (SESAN), National Literacy 
Committee (CONALFA) of the MOE, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 
The data will be collected by an external evaluation team in the six program intervention municipalities, 
as well as in the six control municipalities. A total of 60 schools should be selected for the baseline study: 
30 in  the intervention areas and 30 in control areas.  However,  the consultancy  team will propose  the 
sampling strategy based on an appropriate sample power, confidence level and sampling error.  These 
will  be  ratified  by  PCI’s  regional  and  international  office  M&E  staff  in  order  to  ensure  statistically 
representative data. The following method is suggested for the quantitative survey. 
Illustrative sampling for students and parents in the intervention and control areas
Type of 
interviewee
Intervention Area  Control Area 
Number of 
schools
Interviews 
per school
Total 
interviews
Number of 
schools
Interviews 
per school
Total 
interviews
Students  30  5  150  30  5  150 
Parents  30  5  150          
Fourth to sixth grade students (mean age 10 – 12 years) will be randomly selected in each school as they 
are considered to be able to respond adequately and correctly to the evaluation questions. A parent or 
caregiver of the selected student will also be interviewed in the intervention areas (total 150). Key data 
collected  from  parents  will  include  perceptions  of  the  importance  of  primary  education,  the 
identification of household level practices in health and hygiene, and in  food preparation and  storage.  
The quantitative survey that is carried out with the students in the control areas will be focused on the 
key  indicators  such  as  eating  habits,  including  consumption  of  food  at  school,  nutrition  and  hygiene 
practices outside of  school and  reading comprehension. The survey with  students in  the program area 
will be broader to generate additional data related to the interventions and the indicators.  
Additionally,  qualitative  data  will  be  collected  from  key  groups  by  means  of  structured  or  semi‐
structured interviews. Consider use of the following illustrative table. 
Illustrative Sampling and Data Collection Methodology 
Group Sample 
size 
Sample 
Distribution 
Sampling 
Methodology 
/criteria
Key data 
Teachers  60   Two (2) from 
each school in 
the sample 
Random 
sample of 
teachers who 
have been in 
the school for 
a minimum of 
one year 
before data 
 Knowledge and practices of  general 
and literacy teaching methodologies  
 Existing knowledge, practices and 
interventions on health, hygiene, 
nutrition, and water and sanitation 
 Potential for, and progress towards 
sustainability of school feeding 
(example of areas that should be 
evaluated and considered for 
101 
The  baseline’s  approach  should  be  participatory.    In  addition  to  interviews  with  the  above  groups, 
structured interviews should be held with the following key stakeholders: 
 Municipal Council Representatives (Mayors, Council Members, Managers) 
 Local authorities (Community Development Councils, Auxiliary Mayors) 
 MOE staff in Huehuetenango (e.g., DIGEDUCA) 
 Volunteer community staff: collaborating mothers, mother leaders 
 USDA/FAS/Guatemala staff  
collection  sustainability such as government 
collaboration)  
Directors  30  One (1) from 
each school in 
the sample 
Intentional 
Sampling.  The 
director of 
each school in 
the sample 
will be 
interviewed 
 Characteristics of the school 
(infrastructure, demographics, etc.).  
The data will be complemented with 
secondary data available from the 
municipalities, such as development 
plans and municipal evaluations 
 School indicators such as enrollment, 
attendance, attention and school 
performance (these will be cross 
referenced with data from the MOE, 
where available). 
 Potential for, and progress towards 
sustainability of school feeding  
Members of 
Parent 
Councils 
60  Two (2) from 
each school in 
the sample 
Random 
sample of 
those who 
have been 
members for 
at least one 
year 
 Characteristics of the school 
(infrastructure, demographics, etc.).  
The data will be complemented with 
secondary data  available from the 
municipalities, such as development 
plans and municipal evaluations 
 School indicators such as enrollment, 
attendance, attention and school 
performance (these will be cross 
referenced with data from the MOE, 
where available). 
 Potential for, and progress towards 
sustainability of school feeding  
Municipal 
Technical 
Administrative 
Coordinators  
6  At least one (1) 
from each 
program  
municipality  
Intentional 
sampling; one 
representative 
from each 
program 
municipality 
will be 
interviewed 
 Coordination and communication 
among the different actors.  For 
example, members of the 
communities, schools, municipal 
governments and organisms such as 
the Municipal Health, Food and 
Nutrition Security Commission 
(COMUSSAN) 
 Potential for, and progress towards 
sustainability of school feeding   
102 
 Municipal Councils: COMUDE, COMUSSAN 
 Municipal Sustainability Commissions 
 Women Empowered  Groups 
 PCI staff 
 Others 
 
Gender Analysis 
As  part  of  the  baseline,  the  consultancy  team will  design a gender assessment measurement  tool and 
methodology  and  incorporate  it  into  the  baseline  evaluation,  taking  into  account  existing  tools  and 
methodologies4
.    The  gender  assessment  will  help  staff  and  key  stakeholders  understand  the  gender 
context  to  better  design,  implement  and  measure  gender  sensitive  programming,  and  mitigate 
potentially  negative  gender  impacts  at  the  school,  household  and  community  levels.  The  inclusion  of 
specific gender indicators should be considered for periodic measurement of progress over the life of the 
program. 
The main objectives of the gender analysis are: 
 Evaluate different roles, status and power dynamics  for girls and boys in the home, community and 
school environment. 
 Discuss the different roles and the status and power of women and men within the community, the 
home and the school environment. 
 Identify  the  most  prevalent  social  norms  that  prevent  equitable  education  and  propose  behavior 
change strategies. 
 Identify gaps in gender management that could affect the program’s activities and results.  
 Determine how  the program can go  beyond gender equality  to ensure equitable gender  results  for 
boys and girls in the schools. 
Measurement of reading comprehension 
The  consultant  team  will  implement  existing  Ministry  of  Education  reading  comprehension  tests  to 
measure  the  indicator:  “Percentage  of  students  who,  by  the  end  of  two  grades  of  primary  schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text.” The test will be applied 
to  students  who  have  completed  second  grade  and  are  starting  third  grade.    Literal  comprehension 
includes images, phrases, word pictures, picture words, words in context, main character and sequences. 
Inferential  reading  includes  measurement  of  elements  of  the  main  idea,  prediction  and  differences.  
Three  cut‐off  points  will  be  used  and  four  performance  categories  for  the  evaluation:  unsatisfactory, 
needs improvement, satisfactory and excellent.  For satisfactory and above, it is necessary to achieve the 
highest standard of quality.  The administration of the assessment and analysis of the results will be the 
responsibility of the consultant team, who will provide PCI with support documentation and evidence as 
part of their report.   The consultancy team will propose the sampling strategy based on an appropriate 
sample  power,  confidence  level  and  sampling  error,  based  on  the  expectation  of  random  sample  of 
students in the intervention and control schools using a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. 
                                                            
4
 Including but not limited to the following examples; Women’s Empowerment and Nutrition (IFPRI) 
Measuring Women’s Empowerment as a Variable in International Development (World Bank) 
103 
Some additional related evaluation questions to measure students’ reading improvement results might 
include:  
 What behaviors are observed in the general baseline survey with regard to the literacy results? 
 Is there a correlation between the literacy results, students, teachers and school characteristics 
related to program interventions (for example, reading time in class, sex of the reading teacher, 
and of the teacher and student, if the student ate a meal at school the day before, if a student is 
hungry, if the school provides access to reading corners or libraries /size, etc.)?  
 What  behaviors  does  the  teacher  use  in  their  approach  to  learning  in  the  classroom  (for 
example,  classroom  environment  and  organization,  teaching  content  and  methods,  class 
activities, evaluation and use of teaching and learning materials)?  
IV.  SELECTION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM 
The external  evaluation  team  will  be  selected  by means  of  a  competitive  selection  and  hiring  process 
based on professional competencies, experience with evaluation tasks, independence from the program, 
knowledge of the implementation area and understanding of the activities of a school feeding program. 
V.  DURATION OF THE CONSULTANCY 
The consultancy  should last no longer  than 60 business days,  specifically between  June and  July  2017.  
The table below illustrates the main activities with a suggested number of days for each one. 
Activity  Responsible  Number of 
days 
Review of program documentation, results  framework, materials, 
planning  of  field  work  (office).    This  includes  meetings  with  PCI 
representatives  to  review  instruments,  methodology,  time  lines,
coordination and delivery of documentation.  
PCI Guatemala and 
IO M&E staff and 
consultant team 
10 
Incorporation  of  PCI  observations  and  feedback  into  evaluation 
instruments;  standardization  of  consultant’s  technical  field  team 
(PCI staff will be present for the standardization) 
Consultant team  10 
Initial field visits (meeting with local PCI staff), validation and final 
editing    of  the  data  collection  instruments  (with  PCI  staff 
participation) 
PCI staff, 
Consultant team  
3 
Field  work.  The  consultant  will  use  simultaneous  work  teams  to 
collect  data.    This  includes  an  exit  meeting  with  key  PCI  staff  in 
Huehuetenango  to  review,  clarify,  amplify  or  give  feedback  on 
findings or key results.   
PCI staff, 
Consultant team 
16 
Data analysis/preparation and delivery of first draft of report  Consultant team  18 
Results presentation workshop/final feedback  PCI, Consultant 
team 
1 
104 
Revision  and  presentation  of  final  report  (including  the 
observations of the PCI review team)  
Consultant team  2 
Total estimate of work days    60 
Note. In August 2017 the baseline report will be presented to USDA, including an updated indicator table 
and the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). 
VI.  DATA ANALYSIS  
 For  analysis  of  the  quantitative  data  it  is  recommended  that  statistical  packages  such  as  SPSS, 
STATA,  or  Excel  be  used.  The  results  should  be  presented  in  tables  and  graphs  with  the 
corresponding interpretation. 
 For  analysis  of  the  qualitative  data,  it  is  suggested  that  qualitative  analysis  techniques  such  as 
content analysis be used to capture key topics and determine the frequency of the themes.    
VII.  DELIVERABLES 
 The  evaluation  design,  including  the  sampling  strategy,  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  data 
collection methods and instruments, and the data analysis plan;
 A  gender  assessment  methodology,  tools  and  recommendations  on  gender‐specific  indicators  to 
measure at mid‐term and final evaluations; 
 A literacy measurement tool and methodology specific to third graders 
 A work plan and timeline defining the key activities and products of the evaluation; 
 A report outline approved by PCI; 
 A draft report;  
 A  final  report  in Word,  in  Spanish,  which  incorporates  the  feedback  and  contributions  of  the  PCI 
staff on the quantitative and qualitative results; 
 An Excel file that includes the graphs and tables in Spanish and English, so that PCI can translate the 
complete document into English. 
 Output  of  all  quantitative  and  qualitative  analysis,  including:  frequencies,  cross‐tabulations, 
regressions,  and  tests  of  significance  of  quantitative  data;  notes,  recordings,  transcripts,  content 
analysis and frequencies of qualitative data 
 A PowerPoint presentation of key baseline results, in English and Spanish. 
 A  two  to  three  page  executive  summary  that  describes  the  evaluation  design,  key  results  and 
lessons learned. This document will be used to inform key stakeholders about the baseline. It should 
be written in language that is understandable for non‐evaluators. 
 Electronic  presentation  of  all  the  documents  that  are  generated,  including  databases,  recordings, 
etc. 
These products will be reviewed by representatives designated by PCI, which might include the Country 
Director,  the  Huehuetenango  Regional  Director,  the  Program  Coordinator,  the  Huehuetenango  M&E 
officer and the M&E technical advisor from the PCI international office. The PCI International Offfice will 
give final approval for all the products.  
105 
VIII.  CONTENT OF THE FINAL DOCUMENT 
The  content  of  the  baseline  report must  be  approved  by  PCI,  and must  include  at  least  the  following 
elements: 
 Cover page 
 List of acronyms 
 Executive summary  
 Program background 
 Evaluation objectives 
 Methodology  
 Qualitative and quantitative results, analysis by strategic objective and intermediate results  
 Findings 
 Recommendations 
 Annexes (results indicator table, photos, tables, graphs, data collection instruments) 
IX.   PROPOSAL PRESENTATION  
Consultants should present the proposal according to the following guidelines: 
a. Cover page 
b. Technical narrative of no more than 10 pages that includes: 
o Qualifications of key team members and their role on the team
o Sampling strategy
o Quantitative data collection strategy
o Quantitative data analysis plan
o Qualitative data collection strategy
o Qualitative data analysis plan
o Quality assurance plan  
o Activity  timeline  that  includes  document  review,  tool  and  strategy  development,  data 
collection, analysis, reporting and revision, among other required activities  
c. A  budget  for  the  consultancy  which  includes  transportation  costs,  room  and  board  for  field  and 
office work.   PCI will  facilitate coordination in  the  field  to present  the consultant  team  to  the key 
stakeholders. See Annex 3: Budget format
o Mode  of  payment:  PCI  will  pay  40%  on  signing  the  contract,  30%  upon  receipt  of  the 
approved drafts, and the remaining 30% upon delivery of the final document. 
o The services should be invoiced to Project Concern International with NIT 1790686‐5. 
o National consultants and/or consulting firms should inform PCI of the tax regimen under 
which  they  are  registered  and  they  are  directly  responsible  for  presenting  the 
corresponding  declarations  to  the  Superintendencia  de  Administración  Tributaria  (tax 
authority).  
X.   REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSULTING FIRM OR INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT 
a. Degree  in  social  sciences,  education,  public  health  or  similar  field.    Master’s  degree  or  Ph.D. 
preferred. 
b. At  least  three  years’  experience  carrying  out  evaluations  using  qualitative  and  quantitative 
techniques.  
c. Broad  experience  carrying  out  social  service  and  international  development  evaluations, 
preferably with experience in evaluation of school feeding programs. 
d. Experience administering reading comprehension tests with primary school children  
106 
e. It will be advantageous to have experience in evaluation of projects/programs funded by the US 
government. 
f. Demonstrated ability to provide high quality results within proposed time frames. 
g. Include  information  about  project/program  evaluations  carried  out.  Send  a  minimum  of  two 
evaluation examples by email.  
h. Include  a  minimum  of  three  reference  letters  from  organizations  for  which  you  have  done 
consultancies. 
i. Knowledge  of  Guatemala  preferred,  specifically  Huehuetenango:  its  context,  population,  etc.  
which will provide an advantage when coordinating, planning and carrying out activities within 
the cultural context.  
j. Ability to work in the Mam and Q´anjob´al languages preferred.   
XI.   CLARIFICATIONS OR CONSULTATIONS 
 All clarifications or consultations should be sent by email to nsosa@pciguate.org with a copy to 
pwagner@pciguate.org.  Indicate  your  name,  fax/telephone  number,  address  and  other 
pertinent references. 
 These clarifications or consultations must be received before May 19, 2017.  
XII.   THE PROPOSAL 
 PCI has the unilateral and exclusive right to evaluate, decide upon and accept the proposal that 
they consider most appropriate to achieve the objectives of the evaluation. 
 PCI will only contact prequalified proposal submissions 
 None of the documentation will be returned 
 Proposals must be delivered by 4 p.m. on May 26, 2017 
 Proposals should be delivered to: 20 Avenida “A” 3‐25, zona 15, Vista Hermosa 1, Guatemala City 
in a sealed envelope and by email to pwagner@pciguate.org and celliott@pciguate.org.  
 
107 
Annex No. 9. Gender Analysis 
1. Educational Results 
Guatemala is a country where women have been climbing to more positions that are more in 
alignment with their capacity. However, this progress has been slow. In section No. 1, section 22 
of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF 2015-2019), it says "in this 
country, women face difficulties in fully exercising their rights. In ministerial positions, [women] 
occupy only 21.4% while the proportion of congressional seats of the Republic that are occupied 
by women is merely 11.7%. Their participation in Municipal Councils is 2%." 
Girls should be encouraged so that, from their youth, they adopt a mentality of equality in 
participation and in decision-making, in order to forge a different and egalitarian future. 
1.1 Causes of Non-enrollment 
Based on the school census developed in January 2017 by the Ministry of Education 
(MINEDUC), it was established that in the department of Huehuetenango there are 13,031 
children between the ages of 4 and 15 who are outside of the educational system. Among the 
main causes that are mentioned in the census: poverty accounts for 47.1%, 29.9% accounts for 
parents' lack of interest that their children study, and the third cause is the educational supply 
deficit with 16.1%. In the response "others", social factors represent 2.5% and diverse reasons, 
4.4%. 
Enrollment in elementary school throughout the republic has been declining. In the 2016 school 
year, at the national level, 66,499 less students were registered in elementary school, according to 
data from the Directorate of Educational Planning (DIPLAN). 
1.2 Retention (dropout) / Graduation 
According to the data obtained by the MINEDUC, it was possible to establish that in 
Huehuetenango the initial 2016 enrollment of primary school students (generally between seven 
and 12 years old) in the public sector was 96,397 boys and 89,327 girls. Final enrollment 
registers students enrolled by September 30 in public elementary schools, which recorded 92,485 
boys and 85,976 girls according to Table 4.13.14 of the MINEDUC, which means a dropout of 
3,912 boys and 3,351 girls. For girls, retention is 96.24%, with a school dropout rate of 3.75%, 
while for boys, retention is 95.94% and the dropout rate is 4.06%. 
According to the survey conducted by 101 teachers in the elaboration of the EDUCAMOS 
baseline regarding dropout, the main cause for girl dropout rates at 88.4% is that parents decide 
that they need to help at home, performing domestic duties, and/or caring for their younger 
brothers and sisters. As for boys, at 79.8%, the main cause for dropping out is to help with family 
farming tasks. The question is multiple choice, therefore the percentages exceed 100%. 
108 
As can be noted, there is a 
difference of 8.6%, which 
directly affects girls, 
preventing them from 
continuing their studies 
and perpetuating the 
circle of poverty. 
The second cause of 
dropout is poverty, 
however, this cause did 
not show significant 
difference between girls 
(54.7%) and boys 
(55.3%). 
Among other causes 
mentioned by 16.8% of 
teachers, it is not the 
custom for girls to study. 
Also, mentioned as a 
cause of school dropout is 
marriage or civil unions, 
for girls, 33.7% and 26.6% for boys. 
1.3 Attendance / Reasons for Absenteeism 
According to the data obtained from interviews conducted with 802 students in the schools of 
baseline assessment for EDUCAMOS, it was established that 16.8% missed at least one day of 
school in the week prior to the survey. 15.3% of boys were absent in relation to 18.6% of the 
girls. Table 37 shows the causes of absenteeism, where the data are grouped by gender, and the 
intervention schools and control schools were tabulated together. 
Table 37. Cause of School Absenteeism 
Reason 
Gender 
Boys Girls 
Illness 5.4% 11.4% 
Housework 0.9% 1.1% 
Farm work 3.2% 0.0% 
Did not want to go 0.2% 0.3% 
Family Travel 5.6% 5.7% 
Total 15.3% 18.6% 
 Source: Students Self-reporting 
As can be seen in Table 37 in relation to illness, there is a difference of six percentage points 
between boys and girls, indicating that there are circumstances that place girls at a disadvantage 
compared to boys. In addition, this is the main reason why girls do not attend school. Family 
travel and work at home are the reasons that follow. 
55
88
17
0
34
15
10
55
80
0
33
27
12
7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Poverty
Help at home
Girls do not study
Family financial help
Early  marriage
Decision not to study
Emigration to the US
%
Causes of school abandonment
Boys Girls Teacher response N=101
Source: Teacher Survey
Illustration 33. Reason for Dropping Out of School 
109 
1.4 Literacy 
Reading comprehension tests were carried out, using standardized MINEDUC booklets for 
second-graders. These tests were carried out in all 60 sampled schools, with the total number of 
students (965 boys and girls) in the third grade. When comparing the level of achievement 
obtained by boys and girls in the reading test, a slight difference (with no statistical significance) 
is observed in girls' performance, which is higher than that of boys in 4.6% of the total of the 
tests completed. 
Figure 34. Reading Achievement Test
2. Nutritional Status 
According to the nutritional profile of Guatemala published by the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the food guideline is based mainly on cereals (corn), 
sugars, and beans. The energy adequacy of the diet is close to 90%, showing critical deficiencies 
in fats, animal proteins, and micronutrients. 
Nutrition is the foundation of healthy growth for boys and girls and a decisive factor in achieving 
better learning in school. The department of Huehuetenango is one of the departments with the 
highest percentage of malnutrition in boys and girls older than 5 years old. According to data 
from the VI National Survey of Maternal and Child Health 2014-2015 (ENSMI), 68% of children 
who are chronically malnourished, below only Quiché (69%) and Totonicapán (70%). The 
national chronic malnutrition rate is 47%. 
According to the third national census of this size, the prevalence of chronic malnutrition is lower 
in six-year-old girls than in boys of the same age with 33% and 36.6%. However, this is reversed 
when girls reach nine years old (63.5% of girls and 57% of boys). In general, it can be said that 
gender inequality becomes more significant as girls get older. Students usually enter school at six 
or seven years of age. For this reason, support for school feeding by the EDUCAMOS program is 
fundamental. 
32.6%
67.4%
28.0%
72.0%
Achieved Not Achieved
Achievement in the reading test
Girl Boy Reading Tests N=965
110 
2.1 Difference in nutritional status by gender / Minimum Acceptable Diet 
In order to determine 
nutritional status, the main 
data source is the students 
themselves, who according to the 
data obtained from personal 
interviews, both in intervention 
areas and in control areas, could 
establish that there are no 
significant differences in the 
number of meals that are received 
daily, as well as in the variety of 
food between boys and girls, with 
82.2% of girls consuming between 
four and five meals a day compared 
to 83.9% of boys.
To establish the minimum 
acceptable diet, students were 
identified who received at least three meals a day and foods from four or more groups. In this 
segment, 40.6% of girls receive a minimum acceptable diet in relation to 35% of boys. 
2.1.1. Food Consumption that Affects Nutritional Outcomes 
According to the 2015 first-edition UNICEF document, "More Investment", there are three 
micronutrients that are significantly important to children’s health and nutrition, which are 
Vitamin A, iodine, and iron. These are essential for physical growth and the development of 
cognitive and physiological functions as well as resistance to infections. 
3. Parent Involvement and Decision-Making in the Home 
3.1 Decision-making in the Home 
Important household decision-making, that continues in most cases to be men's responsibility, has 
been culturally assigned to them. According to the response obtained by the directors of the 
baseline study and from the focus groups conducted with parents in the final evaluation of FFE 
II, it was discovered that depending on the magnitude and importance of the decision, the man or 
the woman can decide, especially if the man, because of work or other circumstances is away 
from home, the woman makes the decision that is later shared with him. For single mothers, there 
is no other choice. 
In relation to health issues, the woman is responsible for deciding and taking the children to the 
health center, although she often must leave the house very early to seek care, which does not 
exempt her from her responsibilities which she does before leaving and upon her return. In many 
cases, girls are required to remain at home to take care of their younger sisters and brothers. 
In educational decisions, men decide whether children continue to study or drop out of school. It 
is also men who decide if the family can or should invest in some type of business. 
Figure 34. Minimum Acceptable Diet 
35
40.6
Boys Girls
%
Students receiving a minimum acceptable diet
by gender
n=802
111 
Figure 36. Role of women in OPFs 
3.2 Use of Time and Roles / Responsibilities 
Through consultation with school administrators, an analysis of the OPF structures was carried 
out to determine patterns of participation among men and women. Women were found to be the 
main participants, and thus, occupy positions on the boards and assume the responsibility for 
planning and supervising activities . 
This point can be taken that women have gained ground in positions of leadership and decision￾making, but the following should not be forgotten: men regularly do not attend their children’s 
school activities, as they consider that it is not part of the household provider’s role, one that 
society has placed on them. On the other hand, it should be noted that for women attending 
meetings and their children’s school activities it is one more task that they must perform, 
especially when engaged in leadership positions. Although the social skills that leadership 
demands help her personal growth, it is still another task in addition to those she already has, 
because nothing exempts her from her established 
responsibilities. 
48.2% of the OPF has a female 
president. Also, in 50% of the OPF 
the treasurer position is occupied 
by women. 
Also, the secretary and chair 
positions are being filled by women 
in 51.8% and 55.4% of cases 
respectively. 
The time dedicated by the members 
of the OPF board of directors is 
between three to five hours a week, 
usually taking turns in groups of 
two, although there are times when 
the activity calls for all to attend. 
Collaborating mothers have 
workloads according to the size of the school, whereby the more children there are, the more 
mothers are available to take turns to cook, so the weekly hours contributed to the school is 
lower. 
The social norms that deal with the roles of women and men in the community are reflected in 
their professions. Among men, the main professions are farmers (laborers) and construction 
workers, while women are mostly engaged in taking care of the household, and in some cases, 
they are teachers, street vendors, or domestic workers for other households. 
48.20%
50.00%
51.80%
55.40%
President
Treasurer
Secretary
Chair
Responsibilities of women in OPFs
Director survey n=60
112 
4. Access to Extracurricular Activities for Boys and Girls 
4.1 Differences in chores/work between boys and girls 
In the parent survey, it was asked what activities boys and girls do at home, the answers show the 
gender roles performed at home, as well as a significant difference between the sexes. While 73.2 
of girls are assigned household tasks, only 45.6% of boys are. 
Table 38. Activities performed at home 
Girl Activities % Boy Activities % 
Make corn flour 27.20% Helps to make firewood 20.30% 
Helps to make tortillas 15.70% Helps to feed the animals 26.60%
Helps with cleaning the house 60.40% Carries water 7.20% 
Carries water 6.40% Does not have household chores 54.40% 
Does not have household chores 26.80% 
 Source: Parent Survey, n=101 
Girls, despite having more household tasks to perform, maintain a school performance similar to 
that of boys. 
Teachers are the ones who have the most information about their students. They were interviewed 
about student work, and according to the answers they provided, it can be said that the majority 
of students in the schools do not perform paid jobs, however, the main jobs they do have are 
divided by gender as follows: 
Figure 37. Work done by children according to teachers 
62.1% of the teachers interviewed said that children work mainly in agricultural activities, and 
37% of teachers believe that girls also perform agricultural work, according to the information 
they have. The next activity that girls are more likely to complete is domestic work, with 18.5% 
37
18.5
3.7
14.8
0
3.7
62.1
0
13.5
2.7
13.5
3.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Farm work
Domestic Work
Firewood carrier
Street vending
Shoe polisher
Making clothes
%
Student's Work Activities
Boys Girls Teacher survey n=101
113 
of the opinion of teachers, which some girls do in their own home. 14.8% of teachers say that 
girls help their mothers in sales as street vendors. 
5. School infrastructure / Protection 
In 2015, MINEDUC conducted a survey on violence and school climate that was published by 
DIGEDUCA in 2016. In the department of Huehuetenango, 58 primary level schools were 
surveyed, and this survey showed that in Huehuetenango, 14% of students reported bullying, 
22.6% experienced violence by another student, and 30% experienced violence by a teacher. 
23.4% said they were sexually harassed by another student, and 2.7% by a teacher5
. 
In the schools visited, due to reasons of discretion with which the issue is addressed, on the part 
of both the parents and children, there is no knowledge of frequent cases of intrafamily violence. 
In relation to health services in all schools supported by PCI, health facilities are properly 
identified and are in good condition; however, in the control schools, although they are also 
identified and marked by gender, they are in poor condition and lack proper hygienic practices.
 
                                                            
5
 This data was not available disagregated by boys and girls
114 
Annex No. 10. Baseline Evaluation Team 
Technical Team Leads 
1. Lic. Julio Antonio De la Roca Cacacho 
2. Lic. José Gilberto Mena Alberto 
3. Lic. Víctor Manuel Palacios Marroquín 
4. Licda. Dacia Marroquín Mazariegos 
5. Licda. Irma Violeta Hernández 
6. Licda. Vivian Cajas Ovando 
Enumerator Team 
7. Dorca Lily Morales Hernández de Ramírez 
8. Rosita Yesenia Domingo Ramírez 
9. Juana Cristina Antonio Mateo 
10. Eulalia Angela Raquel Toledo Mateo 
11. María Perfecta Pascual Pablo 
12. Margarita Domingo José