BASELINE SURVEY REPORT
PCI Food for Education II Program  
Mara Region, Tanzania
Submitted to:
PCI Tanzania
P.O. BOX 2540
Isamilo Plot 140, Block D
Mwanza, Tanzania
Prepared by:
Tom Ventimiglia, Consultant
Jennifer Ho, School‐to‐School International
Mark Lynd, School‐to‐School International
September 25, 2014
Agreement Number: FFE-621-2013/033-00
The Authors
This report was authored by Tom Ventimiglia together with Jennifer Ho and Mark Lynd of
School‐to‐School International.  
Tom Ventimiglia has 23 years of program management and evaluation experience and has
participated as a trainer, supervisor, team member and/or lead author on over 20 evaluations
of health, nutrition, and education projects.  
Jennifer Ho is a Research Specialist with School‐to‐School International. She has 12 years of
experience in both U.S. and international education contexts, and specializes in monitoring,
evaluation, and research in large‐scale education and public health interventions.
Dr. Mark Lynd has been working in international education for over 30 years, during which he
has designed national teacher training systems, managed large‐scale education programs, and
designed and led educational evaluations in over a dozen countries. Dr. Lynd is the co‐Founder
and President of School‐to‐School International (STS).  
STS is an international NGO that has provided educational research and evaluation services to
Ministries of Education, international donors, and private foundations in over two dozen
countries since 2002. STS is one of USAID’s major providers of early grade assessments, and has
conducted early grade reading assessments (EGRA) in Tanzania, Guinea, Nigeria, Djibouti, and
Pakistan, the largest EGRA to date, reaching over 30,000 students. STS also conducts
intervention research, measuring the impact of school dropout programs, teacher training
methods, early grade reading approaches, and school health models in several countries in
Africa and Asia.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. iii
Acronyms.................................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary  .................................................................................................................. v
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
II. BASELINE SURVEY OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................1
III. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3
A. Data Collection Overview........................................................................................ 3
B. Data Collection Instruments.................................................................................... 3
C. Survey Preparations................................................................................................ 4
C.1. Recruitment .................................................................................................... 4
C.2. School Notification ................................................................................................5
C.3. Training..................................................................................................................5
D. Sampling and Data Collection.......................................................................................5
E. Data Entry, Cleaning and Analysis.................................................................................7
IV. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................8  
A. EGRA...................................................................................................................... 8
A.1. Overall EGRA Scores..............................................................................................9
A.2. EGRA Scores by Gender.......................................................................................10
A.3. EGRA Scores by Grade.........................................................................................12
A.4. Zero Scores..........................................................................................................13
A.5. Fluency ................................................................................................................15
A.6. Correlations.........................................................................................................15
B. Teacher Observation ..................................................................................................17
B.1. Total Classroom Observation Scores...................................................................18
B.2. Scores by Subdomain ..........................................................................................20
C. Teacher Interview.......................................................................................................24
C.1. Teacher Training..................................................................................................25
C.2. Teaching Reading ................................................................................................25
D. School Administrator Interview .................................................................................30
D.1. School Administrator Training ............................................................................30
D.2. School Administrator Use of Teaching Techniques and Tools.......................... 31
E. Student Interview .......................................................................................................35
E.1. School Feeding.....................................................................................................35
E.2. School Absences..................................................................................................36
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page ii
E.3. Health and Hygiene Test......................................................................................38
F. Parent Interview..........................................................................................................41
V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................44   
VI. INDICATOR TRACKING.....................................................................................................49
Annexes
Annex 1. Results Framework....................................................................................................51
Annex 2. Indicator Performance Tracking Table......................................................................52
Annex 3. Baseline Survey School Sample.................................................................................55
Annex 4. Data Collection Training Schedule ............................................................................56
Annex 5. Enumerator and Supervisor Training Guide .............................................................57
Annex 6. Data Collection Instruments.....................................................................................58
Annex 7. Additional Descriptions and Findings .....................................................................101
Annex 8. Background on EGRA and Explanation of Scoring ..................................................113
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page iii
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge the contributions to the baseline survey of
the following individuals:  
 Alice Michelazzi, who, as the baseline survey coordinator, worked with the PCI Tanzania
team in Mwanza and Musoma to plan, organize, carry out, and supervise the baseline
survey, including training the data collection and data entry teams;
 PCI staff, both in Tanzania and in San Diego, who provided assistance with planning,
communication, and coordination, logistical support, and information and input to the
evaluation team throughout the process of planning and implementing the baseline survey;
 The baseline survey Supervisors, Bernard Ndiege and Ambakisye Jonas;
 The data collection team:
Emmanuel Ferdinand, Team Leader (TL)  
Gathi  Ryoba  (TL) Semeni Tepetepe Bahati  Nyakrura
Neema Sagwa (TL) Theodozia  Bandya Emmanuel Athanas
Paschal  Kashaigili (TL) Agnes Nyatama Dennis Munabwiru
Regina Lunyonga (TL) Andrew Matogoro Peter  Shiku
Rutashobya Justinian (TL) Godfrey Muhangwa Devotha Wilfredi
Revocatus Mangili Magreth Makanja Sophia Theonest
Rweyemamu Augustine Beatrice Kalubwa Tumaini Magesa
 Stella Manyanza and Elizabeth Mageta, District Council Inspectors of Musoma Rural, who
participated in the training and data collection;
 The data entry team:
Charles I Nyiresa, Supervisor Beatus Lugendo
Abel S Masala Nsajigwa Duncan
Michael Joseph Bertha E. Gama
Zacharia Francis Catherine V Nkwabi
Lamont Nachenga Anthony A Bujukamo
 Donald Kasongi, who translated the data collection instruments into Kiswahili.
We are extremely grateful as well for the support of the District Councils of Bunda, Butiama,
Musoma Rural, and Serengeti and, most of all, for the kind reception and assistance offered by
the head teachers, reading teachers, parents, and students through their willing participation in
the survey.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page iv
Acronyms
CBP   Children’s Book Project
EGRA   Early Grade Reading Assessment
FFE   Food for Education
FGD   Focus Group Discussion
FE   Final Evaluation
IPTT   Indicator Performance Tracking Table
MTE   Mid‐term Evaluation
NIMR   National Institute for Medical Research
PCI   Project Concern International
PSLE   Primary School Leaving Examination
PTA   Parent‐Teacher Association
S&L   Savings and Loans
STS   School‐to‐School International
SWASH School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
VSA   Volunteer Student Aide
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page v
Executive Summary
From 2010‐2013, PCI implemented a school‐feeding program in Bunda and Musoma Rural
districts of Mara Region, Tanzania, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) McGovern‐Dole Food for Education (FFE) Program. In October 2013, PCI initiated a
second FFE program (FFE II), which includes the original program’s 103 schools and adds 31
additional schools. FFE II also expands into a third district, Butiama. The second program
continues to include school feeding and incorporate health, nutrition, and water and sanitation
objectives, but introduces a new emphasis on improving literacy among students at targeted
primary schools.   
A baseline survey was carried out from July 31 – August 6, 2014, in order to establish baseline
values for selected FFE II project indicators. The baseline values provide information with which
to further refine program strategies, activities, and targets and will also serve as a basis against
which to measure project progress during the life of the project.  
A sample of 40 schools, including 30 schools randomly selected from among the 134 PCI
intervention schools plus 10 comparison schools selected from a neighboring, non‐project
district (Serengeti), comprised the study group for the baseline survey. The survey included an
Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) to measure basic reading skills of students and the
effectiveness of teacher training and support activities. Teachers were observed teaching a
reading lesson, to help identify teacher behaviors associated with positive student performance
and to identify ways to support teachers to improve instruction in reading. Teachers, students,
school administrators, and parents were also interviewed about their participation and
experience with different elements of the PCI program.  
A total of 800 Standard 2 and Standard 4 students participated in the EGRA and student
interviews (20 per school). Eighty teachers (40 each teaching the Standard 2 and Standard 4
classes from which the students were randomly sampled) were observed and interviewed. In
addition, 40 head teachers or other school administrators and 229 parents of students in
Standards 1‐7 were interviewed. The EGRA was also administered to 200 students from four
additional schools as part of the pilot testing of Version B of the EGRA (to be used at the end‐
line evaluation).
Data collection instruments were designed, pre‐tested, translated into Swahili and
administered over five days at the 40 schools. Data was collected by a local team of
enumerators and supervisors, under the overall guidance of an external baseline survey
consultant. The consultant trained the data collection team during a five‐day workshop, which
included field practice and further pilot testing of the instruments. Data was entered by a local
team using Epi Info, including double‐entry of a sample of 10% of each of the instruments for
quality control. Data was cleaned and analyzed by the external evaluation team and analyzed
using Epi Info and SPSS for additional statistical analyses. 
Key findings from the survey include the following:
 The overall mean EGRA scores, averaging results from each of the five reading tasks
assessed (phonemic awareness, letter sound knowledge, invented word decoding, oral
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page vi
passage reading, and reading comprehension), were 23% for students in the PCI
intervention schools (treatment group) and 22% for students in the comparison schools. No
statistically significant differences were detected between these two study groups. In
addition, no significant differences were observed between treatment and comparison
groups by gender, nor by Standard (grade). No significant differences were observed
between the two study groups when analyzing by individual EGRA task. At baseline, these
findings are important because they establish “equivalency at baseline,” allowing
measurement of change over time between the two groups from a comparable starting
point.   
 In the PCI intervention schools, boys obtained higher overall mean EGRA scores than girls
(statistically significant at p<.05). Boys also scored higher than girls in the phonemic
awareness and reading comprehension tasks in the PCI schools (p<.01). In the comparision
schools, no significant differences were detected in overall mean EGRA scores or by EGRA
task between girls and boys.
 As expected, overall mean EGRA scores for Standard 4 students were higher than for
Standard 2 students in both the treatment and comparison groups (p<.0001). By task,
significant differences were also found between the performance of Standard 2 and
Standard 4 pupils, with the largest gaps observed between Standards in invented word
decoding, oral reading, and reading comprehension. Only one difference between
treatment and comparison groups was observed by Standard, where Standard 2 treatment
students outperformed Standard 2 comparison students on the reading comprehension
task (p < 0.05).  
 Nearly a quarter of all students received a “zero score” (signifying that they did not get a
single item correct) on the phonemic awareness task. Almost half received a zero score for
invented word decoding and oral passage reading, and about half received a zero score for
reading comprehension. Just over 10% of all students tested could not answer any of the
items on the assessment. The same proportion of treatment and comparison students
received zero scores across tasks (and the total score) except for the letter sound
knowledge task, on which a greater proportion of comparison students received a zero
score than treatment students (p<.001). No significant differences were found on zero
scores between boys and girls in either the treatment or comparison group.
 Tanzania has not established national standards for grade‐level literacy performance, so it is
not possible to provide baseline values that correspond exactly to the USDA indicators as
written: percent of boys and girls who demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to
their grade level as defined by national standards. In the absence of defined standards,
assessing the percent of boys and girls who achieve 50% or higher on the total mean EGRA
score can serve to reflect overall reading performance on several critical reading tasks,
including reading comprehension. As a baseline, it will also allow a comparison of progress
over time. Based on this definition, baseline values for reading achievement are 12% for
boys and 9% for girls in the PCI schools.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page vii
 Correlational relationships between EGRA scores and other factors, such as training
received by teachers and school administrators, length of reading lesson, class size, gender
of the reading teacher and head teacher, whether or not students ate a school meal,
whether students reported being hungry, and presence of a school library, were tested. The
correlation between overall mean EGRA scores and the length of reading lessons was
statistically significant, in Standard 2 treatment classrooms, as was the relationship
between overall mean EGRA scores and class size. Students whose teacher reported
spending 30 minutes or more on reading or other literacy lessons had higher overall EGRA
scores than students whose teachers reported spending less than 30 minutes (t=‐4.78,
df=254.59, p<.000). In treatment schools, a statistically significant negative correlation was
observed between class size and overall mean EGRA scores, where students in smaller
classes achieved higher overall EGRA scores, on average, than those in classes with a larger
number of students (r=‐0.168, p < 0.001 using number of students in attendance; r = ‐0.149,
p < 0.001 using number of students registered). In comparison schools, a statistically
significant positive correlation was noted (r = 0.267, p < 0.001 and r = 0.174, p < 0.05 for
class size by attendance and by number of students registered, respectively).
 Overall classroom observation scores, calculated as the average of scores on seven sub‐
domains including classroom environment, classroom organization, instructional content,
class activities, teaching methods, assessment methods, and use of teaching and learning
materials, were calculated as a measure of the extent to which teachers demonstrate the
use of new and quality teaching techniques and tools. Total mean classroom observation
scores averaged about 41% for teachers in both study groups, suggesting that teachers have
considerable room to grow in their use of the range of literacy instruction techniques and
tools. There were no significant differences between scores by study group among male
teachers; however, female teachers in the PCI schools obtained higher scores than those in
the comparison schools (p<.05). Similarly, no significant differences were found between
male and female teachers in the PCI schools, but male teachers scored higher than female
teachers in the comparison schools (p<.05).
 There was considerable variation in classroom observation scores by sub‐domain: both
treatment and comparison teachers obtained the highest scores in teaching methods and
the lowest scores in instructional content and use of teaching and learning materials. No
significant differences were observed in teacher performance on any of the subdomains
between treatment and comparison groups. As a “snapshot” of current teacher practices,
the baseline observations show teachers making greater use of traditional, teacher‐
centered methods and basic teaching‐learning materials (i.e. blackboard and textbooks).
Only a very small proportion of teachers appear to be exercising critical sound‐letter
correspondence exercises such as identifying differences and similarities of sounds,
pronouncing sounds of letters, or writing letters. While these results are not surprising,
given that the program’s planned training activities have not yet begun, the results do shed
some light on the specific areas of teacher strengths and challenges which training and
support activities should take into account.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page viii
 A large majority of teachers in both study groups obtained overall classroom observation
scores between 25% ‐ 49%. Only one teacher obtained a score less than 25%, and none of
the teachers observed obtained a score 75% or higher. Using the overall scores as a
measure of the use of a variety of instructional methods and materials, it is proposed that
the score of 50% be used as the threshold for defining whether or not teachers are
demonstrating use of new and quality techniques and tools, with reference to the USDA
indicator. At this threshold, the project’s baseline values are 10% for teachers in the PCI
schools and 15% for those in comparison schools.
 To assess the percent of school administrators who demonstrate use of new and quality
teaching techniques or tools, they were asked a series of questions on methods they use to
improve teacher performance, their frequency of observing and discussing teacher
performance, use of lesson plans, other outside‐classroom activities used to support
reading, and use of management tools and techniques. Based on their responses, a total,
composite performance score was determined for each school administrator. The mean
total score among school administrators in the PCI intervention schools was 67% and 64% in
the comparison schools, with no statistically significant differences by study group. In both
sets of schools, male administrators scored higher on their reported use of techniques
and/or tools than did their female counterparts, though these differences were not
statistically significant.
 Only one school administrator scored below 50%, while around 80% scored between 50%
and 74%. It is proposed that the definition for this indicator include the percent of school
administrators who obtain a performance score of at least 75% on the items scored in the
questionnaire. Using this definition, the baseline values for the indicator are 23% PCI
intervention schools and 10% comparison schools.
 Teachers were asked how many of the students in their class (the one observed) they would
describe as being “inattentive” during class. Teachers identified anywhere from zero to 41
inattentive students, with an average of 9.8 students per class in the intervention schools
and 13.8 students per class in the comparison schools described as inattentive. In PCI
schools, 14% of students were described by the teachers as inattentive versus 18% in the
comparison classes. These differences were not statistically significant.
 Almost two‐thirds of students in the PCI intervention schools and 14% of those in the
comparison schools reported recently eating a school feeding meal (excluding the newly
added schools, which have not yet started school feeding, 85% of students in PCI schools
reported eating the school feeding meal). Most of those in the PCI schools had eaten rice
and beans, either with or without porridge, while in the comparison schools, almost all had
porridge alone. Of those who ate a school meal, about 10% in the PCI schools and in the
comparison schools continued to feel hungry, while the majority, around 90%, did not. Less
than half of the student sample at PCI schools (45%) reported feeling hungry or very hungry
during the school day, versus three‐quarters (76%) of those in the comparison schools.
 The average number of days students reported being absent from school due to illness in
the previous month was 2.28 days for students in the PCI intervention schools and 2.37 days
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page ix
for students in the comparison schools. Estimates provided by parents (who in most cases
were not the parents of the students interviewed) were similar, at 2.07 days missed in the
intervention schools and 2.34 in the comparison schools.
 In the PCI schools, students were roughly evenly divided among those who said they were
absent from school because of poor health more this year, less this year, or about the same
as last year. In the comparison schools, the proportion of students who said they were
absent less this year than last year (33%) was higher both in comparison to those in the PCI
intervention schools (30%) and in comparison to those who said they were absent more or
absent about the same (but these differences were not statistically significant). In line with
responses from the students, parents at the PCI schools were about evenly divided in their
responses.  
 The mean score on an eight‐item health and hygiene test given to all 800 students was 64%
among students in the PCI intervention schools and 67% in the comparison schools. These
differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of students answering each
question correctly ranged from 55% to 89%. Boys scored somewhat higher than girls in
treatment schools, whereas in comparison schools the opposite was true, but neither of
these findings was statistically significant. In both sets of schools, Standard 4 students
scored higher than students in Standard 2; again, this was not a statistically significant
finding. The percent of students who achieved a passing score on the test (assuming a
passing grade is at least 75%) is 51% in the intervention schools (including 47% in Standard
2 and 55% in Standard 4) and 53% in the comparison schools (including 49% in Standard 2
and 57% in Standard 4).
 Of 229 parents interviewed across the 40 schools, a large majority of parents (85%) were
able to name three or more benefits of educating their child. The difference in responses
between parents of students at intervention schools versus those at comparison schools
was not statistically significant.
Very few significant differences were found in baseline results between the treatment group
and the comparison group. The similarity of results across instruments indicates a high level of
comparabilty between study groups and successful use of the propensity score matched pairing
technique, which is an important element of pre‐  to post‐test gains analyses. As a result,
differences detected between groups at post‐test will be able to be more confidently attributed
to the effects of the intervention (provided no other confounding variables are identified). The
high proportion of planned respondents reached, with very little missing data, also points to a
high level of quality of sampling, instrumentation, and overall administration of the survey.
In spite of a lack of clarity around certain indicators and their definitions in this setting (e.g.,
related to defining literacy achievement and “new and quality teaching techniques and tools”),
baseline estimates and annual targets for the indicators have been proposed. Adjustments in
several of the final year targets are suggested, either because the original targets were not
sufficiently different from the baseline values or because, based on actual baseline results, they
do not appear to be achievable. Target‐setting, though, must necessarily take into account the
context and a variety of program considerations, so final targets should be proposed by the PCI
team, in consultation with other partners as appropriate.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 1
I.  INTRODUCTION
From 2010 – 2013, PCI implemented a school feeding program in Mara Region, Tanzania,
funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern‐Dole Food for
Education (FFE) Program. Following the conclusion of the first FFE project, PCI began a second,
three‐year FFE program in October 2013. This second project will reach 134 primary schools
(103 continuing from the first project and 31 added under the second). The project is being
implemented in collaboration with the Bunda, Musoma Rural, and Butiama District Councils.  
The overall objectives of the project are to:
1. Improve the quality of literacy instruction through the provision of school supplies,
establishment of libraries, distribution and production of reading materials, and training
of teachers and school administrators;
2. Improve attentiveness and reduce short‐term hunger through the provision of school
meals, developing partnerships with farmer groups to supply food to schools, and
establishing school gardens;
3. Improve student attendance through better health and nutrition practices and
increasing community understanding of the benefits of education;
4. Improve knowledge of health and hygiene practices through health screening and
school health education;
5. Increase knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices;
6. Increase access to clean water and sanitation services through the construction of
latrines and water systems; and
7. Increase access to food preparation and storage tools and equipment through the
construction of energy‐saving stoves.
While school feeding and activities in the areas of health, water and sanitation, and nutrition
are continued from the first project, the second project has a new emphasis on improving the
quality of teaching instruction and improving literacy achievement. The project’s results
framework is as shown in Annex 1.  
II.   BASELINE SURVEY OBJECTIVES
A baseline survey was carried out in July/August 2014. Key objectives of the baseline included
the following:  
1. Establish research groups and sampling methodology for data collection at the baseline and
for the final evaluation;
2. Establish project baseline values for selected project indicators as denoted in the project’s
Performance Monitoring Plan and Indicator Performance Tracking Table (see Annex 2);
3. Provide information with which PCI may adjust targets for project indicators according to
findings;
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 2
4. Provide information which may help validate project strategies and assumptions and shed
further light on potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to project
implementation in each of the target areas;
5. Provide information to enable program staff to develop and/or adjust strategies to
maximize strengths and mitigate challenges;
6. Assess the skills, knowledge and current practices of beneficiaries to refine capacity building
and training activities; and
7. Generate data to be used for comparative analysis across the life of the project to measure
change.
The survey was designed to provide baseline data for the following indicators as required by
USDA, among other indicators to be tracked by PCI during the program:
PCI FFE II Baseline Survey Indicators
 Percent of boys in target schools who, by the end of two years of school, demonstrate reading
comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined by national standards at USDA
supported schools
 Percent of girls in target schools who, by the end of two years of school, demonstrate reading
comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined by national standards1 at USDA
supported schools  
 Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate improved literacy instruction as
identified by supervisors, mentors, or coaches
 Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching
techniques or tools
 Percent of teachers in target schools who allow students to ask questions during class
 Percent of teachers in target schools who allow students to respond to questions raised in class
by other students
 Percent of school administrators in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality
teaching techniques or tools
 Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by their teachers
 Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are “hungry” during the school day
 Percent of students who report a decrease in health‐related absences
 Average number of days students report being absent from school due to illness during the
previous month
 Percent of students in target schools who achieve a passing score on a test of good health and
hygiene practices
 Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary
education
 Percent of Volunteer Student Aides (VSAs) with increased self‐confidence
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 3
III.   METHODOLOGY
A. Data Collection Overview
The following data collection activities were carried out as part of the baseline survey:
 Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)  ‐  EGRA is a standardized method of measuring
early grade literacy, involving an oral assessment administered one‐on‐one with children. In
addition to giving a picture of student skills, the EGRA also provides a measure of the
effectiveness of teacher training and support activities. For the FFE II baseline survey, the
EGRA was administered to students in Standards 2 and 4.
 Student Interview ‐ The same students assessed with EGRA were interviewed about their
food consumption at school, feelings of hunger, health‐related absences, and their
knowledge related to health and hygiene.
 Teacher Observation – Standard 2 and Standard 4 teachers were observed teaching a
reading lesson. The classroom observations combined with the EGRA help to identify
teacher behaviors associated with positive student performance and to identify ways to
support teachers to improve instruction in reading.
 Teacher Interview – The teachers observed teaching a reading lesson were also interviewed
regarding their practices in literacy instruction, provision of school supplies and materials,
training received, student attentiveness, and access to school meals.  
 School Administrator Interview – Head Teachers or other school administrators were
interviewed at each school in the survey, covering the use of new techniques/tools, training
received, and access to school meals.  
 School Checklist – A physical review of school infrastructure was conducted at each school
to verify the existence of project‐related supplies and infrastructure (latrines, food storage,
library, etc.).  
 Parent Interviews – Parents of students in pre‐primary and Standards 1‐7 were interviewed
regarding their understanding of the benefits of primary education, their participation in
project‐supported groups and activities, and their child’s attendance at school.
B. Data Collection Instruments
Seven instruments were developed for collecting data during the baseline survey (final versions
in English and Swahili of each instrument are attached in Annex 6). The instruments were
drafted by the evaluation team, drawing from existing tools1 and originally‐forumulated items,
in consideration of the information needed to meet the survey objectives and to assess USDA‐
required and other key project indicators. The tools included:
 
1 School‐to‐School International (STS) had conducted EGRA and similar classroom observations in multiple
countries, and used instruments from these other exercises as a reference for the instruments developed for this
survey.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 4
1. Two versions of an EGRA tool (Versions A and B), each including four tasks through which
students were asked to demonstrate basic reading skills, including letter sound knowledge,
phonemic awareness, reading simple words, and reading and understanding stories.2
  
2. Student Questionnaires (included as part of the EGRA instrument)
3. Classroom Observation Guide for in‐class observations of teachers as they teach reading or
literacy lessons  
4. Teacher Questionnaire
5. Head Teacher Questionnaire
6. School Observation Checklist (included as part of the Head Teacher Questionnaire)
7. Parent Questionnaire
After initial drafting in English and review by the evaluation team and PCI, the instruments were
translated into Swahili by an independent consultant. Translations were reviewed by PCI staff
and members of the evaluation team to ensure faithfulness of the translations to the English.  
All instruments were pilot‐tested in one or two phases. The two EGRA tools were first pilot
tested with 28 students (14 each in Standards 2 and 4).3 As part of this pilot test, the student
questionnaire and head teacher questionnaire were also piloted. In addition, all of the
instruments were again reviewed and piloted as part of the training of data collectors and
supervisors. The tools (with the exception of the parent questionnaire) were administered to
teachers, head teachers, and approximately 100 students at four schools during the training.
Final revisions were made to the instruments following the pilot testing and prior to use.  
C. Survey Preparations
In addition to the development and testing of data collection instruments, the following
activities were carried out in preparation for the baseline survey:
C.1. Recruitment of Data Collection and Data Entry Team
PCI advertised for candidates for the enumerator, supervisor, and date entry positions at the
following institutions in or near the project area: National Institute for Medical Research
(NIMR)–Mwanza; Butimba, Bunda, and Tarime Teachers Colleges; and the District Offices at
Bunda, Butiama, and Musoma. Two data collection supervisors were selected from a pool of
eight applicants after interviews with the external Baseline Survey Coordinator, and one data
entry supervisor was selected from a pool of four applicants. A total of 24 enumerators were
initially selected, each with classroom teaching experience. After training, it was determined
 
2 Only the fourth task differed between the two tools. Version A was selected for administration during the
baseline survey, while Version B will be administered at end‐line, in order to minimize the risk of contamination of
results through exposure to the tool at baseline. 3 Results were analyzed to ensure that the two tools were of comparable difficulty. Given some concerns about the
comparability of the two tools (in the pre‐test, students appeared to perform better on Version A), Version B was
administered to an additional 200 students in four PCI intervention schools outside of the baseline survey sample
for further comparability testing. Scoring on the EGRA test at endline will be calibrated to adjust for any
differences found in level of difficulty. 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 5
that two did not have adequate capacity, and they were released before the start of data
collection. One of the supervisors collected data when needed, as did one of the two school
inspectors who attended the data collection training (she administered the EGRA and student
interview only4
). In addition, 10 data entry clerks were selected; of these, one did not show up
for training, and another was released due to concerns about performance during the training.
C.2. School Notification
After sampling the schools to be included in the baseline survey (see Section D.1), PCI staff
visited the district education offices to introduce the objectives of the survey and request their
support in ensuring schools were prepared to participate. Letters signed by the respective
District Councils were sent to each of the selected schools to inform them of the expected date
and time of visit; this notification helped to ensure that the Head Teacher and other teachers
would be available, enabled the school to arrange for reading instruction to take place during
the visit, and allowed schools to make prior arrangements for a sample of parents to be present
at school. The survey supervisors also communicated with head teachers on the day before the
school visit to make sure schools were ready for the team.
C.3. Training
A five‐day training was facilitated by the external Baseline Survey Coordinator for supervisors
and data collectors. The training covered an overview of the PCI project and the evaluation
objectives and methods; roles and responsibilities for ensuring high quality of interviewing and
data recording; detailed review of each of the data collection tools; proper interviewing and
observation techniques; and practicing respondent selection and data collection through role
plays and two field tests in nearby schools (see Annex 4). A Guide for Enumerators and
Supervisors developed by the evaluation team (Annex 5) was distributed to the trainees and
reviewed during the training; among others, it included detailed, item‐by‐item instructions for
how to administer each instrument, as well as procedures for obtaining consent for
participation in the study, organizing data collection activities, sampling students, parents, and
teachers within selected schools, and verifying and submitting completed questionnaires.  
A one‐day training was also held for the data entry clerks and supervisor; this training took
place at the PCI office in Musoma, after the data collection instruments had been finalized and
data entry platforms were developed. Data entry clerks were introduced to the data collection
instruments and trained in the procedures for entering data for each form.
D.  Sampling and Data Collection
Sampling for the baseline survey was conducted in two stages, as described below:
1. A total of 40 schools were selected as the study group (see Annex 3): 30 schools were
randomly selected from among the 134 PCI intervention schools (including 103 schools
continuing from Phase I and 31 schools added with Phase II), and 10 schools were selected
from a neighboring, non‐project district (Serengeti) to serve as a comparison group. To
 
4 In order not to influence the responses, the two inspectors (who attended the training and accompanied data
collection teams during data collection at the request of the Musoma District Academic Officer) did not collect
data from and were not present during interviews with teachers or head teachers.  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 6
select the 10 comparison schools, a propensity score matched‐pair sample procedure was
used, in which schools from Serengeti District were selected on the basis of characteristics
comparable to the selected treatment schools, including size, proximity, and student
performance (using pass rates and 2013 results from the Standard VII Primary School
Leaving Exam, or PSLE).  
2. Within the selected schools, selection of student, teacher, head teacher, and parent
respondents proceeded as follows:  
a. Students  ‐ From each intervention and comparison school, 10 students were randomly
selected from each of the two target Standards to participate in the reading assessment
and student interview. Assessing literacy levels in students of Standard 2 is in line with
best practice in EGRA and also corresponds to the PCI FFE program indicator related to
students having finished two years of schooling.5 Including Standard 4 students provides
a measure of whether literacy skills are improving over time and ensures a more robust
measure of achievement of the program by providing a larger sample.
b. Teachers  ‐ In each intervention and comparison school, one teacher from each of the
two target grades (Standards 2 and 4) where the EGRA was conducted was observed
and interviewed.6
c. Head Teachers – The Head Teacher from each school (or his/her designee in a few cases
where the Head Teacher was not available) was interviewed.
d. Parents – Each school was requested (in the letter from the District sent ahead of time)
to request a parent from one student in each standard to come to the school to be
interviewed on the day of the survey. Schools were instructed to select both male and
female parents and to select parents who do participate on school committees as well
as those who do not.
A summary of planned and actual survey respondents, by PCI FFE project intervention schools
(I) and comparison (C) schools, is as shown in the table below:
Table 1: Planned versus Actual Baseline Survey Respondents
Respondent Group Planned Actual
I C Total I C Total
Standard 2 students (EGRA, interview) 300 100 400 299 100 399
Standard 4 students (EGRA, interview) 300 100 400 301 100 401
Standard 2/4 teachers (observation) 60 20 80 60 20 80
Standard 2/4 teachers (interview) 60 20 80 58 20 78
School Administrators (interview) 30 10 40 30 10 40
Parents (interview) 210 70 280 171 58 229
 
5 In Tanzania, national standards for grade‐level literacy performance have not been established. Thus, in order to
evaluate whether or not students are reading at or near grade level, the EGRA instrument was adapted from those
used previously in Tanzania to assess literacy in this grade range (2‐4). The tool measures skills considered
essential for these grade levels. 6 It was anticipated that some schools would have more than one Standard 2 or Standard 4 class, or more than one
Standard 2 or Standard 4 teacher, in which case one class (stream) or one teacher would have been selected
randomly. However, in practice, this situation was not encountered at any of the 40 sampled schools.  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 7
Data was collected at the 40 schools from July 31 to August 6, 2014. Seven data collectors and
the external Baseline Survey Coordinator also administered the EGRA to 200 students from four
additional schools on August 6‐7 as part of the pilot testing of Version B of the EGRA (to be used
at the end‐line evaluation).
For quality control, all completed reading assessments, questionnaires, observation forms, and
checklists were reviewed daily by the supervisors to ensure complete and correct recording.
The external Baseline Survey Coordinator also reviewed a sample of forms in the field each day
during data collection as well as during data entry.
E. Data Entry, Cleaning and Analysis
Data was entered from August 4–9 by a team of eight data entry officers and one data entry
supervisor, under the overall supervision of the Baseline Survey Coordinator. Data was entered
in Epi Info using data entry platforms developed by the external evaluation team. A sample of
10% of each of the instruments was also selected for double‐entry, as a quality control
measure. Of the 10% of data re‐entered, an error rate of only 1‐3% per instrument was found,
indicating a good quality of data entry.  
Each data file (one for each data collection instrument) was exported to Excel for an initial
review and data cleaning by the Baseline Survey Coordinator. The files were then reviewed in
detail by the lead consultant and STS, who liaised with the field team to conduct a full data
cleaning. The cleaned data sets were then analyzed in Epi Info and/or exported to SPSS for
additional statistical analyses. 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 8
IV. RESULTS
A. Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)  
The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) was administered to a total of 800 students
selected at random from Standard 2 and 4 classes (see Annex 8 for a detailed background on
the EGRA, its development and uses, etc.). As shown in Table 2 below, 600 of the students were
from the PCI intervention schools in Bunda, Butiama, and Musoma Rural districts, while 200
were from the comparison schools in Serengeti district. The treatment and comparison groups
were almost equally split by gender. Half of each group was comprised of Standard 2 students,
while the other half was comprised of Standard 4 students.  
Table 2. EGRA Sample Description
   Treatment Comparison
# % # %
Student Genderǂ
Girls 300 51% 98 49%
Boys 293 49% 101 51%
Standard
Standard 2 299 50% 100 50%
Standard 4 301 50% 100 50%
District
Bunda 300 50%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Musoma Rural 190 32%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Butiama 110 18%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Serengeti  ‐‐  ‐‐  200 100%
Total 600 100% 200 100%
ǂInformation for student gender was missing for seven students in the treatment group and 1 student in the
comparison group; these 7 students are left out of the analysis when considering Gender but not in other
analyses.
Each student participating in the EGRA was asked to complete five tasks (see Annex 6 for a
detailed description of the tasks and the skills assessed for each):
 Task 1: Phonemic Awareness – The student was read aloud a set of words and asked to
identify which word began with a different sound;
 Task 2: Letter Sound Knowledge – The student was given a page full of letters from the
English alphabet and asked to identify the sounds (not the names) of as many letters as
possible in 60 seconds;
 Task 3: Invented Word Decoding – The student was given a page of “made‐up” words
and asked to read as many as possible in 60 seconds;
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 9
 Task 4a: Oral Passage Reading – The student was given a short reading passage and
asked to read as much of it as possible in 60 seconds;
 Task 4b: Reading Comprehension – The student was asked up to five reading
comprehension questions relevant to the passage read.  
Students were scored on each task on a scale of 0% to 100%, and their total EGRA score is an
average across all five tasks (see Annex 8 for further detail).
A.1. Overall EGRA Scores
As shown in Table 3 below, the overall mean EGRA score for students in the PCI intervention
schools was 23.1%, and the overall mean EGRA score for students in the comparison schools
was 22.1%. No statistically significant differences were detected between study groups7
; this is
important because it establishes “equivalency at baseline,” allowing measurement of change
over time between the two groups from a comparable starting point.   
Table 3. Total EGRA Score by Study Group
   N Min (%) Max (%) Mean (%) SD8
Treatment 600 0 93.8 23.09 19.64
Comparison 200 0 73.8 22.14 19.32
Overall 800 0 93.8 22.94 19.67
Figure 1 shows the scores achieved by treatment and comparison students by task; again, no
significant differences were observed between the two groups. Students achieved the highest
mean scores in phonemic awareness (hearing and identifying the sounds of letters in a word, in
this case the beginning sound of a word), although these are still relatively low, with students
getting only about one‐third of these items correct. On Tasks 2 and 3, students’ performance
was quite low, though the scale used on these tasks is different from the other ones.9 This view
of student achievement will become more useful in comparing student gains in specfici skill
areas between baseline and endline.
 
7 Statistical tests of difference for all EGRA scores were conducted using two‐tailed t‐tests. 8 The large standard deviations (SDs) are in line with what STS has observed on other EGRAs within Tanzania, as
well as in other countries. The range of student performance is wide; see Table 4 below (performance categories)
for additional insight on the distribution of scores. 9 Comparing scores across tasks should be done with caution because the intent and design of each task, and the
interpretation of results, is different. Tasks 1, 4a and 4b were designed to be completed, so a desirable score
would be in the 80‐100% range. However, Tasks 2 and 3 provide a large number of letters and words for students
to identify (up to 100) without expecting students to reach the end. Thus, on these tasks, the “score” should be
interepreted in a slightly different way since they were not expected to identify all 100 letters or words. For these
tasks, a score of 60% might be considered desirable, since a reader should be able to identify approximately one
letter or word per second. For this report, mean scores are presented together for the sake of simplicity.  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 10
Figure 1. Percent Correct by EGRA Task and Study Group
Students were also categorized into performance groups based on their overall mean EGRA
scores. As seen in Table 4, around 60% of both treatment and comparison students scored in
the first quartile, with overall mean EGRA scores of less than 25%. About one‐third of each
group obtained an overall mean EGRA score of 25%‐49%. Less than 10% of students achieved
an overall score above 50%. No significant differences in student distributions across the four
performance categories were observed between study groups.  
Table 4. Reading Performance Categories by Study Group (overall mean EGRA scores)
   Treatment Comparison
   # Percent # Percent
<25% 349 58.2% 121 60.5%
25%‐49% 187 31.2% 62 31.0%
50%‐74% 59 9.8% 17 8.5%
75%‐100% 5 0.8% 0 0.0%
Total 600 100% 200 100%
A.2. EGRA Scores by Gender
In the PCI intervention schools, boys obtained higher overall mean EGRA scores than girls
(24.8% versus 21.4%, significant at p<.05). No significant differences were detected in overall
mean EGRA scores in the comparison schools between girls and boys. In addition, no significant
differences were observed between treatment and comparison groups by gender.
Table 5. Total EGRA Score by Study Group and Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   Nǂ Mean (%) SD Nǂ Mean (%) SD
Girls 300 21.41* 19.16 98 19.53 18.79
Boys 293 24.76* 20.00 101 24.40 19.52
Total 600 23.20 19.79 200 22.14 19.32
ǂInformation for student gender was missing for 7 students in treatment group and 1 student in comparison
group.
*Significant at p < 0.05
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4b ‐ Reading Comprehension
4a ‐ Oral Passage Reading
3 ‐ Invented Word Decoding
2 ‐ Letter Sound Knowledge
1 ‐ Phonemic Awareness
Treatment Comparison
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 11
Figure 2 details scores achieved by task and gender. Overall, boys scored significantly higher
than girls in phonemic awareness and in the oral passage reading and reading comprehension.
These differences were evident between boys and girls in the treatment schools in phonemic
awareness and reading comprehension, but were not detected between boys and girls at the
comparison schools.10  Girls’ and boys’ performance by task, however, did not differ between
the treatment and comparison groups.  
Figure 2. Percent Correct by Task and Gender
*Significant at p < 0.05
** Significant at p < 0.01
A view of boys’ and girls’ performance by study group and reading performance category (Table
6) shows that over 60% of girls and over 50% of boys fall into the first quartile of performance.
Just above one‐quarter of girls and one‐third of boys fall into the second quartile of
performance (25%‐49%). It is important to note, however, that differences between boys and
girls in their distribution across all four reading performance categories were not found to be
significant. This suggests that, by performance category, boys and girls performed similarly. In
addition, no differences between study groups by gender were observed.  
Table 6. Reading Performance Category by Study Group and Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   Girls Boys Girls Boys
   # Percent # Percent # Percent # Percent
<25% 186 62.0% 159 54.3% 65 66.3% 56 55.4%
25%‐49% 86 28.7% 99 33.8% 25 25.5% 36 35.6%
50%‐74% 25 8.3% 33 11.3% 8 8.2% 9 8.9%
75%‐100% 3 1.0% 2 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 300 100% 293 100% 98 100% 101 100%
 
10 Differences between boys and girls in oral passage reading were only observed when comparing the entire
sample of girls versus the entire sample of boys, but not when broken down by study group, due to the variation in
sizes of the study groups.  
18%
24%
21%
11%
31%
24%**
28%*
24%
12%
35%**
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4b ‐ Reading Comprehension
4a ‐ Oral Passage Reading
3 ‐ Invented Word Decoding
2 ‐ Letter Sound Knowledge
1 ‐ Phonemic Awareness
Boys
Girls
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 12
Tanzania has not established national standards for grade‐level literacy performance, so it is
not possible to provide a baseline value that corresponds exactly to this indicator, as written. In
the absence of defined standards, it is proposed that the literacy achievement indicator reflect
the percent of Standard 2 and Standard 4 students who achieve 50% or higher on the total
mean EGRA score.11 This proposed cutoff derives from the finding that at baseline, a strong
majority (around 90%) of treatment and control students obtained overall mean EGRA scores of
below 50%. An increase in the proportion of students achieving a mean score of 50% or higher,
therefore, will serve as a strong indication of improved literacy ability. While this is not a
national standard, the score combines performance on several critical reading tasks, including
reading comprehension, and provides a useful basis of comparison for future measures (i.e.,
end‐line).    
A.3. EGRA Scores by Standard (Grade)
The same EGRA test was administered to Standards 2 and 4, and as expected, Standard 4
students were observed to outperform Standard 2 students in both the treatment and
comparison groups. Within each Standard, no significant differences in overall mean EGRA
scores were detected between groups.   
Table 7. Total EGRA Score by Study Group and Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Standard 2 299 16.23* 14.45 100 14.36** 14.1
Standard 4 301 29.89* 21.67 100 29.92** 20.72
Total 600 23.09 19.64 200 22.14 19.32
*Significant at p < 0.0001
**Significant at p < 0.0001  
For each task, significant differences were found between the performance of Standard 2 and
Standard 4 pupils, as shown in Figure 3. The largest gaps were observed between Standards in
invented word decoding, oral reading, and reading comprehension, arguably the more difficult
tasks on the assessment. Relatively small differences were observed between Standards 2 and 4
on the phonemic awareness and letter sound knowledge tasks. Only one difference between
treatment and comparison groups was observed by Standard, where Standard 2 treatment
 
11 PCI may consider exploring a different threshold for this indicator.
Indicator: Percent of boys in target schools who, by the end of two years of school,
demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined
by national standards at USDA supported schools
Indicator: Percent of girls in target schools who, by the end of two years of school,
demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined
by national standards at USDA supported schools
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 13
students (13% correct) outperformed Standard 2 comparison students (9% correct) on the
reading comprehension task (p < 0.05).  
Figure 3. Percent Correct by Standard
***Significant at p < 0.0001
Table 8 categorizes student reading performances by quartiles (overall mean EGRA scores of
less than 25%, between 25%  ‐  50%, etc. As seen, three‐quarters of Standard 2 students
achieved less than 25% correct. In contrast, over 40% of Standard 4 students achieved less than
25% correct, and another 40% achieved between 25% up to 50%. Thus, while Standard 4
students demonstrate higher achievement in literacy than Standard 2 students, there are still
relatively few students even in Standard 4 who scored 50% or higher. While significant
differences in student distribution across the four performance categories were detected
between Standards, no differences were observed between study groups.  
Table 8. Reading Performance Category by Study Group and Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   Standard 2 Standard 4 Standard 2 Standard 4
   # Percent # Percent # Percent # Percent
<25% 219 73.2% 130 43.2% 78 78.0% 43 43.0%
25%‐49% 72 24.1% 115 38.2% 20 20.0% 42 42.0%
50%‐74% 8 2.7% 51 16.9% 2 2.0% 15 15.0%
75%‐100% 0 0.0% 5 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 299 100% 301 100% 100 100% 100 100%
A.4. Zero Scores
Reviewing “zero scores,” or tasks on which students did not get a single item correct, is useful
for three reasons. First, they identify students who are particularly at risk. Second, they provide
more detailed information on children who were able to perform even at a minimal level, once
the zero score students are disaggregated. Third, they provide a standard metric for observing
30%***
28%***
32%***
14%***
36%***
12%
15%
13%
10%
30%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4b ‐ Reading Comprehension
4a ‐ Oral Passage Reading
3 ‐ Invented Word Decoding
2 ‐ Letter Sound Knowledge
1 ‐ Phonemic Awareness
Standard 2
Standard 4
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 14
ability across tasks. In contrast to “percent correct,” which can be interpreted differently across
tasks (see footnote 8 above), no students should have zero scores on any task. Thus, zero scores
provide a standard basis of comparison across tasks, grade levels, and even languages.
Table 9 shows the baseline EGRA zero scores overall and by task. Students who did not get a
single item correct on a given task received a zero score for that task, and a student who did
not get any item correct on any of the tasks received a zero score for the total EGRA score.  
Nearly a quarter of all students received a zero score on the phonemic awareness task. Almost
half received a zero score for invented word decoding and oral passage reading, and about half
received a zero score for reading comprehension. Just over 10% of all students tested could not
answer any of the items on the assessment. The same proportion of treatment and comparison
students received zero scores across tasks (and the total score) except for Task 2: Letter Sound
Knowledge. In this case, a significantly greater proportion of comparison students received a
zero score on this task than treatment students (p<.001).  
Table 9. Zero Scores by Task and Study Group
   Treatment Comparison
   # Percent # Percent
Task 1 ‐ Phonemic Awareness 140 23.3% 45 22.5%
Task 2 ‐ Letter Sound Knowledge 123*** 20.0% 63*** 31.5%
Task 3 ‐ Invented Word Decoding 257 42.7% 94 47.0%
Task 4a ‐ Oral Passage Reading 257 42.7% 95 47.5%
Task 4b ‐ Reading Comprehension 293 48.8% 105 52.5%
Total EGRA Score 64 10.7% 25 12.5%
***Significant at p < 0.001
An analysis of zero scores by study group and gender shows no differences between boys and
girls in either the treatment or comparison group. The only significant difference observed
between treatment and comparison groups was with respect to letter sound knowledge, where
treatment girls were seen to have a lower proportion of zero scores (22%) than comparison
girls (39%).  
Table 10. Zero Scores by Task and Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   Girls Boys Girls Boys
   # % # % # % # %
Task 1 ‐ Phonemic Awareness 77 25.7% 61 20.8% 26 26.5% 19 18.8%
Task 2 ‐ Letter Sound Knowledge 66*** 22.0% 55 18.8% 38*** 38.8% 25 24.8%
Task 3 ‐ Invented Word Decoding 136 45.3% 118 40.3% 51 52.0% 43 42.6%
Task 4a ‐ Oral Passage Reading 136 45.3% 118 40.3% 52 53.1% 43 42.6%
Task 4b ‐ Reading Comprehension 158 52.7% 132 45.1% 57 58.2% 48 47.5%
Total EGRA Score 35 11.7% 28 9.6% 16 16.3% 9 8.9%
***Significant at p < 0.001
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 15
A.5. Fluency
Another important metric of achievement in literacy is fluency in reading, which is measured by
EGRA as the number of letters or words correctly read by a student on timed reading tasks.
Student fluency results for Tasks 2 (Letter Sound Knowledge), 3 (Invented Word Decoding), and
4a (Oral Reading Passage) are shown in Annex 7. None of the fluency rates across these three
timed reading tasks were found to be significantly different between treatment and
comparison students.  
An analysis of fluency by gender (see Annex 7) shows no significant differences between girls’
and boys’ results. In addition, no significant differences were detected between treatment and
comparison girls or between treatment and comparison boys. Furthermore, an analysis of
fluency by Standard shows higher letters and words correctly read per minute in Standard 4
than in Standard 2. This was true for both treatment and comparison students. In the case of
Invented Word Decoding and the Oral Passage Reading, Standard 4 students read, on average,
at least 10 more words per minute than Standard 2 students. No significant differences were
observed between treatment and comparison students in Standard 2, and no significant
differences were observed between treatment and comparison students in Standard 4 across
all three timed tasks.
A.6. Correlations
Correlational relationships between overall mean EGRA scores and student, teacher, and school
characteristics will be of particular interest at endline following the implemention of
programming. However, some correlations of interest were tested at baseline, including
between EGRA scores and:
 The length of reading lessons (30 minutes or less vs. 30 minutes or longer)
 Class size, including both the number of students registered and the number of
students in attendance on the day of survey
 The gender of the reading instructor
 The gender of the head teacher
 Whether a student ate a school meal the day before
 Whether a student was hungry while at school
 The presence of library or reading room at school
Correlations were conducted by study group and standard. The following statistically significant
correlations were found:  
a. In treatment schools, between overall mean EGRA scores and the length of reading
lessons in Standard 2 classrooms – students whose teacher reported spending 30
minutes or more on reading or other literacy lessons had higher overall EGRA scores
(mean=18.84) than students whose teachers reported spending less than 30 minutes on
reading or literacy lessons (mean=14.80) (t=‐4.78, df=254.59, p<.000);
b. In treatment schools, between overall mean EGRA scores and class size (measured by
number of students in attendance) – a negative relationship was found, in that classes
with a smaller number of total students in attendance achieved higher overall EGRA
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 16
scores, on average, than classes with a larger number of students in attendance              
(r = ‐0.168, p < 0.001); and
c. In treatment schools, between overall mean EGRA scores and class size (total number of
students registered) – as above, a negative relationship was found, such that classes
with a smaller number of total students registered achieved higher overall EGRA scores,
on average, than classes with a larger number of students in attendance (r = ‐0.149,       
p < 0.001).
d. In comparison schools, between overall mean EGRA scores and class size (measured by
number of students in attendance) – a positive relationship was found, in that classes
with a larger number of total students in attendance achieved higher overall EGRA
scores, on average, than classes with a smaller number of students in attendance              
(r = 0.267, p < 0.001); and
e. In comparison schools, between overall mean EGRA scores and class size (total number
of students registered) – as above, a positive relationship was found, such that classes
with a larger number of total students registered achieved higher overall EGRA scores,
on average, than classes with a smaller number of students in attendance (r = 0.174,      
p < 0.05).
It is likely that the differences noted between the treatment and comparison schools are due in
part to the differences in sample sizes between the two study groups as well as to the fact that
there was a statistically significant difference in numbers of students registered (comparison
schools having more than the treatment schools).
No other statistically significant correlations were found between overall mean EGRA scores
and any of the other factors tested.
  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 17
B. Teacher Observation
In each of the 40 schools in the survey, one Standard 2 teacher and one Standard 4 teacher
(from the classes where students were tested with EGRA) were observed teaching a reading or
literacy lesson, in order to gain an understanding of the kinds of teaching and learning activities
taking place in the study school classrooms and to assess the percentage of teachers
demonstrating quality literacy instruction. The teachers were observed for 30‐40 minutes,
during which time an enumerator noted the tools, techniques, and activities used by the
teacher. The Classroom Observation tool (Annex 6), an observation “checklist” comprised of
about 80 items, was used for this purpose.12 The observation items are grouped into the
following subdomains:
 Subdomain 1: Classroom Environment – Includes items pertaining to classroom layout,
displays, student learning materials, and teacher preparation materials
 Subdomain 2: Classroom Organization – Includes items related to how students are
organized within the classroom
 Subdomain 3: Instructional Content ‐ Includes items related to literacy instruction
techniques such as writing letters, identifying letter sounds, discussing the meaning of
vocabulary, dictation, and creating text
 Subdomain 4: Class Activities – Includes items related to literacy‐related class activities
such as listening to the teacher read aloud, working on group projects, and reading
independently
 Subdomain 5: Teaching methods – Includes items related to teachers’ support of
student learning such as asking students questions, allowing students to ask questions,
providing explanations if students don’t understand material, and praising or
complimenting students
 Subdomain 6: Assessment – Includes items related to teachers’ use of assessment to
gauge student learning
 Subdomain 7: Teaching Learning Material Use – Includes items pertaining to the types
of classroom materials teachers use during the lesson   
Teachers were scored on a scale of 0% to 100% for each subdomain. Their total Classroom
Observation Score is an average across all subdomains, where higher scores reflect greater use
of the observed literacy instruction techniques and tools (see Annex 8 for a full list of items and
scoring criteria for the Classroom Observation). As shown in Table 11, a greater proportion of
teachers observed were male in both treatment and comparison classrooms. Half of the
teachers observed taught Standard 2 and the other half taught Standard 4. A large majority of
the classes observed were single grade classes, although the nine of the classes observed in
treatment schools were multi‐grade.  
 
12 In drafting this tool, reference was made to data collection instruments from similar classroom observations
conducted by STS and other organizations in Tanzania and elsewhere; observation items were adapted specifically
for the interventions, approaches, and objectives of the PCI FFE program.  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 18
Table 11. Classroom Observation Sample Description
   Treatment   Comparison  
   # % # %
Teacher Genderǂ             
Male 33 57% 14 70%
Female 25 43% 6 30%
              
Standard            
Standard 2 30 50% 10 50%
Standard 4 30 50% 10 50%
              
Class Type
Multi‐grade 9 15% 0 0%
Single Grade 51 85% 20 100%
              
Total 60 100% 20 100%
 ǂThe gender of two teachers was not recorded.
B.1. Total Classroom Observation Scores
Total mean classroom observation scores averaged about 41% for teachers in both study
groups, as shown in Table 12 below, suggesting that teachers have considerable room to grow
in their use of the range of literacy instruction techniques and tools. No significant differences
were observed between study groups, meaning that, on average, treatment and comparison
teachers exhibit similar levels of facility with literacy instruction techniques and tools at
baseline. That teachers are beginning at a similar starting point provides an important
foundation in confirming differences between treatment and comparison teachers over time.  
Table 12. Total Classroom Observation Score by Study Group
   N Min (%) Max (%) Mean (%) SD
Treatment 60 24.89 60.24 41.45 6.67
Comparison 20 31.5 64.55 41.18 7.87
Overall 80 24.89 64.55 41.38 6.94
An analysis of mean classroom observation scores by study group and gender shows no
significant differences between male teachers at the treatment and comparison schools.
However, female teachers at the treatment schools received higher scores than their
comparison group counterparts (p<0.05). Further, while no significant differences between
male and female performance was observed in treatment classrooms, male teachers at
comparsion schools obtained higher mean classroom observation scores than female teachers
at those schools. Although their sample is small, female teachers in comparison classrooms
exhibited relatively weak performance in comparison with all other subgroups.  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 19
Table 13. Overall Mean Classroom Observation Scores by Study Group and Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Male 33 40.67 5.45 14 43.71* 7.87
Female 25 42.71* 8.08 6 35.27* 3.81
Total 58 41.55 6.72 20 41.18 7.87
*Significant at p<0.05
Table 14 shows mean classroom observation scores for teachers by study group and Standard.
No significant differences were observed between treatment and comparison teachers in either
Standards 2 or 4. While there was no difference between Standard 2 and 4 teachers in
comparison classrooms, Standard 2 treatment teachers obtained higher performance scores,
on average, than Standard 4 teachers in treatment classrooms. This difference is something to
note when comparing teacher performance by standard at end‐line.
Table 14. Total Classroom Observation Score by Study Group and Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Standard 2 30 43.96** 6.9 10 43.94 10.05
Standard 4 30 38.95** 5.48 10 38.42 3.58
Total 60 41.45 6.67 20 41.18 7.87
**Significant at p<0.01
In Table 15, teachers are grouped into performance categories, showing a summary distribution
of teachers’ overall scores by quartile. A large majority of teachers in both study groups
obtained overall classroom observation scores between 25% ‐ 49%. Only one teacher obtained
a score less than 25% and none of the teachers observed obtained a score 75% or higher. More
Standard 2 teachers in treatment schools fell into the third quartile of performance than
treatment teachers in Standard 4. However, results by performance category did not otherwise
substantially vary. No significant differences were observed between Standard 2 treatment
teachers and Standard 2 comparison teachers. Similarly, no significant differences were
observed between Standard 4 treatment and comparison teachers.  
Table 15. Teacher Performance Categories by Study Group and Standard
Overall Classroom
Observation Score
Treatment Comparison
Standard 2 Standard 4 Standard 2 Standard 4
# Percent # Percent # Percent # Percent
<25% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0%
25%‐49% 24* 80% 29* 97% 7 70% 10 100%
50%‐74% 6* 20% 0* 0% 3 30% 0 0%
75%‐100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 30 100% 30 100% 10 100% 10 100%
*Significant at p<0.05
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 20
Using the overall scores as a measure of the use of a variety of instructional methods and
materials, it is proposed that the score of 50% be used as the threshold for defining whether or
not teachers are demonstrating use of new and quality techniques and tools, with reference to
the USDA indicator. At this threshold, the project’s baseline values are 10% for teachers in the
PCI schools and 15% for those in comparison schools.
B.2. Scores by Subdomain
An analysis of teacher performance by subdomain reveals more specific areas of teacher
strengths and challenges. As shown in Table 16 below, both treatment and comparison
teachers obtained the highest scores in Teaching Methods (scoring approximately 60% out of
100% possible). Subdomains on which both groups of teachers obtained the lowest scores were
Instructional Content (scoring about 24% out of 100% possible) and “Teaching‐Learning
Material Use” (scoring about 32% out of 100%). No significant differences were observed
between treatment and comparison teacher performance on any of the subdomains. Again,
this suggests that the tools and techniques currently used by teachers from both study groups
are, on average, very similar.  
Table 16. Classroom Observation Scores by Subdomain and Treatment Group
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Classroom Environment 60 44.55 8.32 20 45.91 7.93
Classroom Organization   60 37.78 11.43 20 36.67 10.26
Instructional Content   60 25.38 17.42 20 22.31 17.45
Class Activities   60 40.61 12.91 20 42.73 11.46
Teaching Methods   60 59.17 11.65 20 60.00 11.97
Assessment   60 51.19 19.02 20 47.86 20.87
Teaching Learning Material Use   60 31.48 10.06 20 32.78 13.72
Figure 4 details the percentage of teachers obtaining a “correct” mark on each item within the
“Teaching Methods” subdomain, the area where teachers generally scored highest. Large
proportions (above 80%) of both treatment and comparison teachers were observed to read
out loud to their students, ask students questions, provide explanations to students if they
don’t understand, and give classwork to students and help them when needed. Teachers were
scored “correct” on items 63 and 64 (criticizing, scolding, punishing, or beating students) if they
were not seen to conduct these activities during observation. Only one teacher was observed
beating their students. On the other hand, the majority of teachers were observed to criticize,
scold, or punish students during a lesson. Only about one‐third of observed teachers concluded
their lesson with a summary of what was learned.  
Indicator: Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality
teaching techniques or tools
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 21
With regard to the indicators above, Figure 4 also shows that 20% of comparison teachers and
17% of treatment teachers allowed students to ask questions during their observation. In
addition, 17% of comparison teachers and 12% of treatment teachers were observed allowing
students to respond to questions asked by other students. No significant differences were
detected between treatment and comparison teachers across either of these items. This
suggests that any real differences between study groups with respect to the two indicators are
not confirmed (and are instead likely due to expected variations between groups). In addition
to these metrics related to student questioning, only about 14% of all teachers were observed
to respond to student questions.  
Figure 4. Teaching Methods ‐ Percentage of Teaching Behaviors Observed  
0%
60%
75%
35%
100%
90%
15%
20%
20%
95%
50%
80%
2%
65%
80%
33%
90%
90%
12%
17%
8%
88%
72%
87%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
64. Beats students
63. Criticizes, scolds or punishes students
62.  Praises or compliments students
61.  Concludes lesson with summary of
what was learned
60.  Gives classwork to students and helps
them when needed
59.  Provides explanation if students don't
understand
58.  Allows students to respond to
questions asked by other students
57.  Allows students to ask questions
56.  Responds to student questions
55.  Asks students questions
54.  Demonstrates reading or writing skills
53.  Reads aloud to students
Treatment Comparison
Indicator: Percent of teachers in target schools who allow students to ask questions during
class
Indicator: Percent of teachers in target schools who allow students to respond to questions
raised in class by other students
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 22
The lowest performance scores received by teachers were in the subdomain of “Instructional
Content.” As shown in Figure 5, the proportion of teachers using any of the techniques within
this domain, on average, was low. Most notably, less than 10% of all 60 teachers were observed
guiding students to associate words with letters, read printed materials or books, answer
questions about the meaning of texts, or draw a picture to show they understand a text. No
teachers were observed guiding students to identify differences and similarities of sounds.
Although it is not expected that a teacher would use all of these techniques over the course of a
single observation, that so few teachers focused on reading content in these ways may help
explain the low levels of student performance observed on tasks involving letter sounds, oral
reading, and reading comprehension.
Tests of statistical difference between study groups were not conducted for every item
(although it was confirmed that there is no significant difference between treatment groups by
subdomain). Potential patterns in comparison and treatment teacher scores may be noted,
however, as points of comparison for end‐line analysis.  
Figure 5. Instructional Content ‐ Percentage of Teachers "Correct" by Item
25%
15%
15%
10%
10%
20%
70%
25%
30%
5%
35%
30%
0%
8%
5%
5%
3%
3%
7%
23%
8%
10%
2%
12%
10%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
41.  Speak about own lives, events or stories
40.  Create or write own texts (sentence or
story)
39.  Write words or sentences as dictated
38.  Answer questions about meaning of text,
or draw picture to show they understand a…
37.  Read printed material or book
36.  Read full story
35.  Read full sentences (not just words)
34.  Blend letter‐sounds to form syllables and
words
33.  Discuss meaning of vocabulary words
32.  Associate words with letters
31.  Write letters
30.  Pronounce sounds of letters
29.  Identify differences and similarities of
sounds
Treatment Comparison
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 23
Figure 6 displays the percentage of teachers observed using nine types of teaching and learning
materials. It is readily apparent that both treatment and comparison teachers predominantly
make use of the blackboard and textbook, as would be expected in a conventional classroom.
About half of the classes observed made use of student exercise books and/or slates. While
some teachers (approximately 20%) were observed using reading books, posters or wall charts,
and in the case of comparison classrooms, manipulatives, very few or no teachers were seen to
use letter cards or flash cards, supplementary reading resources, or worksheets. Again, while it
is not expected that teachers would make use of all of these materials in a single lesson,
multiple obsrvations nevertheless present a picture in which teachers most commonly rely
upon the blackboard, textbook, and student exercise books and/or slates to facilitate learning.   
Figure 6. Teaching‐Learning Material Use ‐ Percentage of Teachers "Correct" by Item
  
25%
55%
0%
0%
20%
5%
15%
85%
90%
3%
53%
0%
2%
15%
5%
27%
88%
90%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
80.  Manipulatives (e.g. real objects,
sandbox, etc)
79.  Student exercise books and/or slates
78.  Worksheets
77.  Supplementary reading resources
76.  Poster/wall charts (with letters, words,
pictures)
75.  Letter cards/flash cards
74.  Reading books
73.  Textbook
72.  Blackboard
Treatment Comparison
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 24
C. Teacher Interview
Each of the teachers observed was also to be interviewed, regarding their background and
training, participation in the PCI program, and the techniques and tools they use specifically in
teaching reading. Of the 80 planned, 78 teachers were actually interviewed, including 58 at the
PCI intervention schools and 20 at the comparison schools.
13  
Overall, 60% of the 78 teachers interviewed were men, and the average age of the teachers
was 38. Slightly over half of the teachers had six or more years of teaching experience
altogether, with the remainder having taught for five years or fewer. Only the PCI schools had
teachers with less than a year of teaching experience. Characteristics of the interviewed
teachers, by PCI intervention schools and comparison schools, are as shown in the table below:
Table 17. Teacher Sample Description (Interview)
   Treatment   Comparison  
   # % # %
Standard       
Standard 2 29 50% 10 50%
Standard 4 29 50% 10 50%
      
Teacher Gender
Male 33 57% 14 70%
Female 25 43% 6 30%
       
Total Teaching Experience       
Less than 1 year   14 24%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
1‐5 years   14 24% 7 35%
6‐10 years   5 9% 4 20%
More than 10 years 25 43% 8 40%
Don’t Know  ‐‐  ‐‐  1 5%
      
Teaching Experience at the School     
Less than 1 year   13 22% 4 20%
1‐5 years   20 34% 9 45%
6‐10 years   6 10% 4 20%
More than 10 years 19 33% 3 15%
       
Total 58 100% 20 100%
 
13 At one school (in Musoma Rural), the Standard 4 teacher was not present on the day the survey team arrived, so
the Standard 2 teacher was observed teaching both an S2 and an S4 class, but only interviewed once. One
questionnaire form was misplaced (for a Standard 2 teacher observed and interviewed in Bunda).
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 25
C.1. Teacher Training  
The teachers interviewed at the PCI intervention schools were asked about the training they
have received from PCI. It should be noted that the sample of PCI schools included a mix of
schools which had participated in the previous FFE project and those which were newly added
during this second project; schools in the latter category have not yet received any PCI
interventions, including training of teachers. Likewise, because the second program has only
recently begun, much of the planned training has not yet been provided even at the schools
which participated in the first program.  
Of the 58 teachers interviewed, 19 (33%) reported having received some training from PCI,
while 37 others (64%) had not and two (3%) were not sure.14 No teachers had yet received the
planned training (by partner Children’s Book Project) in Readership Teaching Methodologies,
nor in Library Management. Most of those who had been trained so far received training
related to the school feeding activity (see Table 18 in Annex 7).  Note that, aside from training
in reading, the sample of Standard 2 and 4 teachers (selected because of the relevance to early
grade reading), may not necessarily be targeted for many of the PCI trainings.  
In addition to formal training, teachers were also asked whether or not they had received any
other assistance in teaching reading. Eleven of the 20 teachers from comparison schools (55%)
and 34 of 58 teachers from the PCI intervention schools (60%) indicated that they had received
assistance of this type, from the sources cited in the table below:   
Table 19. Assistance Provided to Teachers in Teaching Reading
Source of Assistance in Teaching Reading Treatment   Comparison  
# % # %
Head Teacher    14 24% 3 15%
Other teacher    27 47% 8 40%
DEO/WEO    2 3% 3 15%
School Inspector    3 5% 1 5%
Children’s Book Project staff 1 2%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
C.2. Teaching Reading
Teachers were interviewed specifically about their teaching of reading or literacy in Standards 2
and 4. For example, teachers were asked if there was a scheduled time for teaching reading in
the Standard 2 or Standard 4 class they normally teach. Almost all teachers, including 48 of the
58 teachers in the intervention schools (83%) and 18 of the 20 teachers in the comparison
schools (90%), said that there was a scheduled time. (This question may have been
misunderstood, however, as several teachers appeared to be referring to after‐school, remedial
lessons for slower learners.)
Teachers were also asked how often they taught reading in a week and how long the reading
session normally lasts. As shown in the table below, just over half of the teachers said they
taught reading every day, and all but two taught reading at least one or two times per week.
 
14 The training may have been received during the first PCI FFE program and/or during the second program.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 26
There were no significant differences in the time allocated to each reading session: in both
study groups, half or almost half reported allocating at least half an hour to each session, while
around half allocated between one‐quarter and half an hour per session.
Table 20. Reading Lessons – Frequency and Time Allocated
  
  
Treatment   Comparison  
# % # %
Frequency of Reading Lessons
Every day 32 55% 11 55%
3‐4 times/week 8 14% 5 25%
1‐2 times/week 15 26% 3 15%
Less than once/week  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Never 2 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
  
Time Allocated to Reading Lesson
More than 45 minutes 8 14% 4 20%
31‐45 minutes 13 22% 6 30%
16‐30 minutes 34 59% 10 50%
0‐15 minutes 2 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
  
Total15 58 100% 20 100%
Teachers were asked about different aspects of their literacy instruction, such as lesson
planning or scripting of lessons; use of different methods for teaching reading; use of methods
to assess student reading ability; and use of learning aids in teaching reading. There were no
statistically significant differences in any area of response between the intervention and the
comparison schools. Frequency tables of the responses are as shown in Annex 7 and
summarized in the figures below.  
Around a third of teachers in both groups reported using lesson plans or scripts to teach their
reading classes, and about a quarter were able to show the interviewer a sample:
Figure 7. Teacher Use of Lesson Planning
 
15 Responses adding to less than 100% are due to the omission of “Don’t know” responses.
38%
28% 30%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
As stated by
teacher
As shown by
teacher
Intervention
Schools (n=58)
Comparison
Schools (n=20)
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 27
All teachers reported using a variety of methods to teach reading, as shown in Fgure 8 below.
Out loud reading, shared reading, choral reading, and guided reading were the most commonly
reported methods used, with between 90%‐100% of teachers saying they used the methods,
while the least commonly used methods reported were segmenting letter names and sounds
(reported by around only one third of teachers) and naming beginning and ending sounds in a
word (half or less than half of teachers). These patterns suggest that teachers in treatment and
comparison schools alike make limited use of phonics‐related activities in their instruction.  
Figure 8. Teaching Reading: Percent of Instructional Strategies Observed
95%
95%
90%
65%
100%
50%
55%
30%
70%
60%
65%
50%
55%
90%
90%
97%
67%
95%
40%
53%
36%
69%
59%
76%
57%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Choral reading
Guided reading
Shared reading
Silent reading
Out‐loud reading
Naming beginning/ending sounds in a word
Blending sounds to form new words
Segmenting letter names/sounds
Word sorting
Pre‐reading exercises, eg teaching vocabulary
Re‐telling the text
Finding the main idea
Shared writing, group writing,  pair writing
Intervention Schools (n=58) Comparison Schools (n=20)
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 28
Most teachers also reported using a range of methods to assess whether or not their students
are learning to read (see Figure 9). The most common assessment method was asking students
questions about the lesson, with over 70% of teachers assessing in this way, while all other
methods were used by less than half of the teachers.
Figure 9. Methods Used to Assess Reading Skills
Fewer teachers reported using tools or learning aids in teaching reading. Most teachers used a
blackboard and textbooks, as noted in the teacher observation section above. Approximately
40% of teachers reported using posters, charts or pictures, and around 30% used flashcards.
Less than 20% used any supplementary reading materials or an alphabet strip, while other
learning aids such as flipcharts, manipulatives, word wall, or worksheets were used by less than
10% of teachers. No teacher reported using story books in their teaching of reading.
Teachers were asked how many of the students in their class (the one observed) they would
describe as being “inattentive” during class.16 The teacher responses ranged from 0 to 41, with
an average of 9.8 students per class in the intervention schools and 13.8 students per class in
the comparison schools.  
Of the 4,154 students in the PCI intervention classes, a total of 560 (14%) were described by the
teachers as being “inattentive” during class. In the comparison classes, a total of 275 out of
1,548 (18%) were described as “inattentive.” These differences were not statistically significant.
 
16 According to teachers, class sizes ranged from 25 to 143 students, with an average of 74 students per class (72 in
the PCI schools, 77 in the comparison schools).  
10%
70%
35%
30%
15%
45%
15%
5%
0
72%
24%
55%
33%
26%
16%
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Take no action
Ask students questions about lesson
Monitor students as they work
Listen to students read aloud
Ask students what they read
Check exercise book
Give quiz or test
Other
Intervention Schools (n=58) Comparison Schools (n=20)
Indicator: Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by their teachers
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 29
Table 21. Teacher Identification of Inattentive Students
    Treatment Comparison
Students identified as inattentive by their
teachers
# % # %
560 14% 275 18%
Not inattentive 3594 86% 1273 82%
Total 4154 100% 1548 100%
Correlational relationships were tested between the number of students described as
inattentive and class size (using both the number of students in attendance on the day the class
was observed, and the number of students registered). In both treatment and comparison
schools, there was a significant positive correlation between the number of students in
attendance and the number of students described as inattentive (r = 0.112, p<0.01 in the
treatment schools and r = 0.326, p<0.001 in the comparison schools); i.e., the larger the class,
the greater the number of students described as inattentive. The same trend is observed when
looking at the number of students registered and the number of students described as
inattentive (r = 0.174, p<0.001 in the treatment schools and r = 0.327, p<0.001 in the
comparison schools).  
  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 30
D. School Administrator Interview
At each of the 40 schools (30 PCI intervention schools and 10 comparison schools), a head
teacher or other school administrator was interviewed. At 35 of the 40 schools, the Head
Teacher was interviewed, while at three schools, the Deputy Head Teacher was interviewed
and in two schools it was the Academic Teacher (Mwalimu wa Taaluma). Ninety percent were
men.
Most of the administrators had over 10 years of teaching experience altogether, but a majority
had been in their current position for fewer than five years, as shown below:
Table 22. School Administrator Sample Description
   Treatment   Comparison  
   # % # %
School Administrator Gender
Male 27 90% 9 90%
Female 3 10% 1 10%
       
Position / Title     
Head Teacher 26 87% 9 90%
Deputy Head Teacher 2 7% 1 10%
Academic Teacher 2 7%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
          
Total Teaching Experience       
Less than 1 year   ‐‐  ‐‐  1 10%
1‐5 years   5 17% 3 30%
6‐10 years   2 7%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
More than 10 years 22 73% 6 60%
Don’t Know 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
      
Time in Position at the School     
Less than 1 year   7 23% 3 30%
1‐5 years   14 47% 3 30%
6‐10 years   4 13% 2 20%
More than 10 years 5 17% 2 20%
       
Total 30 100% 10 100%
D.1. School Administrator Training
The school administrators at the 30 PCI intervention schools were asked about the training they
have received from PCI. Of the 30, 23 (77%) had received some training from PCI, while the
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 31
remaining seven (23%) had not17. Because this second phase of the program is just beginning,
no teachers had yet received the planned training (by partner Children’s Book Project) in
Readership Teaching Methodologies, nor in Library Management. Most of those who had been
trained so far received training related to the school feeding activity, as shown below:
Table 23. School Administrator Training Received
Training  
Intervention School
Teachers (n=30)
# %
Commodity and Store Management/Safe Food Storage and
Preparation   16 53%
School Administrators Training 2 7%
INSET 4 13%
Formation of Health Clubs 3 10%
Health Screening 3 10%
Zinduka 4 13%
School Gardening 5 17%
Mobenzi 3 10%
Other Training 918 30%
D.2. School Administrator use of Teaching Techniques and Tools
In order to assess the percent of school administrators who demonstrate use of new and
quality teaching techniques or tools, they were asked a series of questions on methods they use
to improve teacher performance, frequency of observing and discussing teacher performance,
use of lesson plans, other outside‐classroom activities used to support reading, and use of
management tools and techniques. These items include areas in which PCI expects to provide
training, combined with teacher activities which other projects in Tanzania and elsewhere have
used to improve teaching in reading.
Ninety percent or higher of school administrators reported reviewing lesson plans of teachers
as a method for improving their teaching. Over 70% of school administrators at treatment
schools and 90% of those at comparison schools meet on a monthly basis or more with
teachers to review performance. Only about 40%, however, observed a teacher teaching on at
least a monthly basis, while around 60% of those at treatment schools and 70% of those at
comparison schools observed at least once per quarter.  
 
17 The training may have been received during the first PCI FFE program and/or during the second program. Most
training planned under the second program has not yet started. 18 Mostly training received during the first phase of the PCI FFE program, including training in English and
Mathematics.
Indicator: Percent of school administrators in target schools who demonstrate use of new
and quality teaching techniques or tools
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 32
Figures 10 – 13 below show the percent of school administrators reporting use of other
specified techniques or tools.
Figure 10. Techniques for Helping Teachers Teach Better
Figure 11. Methods Used to Assess Reading Skills
73%
17%
60%
60%
33%
13%
7%
30%
23%
3%
40%
10%
60%
70%
10%
20%
0
30%
10%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Communicating often with teachers
Communicating with students/parents
Encouraging teamwork among teachers
Sharing knowledge with teachers
Observing and giving feedback to teachers
Ensuring training for teachers
Facilitating trainings for teachers
Providing teaching materials
Keep current on innovations in pedagogy
Other technique
Intervention Comparison
77%
63%
13%
3%
13%
3%
3%
3%
7%
10%
7%
3%
70%
80%
20%
0
10%
0
0
0
0
0
10%
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mentor/give feedback
Pair with good teacher
Develop teacher improvement plan
Organize training
Provide teaching materials
Ask Teacher College/DEO for assistance
Inform district authorities
Scold or disciplining teacher
Give low performance review
Change teacher’s subject
Other
Don’t know/nothing
Intervention Comparison
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 33
Figure 12. Other Methods Used to Support Reading  
Figure 13. Tools Developed by School Administrators  
Based on their responses to the questions on techniques and tools used, a total, composite
performance score was determined for each school administrator. The mean total score among
all school administrators was 66.6% in the PCI intervention schools and 63.8% in the
comparison schools, with no statistically significant differences by study group.   
Table 24. School Administrator Techniques and Tools Performance Scores
   N Min (%) Max (%) Mean (%) SD
Treatment 30 50.00 88.23 66.57 10.46
Comparison 10 44.12 76.47 63.82 9.1
Overall 40 44.12 88.23 65.88 10.1
17%
17%
47%
0
30%
10%
0
20%
50%
0
50%
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Engaging parents
Conducting community awareness
Collaborative monitoring
Establishing library
Other
None/Don’t know
Intervention
Comparison
100%
80%
53%
100%
73%
80%
100%
93%
78%
100%
90%
50%
100%
60%
80%
100%
100%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
School timetable
School budget
Weekly meeting plan with teachers
Teacher attendance record book
Teacher internal performance evaluation plan
School Development Plan
List of school committee members
Register of school supplies
Extra‐curricular activities schedule
Comparison Intervention
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 34
In both sets of schools, male administrators scored higher on their reported use of techniques
and/or tools than did their female counterparts, though these differences were not statistically
significant.
Table 25. School Administrator Total Performance Scores by Study Group and Gender
In both sets of schools, scores on the use of management tools and techniques (e.g. school
timetable, weekly meeting plan with teachers, teacher performance evaluation plan, etc.) was
considerably higher than use of pedagogical leadership techniques, such as strategies for
improving the teaching performance of their teachers. The differences, however, were not
statistically significant.  
Table 26. School Administrator Total Performance Scores by Sub‐Domain
Treatment Comparison Total
N Mean
(%) SD N Mean
(%) SD N Mean
(%) SD
Pedagogical Leadership 30 60.53 13.36 10 57.60 9.28 40 59.80 12.42
Use of Management
Tools/ Techniques 30 83.33 16.70 10 81.11 14.86 40 82.78 16.10
The distribution of total scores showed no significant differences by study group. Only one
school administrator scored below 50%, while around 80% scored between 50% and 74%.  
Table 27. School Administrator Performance Scores Distributions by Study Group
Treatment Comparison
Total Score No. Percent No. Percent
<25% 0 0% 0 0%
25%‐49% 0 0% 1 10%
50%‐74% 23 77% 8 80%
75%‐100% 7 23% 1 10%
Total 30 100% 10 100%
It is proposed that the definition for this indicator include the percent of school administrators
who obtain a performance score of at least 75% on the questionnaire (see Annex 8 for scoring).
Using this definition, the baseline values for the indicator are 23.3% PCI intervention schools
(7/30) and 10.0% comparison schools (1/10).
Treatment Comparison Total
N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Male 27 67.43 10.41 9 64.38 9.47 36 66.67 10.14
Female 3 58.82 8.82 1 58.82 N/A 4 58.82 7.20
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 35
E. Student Interview
The 800 Standard 2 and Standard 4 students who participated in the reading assessment were
also interviewed regarding their participation in the school feeding program, their feelings of
hunger during the school day, and their knowledge on health and hygiene.
E.1. School Feeding
Students were asked whether or not they had eaten a meal provided through the school
feeding program on the day prior to the interview (or on whichever day the student was last at
school and on which the school feeding program provided a meal). As shown in the figures
below, 65% of students in the PCI intervention schools19 and 14% of those in the comparison
schools had eaten a school feeding meal. Of these, a little over three‐quarters in the PCI
schools had eaten rice and beans, either with or without porridge, and the remainder had
porridge only. In the comparison schools, almost all had porridge alone.  
Figure 13. Student Participation in School Feeding
Of those who ate a school meal, about 10% in the PCI schools and in the comparison schools
continued to feel hungry, while the majority, around 90%, did not.
Regardless of whether or not the student had eaten a school feeding meal the day prior (or
another recent day), all were asked about their feelings of hunger during the school day. (In line
with MGD 1.2.1, students were asked whether they usually feel hungry or very hungry during
the school day). Responses are as shown in Table 28 below:
 
19 Excluding students from the eight schools in the treatment group which are new to the PCI FFE program and
have not yet started the school feeding intervention, the percent of students reporting that they ate a school meal
is 85%.
Did not
eat; 32%
Don't
know;
3%
Ate;
65%
Treatment
Did not
eat; 82%
Don't
know; 5%
Ate; 14%
Comparison
Indicator: Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are “hungry” during
the school day
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 36
Table 28. Student Feelings of Hunger
Treatment Comparison
# % # %
Students who indicated that they are usually hungry or very
hungry during the school day 271 45% 152 76%
Students who indicated that they are usually not hungry or
very hungry / Do not know 329 55% 48 24%
Total 600 100% 200 100%
E.2. School Absences
All students were also asked about the number of days they were absent from school as a result
of bad health or illness during the previous month (the month prior to the closing of schools,
from which students had just returned when the survey was conducted). Estimates from the
students ranged from 0 days to 30 days absence, as shown in the table below:
Table 29. Number of Days of Absence
Number of Days
Missed # %
0 200 25%
1 117 15%
2 133 17%
3 77 10%
4 25 3%
5 56 7%
6‐10 38 5%
11‐30 9 1%
Don’t Know/No
response
145 18%
Excluding the 145 students who were not able to provide an estimate, the average number of
days students report being absent from school due to illness in the previous month was 2.28 for
students in the PCI intervention schools and 2.37 for students in the comparison schools.  
Indicator: Average number of days students report being absent from school due to illness
during the previous month
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
21
25
30
Don’t Know
# students
# days missed
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 37
The parents who were interviewed at the school (who in most cases were not the parents of
the students interviewed) were also asked about their own child’s absences from school as a
result of bad health or illness during the month period prior to a recent school vacation. This
group of parents overall estimated fewer absences than did the children. About one‐third of
parents (35% in intervention schools; 41% in comparison schools) reported that their child had
not been absent at all from school in the previous month (versus 25% of the children). Of those
who were able to give an estimated number of days, the number of days missed ranged from 0
to 21 days. The average number of days missed, including those who had not missed any days,
was 2.07 in the intervention schools and 2.34 in the comparison schools.
Students were also asked to try to estimate whether they have missed more, fewer, or the
same number of days at school this year compared to last year due to illness or bad health. In
the PCI schools, students were roughly evenly divided among those who said they were absent
more this year, less this year, or about the same as last year, with slightly more (151 versus 135)
saying they have been absent less this year. In the comparison schools, the proportion of
students who said they were absent less this year than last year was higher both in comparison
to those in the PCI intervention schools and in comparison to those who said they were absent
more or absent about the same (but these differences were not statistically significant).
Table 30. Frequency of School Absences Due to Bad Health or Sickness – Student Responses
Treatment
(n=600)
Comparison
(n=200)
No. % No. %    
Absent more this year than last   135 23% 55 28%
Absent less this year than last   151 25% 68 34%
Absent about the same this year and last year 146 24% 41 21%
Don’t know   168 28% 36 18%
The parents who were interviewed at the school (who in most cases were not the parents of
the students interviewed) were also asked to assess whether their own child’s health‐related
absences were increasing or decreasing.  In line with responses from the students, parents at
the PCI schools were about evenly divided in their responses. Again in line with student
responses, a higher number of parents at the comparison schools reported fewer absences
than those reporting more. An even higher number reported that the the number of absences
was about the same. A comparison between parents at the intervention schools and the
comparison schools shows that a higher percentage of parent respondents in the intervention
schools believed that their child had been absent from school because of sickness or bad health
Indicator: Percent of students who report a decrease in health‐related absences
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 38
more this year, when compared to parents at the comparison schools; these differences,
however, were not statistically significant.
Table 31. Frequency of School Absences Due to Bad Health or Sickness – Parent Responses
Intervention
Schools (n=171)
Comparison
Schools (n=58)
No. % No. %
More this year than last year 50 29% 10 17%
Less this year than last year 51 30% 19 33%
Same this year as last year 51 30% 26 45%
Don’t know / No response 19 11% 3 5%
E.3. Health and Hygiene Test
An eight‐item health and hygiene test was given to all 800 students. The questions were “true‐
false” and covered a range of topics, including hygiene, nutrition, and HIV. Overall, the mean
score on the test was 64.2% among students in the PCI intervention schools and 66.5% in the
comparison schools. These differences were not statistically significant.  
Table 32. Student Health Test Scores by Study Group
The proportion of students answering each question correctly ranged from 55% to 89%, as
shown in Figure 14 below:
   N Min (%) Max (%) Mean (%) SD
Treatment 600 0 100 64.19 19.99
Comparison 200 0 100 66.50 18.79
Overall 800 0 100 64.77 19.71
Indicator: Percent of students in target schools who achieve a passing score on a test of
good health and hygiene practices
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 39
Figure 14. Student Health Test Correct Responses
Tables 33 – 34 below show the distribution of mean scores by gender and by Standard, in the
PCI intervention schools and comparison schools. Boys scored somewhat higher than girls in
treatment schools, whereas in comparison schools the opposite was true, but neither of these
findings was statistically significant. In both sets of schools, Standard 4 students scored higher
than students in Standard 2; again, this was not a statistically significant finding.
Table 33. Student Health Test Scores by Study Group and Gender
Table 34. Student Health Test Scores by Study Group and Standard
73%
68%
55%
83%
66%
61%
87% 89%
79%
68%
55%
86%
64% 62%
90% 90%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Question #
Intervention Schools % Comparison Schools %
  
  
Treatment Comparison
N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Male 293 65.27 19.42 101 65.35 21.35
Female 300 62.92 20.62 98 67.72 15.84
  
  
Treatment Comparison
N Mean (%) SD N Mean (%) SD
Standard 2 299 61.37 20.67 100 63.50 18.09
Standard 4 301 66.99 18.92 100 69.50 19.08
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 40
As detailed in Tables 35 and 36 below, the percent of students who achieved a passing score on
the test (assuming a passing grade is at least 75%) is 51% in the intervention schools (including
47% in Standard 2 and 55% in Standard 4) and 53% in the comparison schools (including 49% in
Standard 2 and 57% in Standard 4).
Table 35. Student Health Test Score Categories by Study Group and Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   Standard 2 Standard 4 Standard 2 Standard 4
Student Health
Test Score # % # % # % # %
<25% 12 4% 9 3% 3 3% 2 2%
25%‐49% 44 15% 24 8% 9 9% 7 7%
50%‐74%    102 34% 101 34% 39 39% 34 34%
75%‐100%  * 141 47% 167 55% 49 49% 57 57%
Total 299 100% 301 100% 100 100% 100 100%
* Passing
Table 36. Student Health Test Passing Scores
Treatment Comparison
# % # %
Students who achieved a passing score on a test of good
health and hygiene practices
308 51% 106 53%
Students who did not receive a passing score 292 49% 94 47%
Total 600 100% 200 100%
  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 41
F. Parent Interview
A total of 229 parents were interviewed across the 40 schools, including 79 in Bunda, 39 in
Butiama, 53 in Musoma Rural, and 58 in Serengeti. Although the letters sent out by the districts
instructed schools to request one parent from a student in each of standards 1 to 7 to come to
school to be interviewed, the average number of parents who came and were interviewed per
school was between five and six, ranging from 2 to 7 parents.  
A description of the sample of parents and their child in school is provided in the table below:
Table 37. Parent Sample Description
   Treatment   Comparison  
   # % # %
Parent Gender
Male 107 63% 37 64%
Female 64 37% 21 36%
  
Parent Member of School Committee
Any Committee 56 33% 20 34%
School Management Committee 39 23% 17 29%
PTA 5 3% 3 5%
School Feeding sub‐Committee 9 5% 0 0%
SWASH sub‐Committee 3 2% 1 2%
Other Committee 6 4% 1 2%
  
Child Gender
Male 84 49% 28 48%
Female 87 51% 30 52%
  
Child’s Grade (Standard)
Pre‐Primary 18 11% 5 9%
1 45 26% 11 19%
2 24 14% 11 19%
3 27 16% 7 12%
4 22 13% 4 7%
5 12 7% 5 9%
6 8 5% 5 9%
7 15 9% 10 17%
  
Total 171 100% 58 100%
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 42
Schools were asked to invite a mix of parents, to include those who were members of a school
committee and those who were not. About a third of the parents interviewed reported being a
member of a school‐level committee, while the other two‐thirds of parents did not belong to
any such committee. Those who were members were mostly part of the school management
committee; others belonged to the PTA, a school feeding or SWASH sub‐committee (at the PCI
intervention schools), or other.
Overall, 63% of the parents were male, while 37% were female, and their ages ranged from 22
to 78, with median age of 44 years (with little to no difference between the intervention
schools and the comparison schools). The students (children of the parents) were almost evenly
divided between boys and girls (49% to 51% respectively).
Of the 229 parents, 23 (10%) had students in pre‐primary and 203 (90%) had students in
Standards 1 – 7. Distribution by Standard varied only slightly between the intervention and
comparison schools, and in both categories, a higher proportion of students were in the first
three Standards.   
Most parents (186 of 229, or 81%) reported having visited the school before, for reasons as
shown in Table 38 below:
Table 38. Reasons for Parent Visits to School
Reason  
Intervention
Schools (n=171)
Comparison
Schools (n=58)
No. % No. %
Any 134 78% 52 90%
Talk to teacher about child’s performance or attendance or
behavior in school 112 66% 47 81%
Attend a PTA or school committee meeting 43 25% 14 24%
Attend school feeding sub‐committee meeting 6 4% 2 3%
Attend PCI sensitization meeting 23 13% 0 0%
Attend another school meeting, such as a parent’s meeting 23 13% 12 21%
Other reason 8 5% 7 12%
None of the differences in response frequencies between parents in the intervention schools
and those in the comparison schools were statistically significant.
  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 43
Parents were asked to name three benefits of sending their child to school. A large majority of
parents (195 out of 229, or 85%) were able to name three or more benefits of educating their
child. The difference in responses between parents of students at intervention schools (85.3%)
versus those at comparison schools (84.4%) was not statistically significant.
Table 39. Parent Knowledge of Benefits of Education
  
  
Treatment Comparison
# % # %
Able to name 3 benefits of education 146 85% 49 84%
Not able to name 3 benefits of education 25 15% 9 16%
Total 171 100% 58 100%
  
Indicator: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least 3 benefits of
primary education  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 44
V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary objective of the baseline survey was to establish baseline values for selected
project indicators against which the project will be able to measure its progress through the life
of the project. With the exception of two indicators (see section VI.), baseline values were
determined for all objectives as planned and have been used as a basis for proposed midterm
and end of project targets (Annex 2).
In establishing baseline values and proposing targets, certain assumptions had to be made
about the indicators and their definitions (especially, as discussed above, related to defining
literacy achievement and “new and quality teaching techniques and tools”). Similarly, because
most of the planned project interventions were yet to start at the time of the baseline and in
some cases had not been fully designed, the survey assessed a range of knowledge and
practices which may or may not end up being areas of emphasis of the project. Thus, the
importance to be attached to individual results from the baseline and the influence of the
results on the design and implementation of interventions will necessarily need to take into
consideration the eventual focus areas of the interventions. Further definition of the
interventions, moreover, should be taken into account when collecting evaluation information
at midterm and/or end of project.
Very few significant differences were found in baseline results between the treatment group
(random sample of PCI intervention schools) and the comparison group. The similarity of results
across instruments indicates a high level of comparabilty between study groups and successful
use of the propensity score matched pairing technique, which is an important element of pre‐ 
to post‐test gains analyses. As a result, differences detected between groups at post‐test will be
able to be more confidently attributed to the effects of the intervention (provided no other
confounding variables are identified).  
In general, results of the baseline survey did not contain many unexpected or atypical results. In
particular, the results of the EGRA (which because of commonalities in the instruments and
methods of administration allow its results to be compared to a certain extent across projects)
and the classroom observations are consistent with the findings from other countries where
similar assessments have been conducted. This also suggests a high level of reliability in
instrumentation and administration.
In summary, key findings from the baseline and recommendations arising include the following:
 Overall EGRA scores were low, with the large majority of students achieving a score of less
than 50%, and below what they should be achieving at their grade level. Though grade‐level
performance standards have not yet been established in Tanzania, 11% of students
(Standards 2 and 4 combined) were unable to respond to a single item correctly. As
expected, Standard 4 students outperformed Standard 2 students across all tasks, but their
scores were still relatively low, suggesting that additional years of schooling are only having
a limited impact on literacy achievement. Boys in the treatment group obtained significantly
higher overall EGRA scores than girls in the treatment group. This difference was more
readily observed in the higher scores achieved by boys in the phonemic awareness, oral
reading passage, and reading comprehension tasks. These differences should be taken into
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 45
consideration in the analysis of potential treatment group gender gaps at end‐line.
Additionally, students’ reading fluency on timed reading tasks should be carefully observed
at end‐line in an analysis of gains.
 Relative to the other tasks, students performed best on phonemic awareness and letter‐
sound correspondence. In similar contexts, this is often due to the instructional strategies
used by the majority of teachers that focus predominantly on exercises such as choral
repetition, memorization of the alphabet, and other exercises involving the identification of
sounds and letters.
 Students’ performance was poorest on decoding, fluency (oral passage reading), and
comprehension. This is consistent with findings in other similar settings where EGRA has
been administered, where students tend to score lowest on comprehension tasks. Again,
this is frequently due to the fact that teachers spend most of their time with the
phonological awareness activities described above rather than balancing instruction with
time spent on decoding, vocabulary (a prerequisite for building fluency), and
comprehension.
 Similarly, patterns in the teacher observation portion of the baseline mirror what has been
found in other countries. These include:
 An almost exclusive reliance on “chalk and talk” methods of instruction;
 A large percentage of time dedicated to “teacher talk” rather than student talk or
student work;
 Excessive use of choral repetition and large‐group instruction at the expense of
independent, pair, or small group reading;
 Little or no time spent making meaning of reading with comprehension tasks such as
pre‐reading discussions, comprehension questions during and after reading, and
extension activities that demonstrate children’s understanding of text;
 Limited use by teachers of instructional materials such as flash cards, letter cards, or
wall charts;
 A near absence of reading materials for students, particularly leveled, decodable
readers; and
 Little meaningful work on developing vocabulary, as evidenced by the extremely low
scores in the observation related to students asking questions, getting responses, and
responding to questions of other students.  
 The relatively low use of newer teaching techniques and tools (the large majority of
teachers had overall classroom observation scores between 25% and 49%) is not
particularly surprising at baseline given that teachers participating in the observations had
not yet receiving project training or relevant materials support. Importantly, significant
differences detected in the classroom observation scores between treatment and
comparison schools were minimal, providing even ground on which to base future
comparisons of teacher performance. Measures of improved performance at end‐line
should look for an increase in the proportion of teachers achieving overall scores of 50%
and higher.   
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 46
 Teachers reported relatively high levels of awareness and use of a range of methods for
teaching reading. Many more traditional teaching methods, such as choral reading, out‐loud
reading, guided reading, and shared reading, were reportedly used by around 90% of
teachers, whereas the use of other strategies, such as segmenting letter names and sounds,
blending sounds to form new words, and naming beginning and ending sounds, were
reported to be used much less frequently. Similarly, the use of various methods for
assessing whether or not students are learning was considerably lower: on average, the
assessment methods examined were used by only around one‐third of teachers, and there
was a reliance on informal methods (e.g. questioning). There may be a need to emphasize a
mix of such informal methods with more structured technicques, such as one‐on‐one
assessments or use of assessment tools.   
 Similarly, most school administrators expressed relatively high levels of awareness and
activity in carrying out their responsibilities to support improved instruction and learning
outcomes, with no statistically significant differences found between study groups, nor by
gender of respondent. This provides a strong foundation for PCI to provide further training
and support to school administrators to apply methods for improving teacher performance
and for using other management tools and outside‐the‐classroom activities to support
reading.  
 Given these patterns, several strategies could be considered by PCI for improving the lowest
reading scores identified at baseline. The following list represents a sample of best practices
reflecting what works in early grade reading instruction:
1. Provide students with reading material beyond textbooks, notebooks, or text on
chalkboards, especially leveled and decodable readers.  
2. Help teachers obtain or develop key instructional materials and train them in their use.
Materials include big books, letter and syllable cards, word cards, and story pictures.
3. Ensure that students spend time each day reading silently to themselves to build their
independent reading ability.
4. Ensure that teachers provide opportunities for students to work in pairs and groups on a
variety of literacy activities, from drawing to storytelling to reading and asking one
another questions to extending the story.
5. Provide students with opportunities to ask questions of the teacher and their peers, and
to answer their peers.
6. Train teachers in the use of simple comprehension strategies that should be used
routinely, including pre‐reading, read alouds, types of comprehension questions and
exercises to use after reading (including literal and inferential questions), and extension
exercises such as dramatizing or continuing the story.
7. Train teachers in the use of vocabulary building strategies, including oral language
development and the introduction of at least one new word each day.
8. Train teachers in the teaching of decoding strategies such as helping students sound out
unknown words, comparing word parts to words they know, and linking decoding to
vocabulary lessons.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 47
9. Encourage students to exercise their imaginations by inventing stories and characters,
both verbally and in writing.
10. Train teachers in how to teach the elements of stories, including setting, character, plot,
motivation, conflict, and resolution.
11. Provide students with a balance of fiction and nonfiction reading exercises.
12. Ensure that students have an opportunity to write, both in response to prompts as well
as the generation of original ideas such as stories or letters.  
13. Where necessary, provide teachers with scripted lessons that cover the five
foundational skill areas in the early grades.
14. Require teachers to teach reading for at least an hour a day in the early grades. This
strategy has been adopted in Uganda and other countries.
15. Provide teachers with formative assessment strategies such as daily observations and
questions, weekly rapid reviews of key competencies attained, and monthly one‐on‐one
assessment of key competencies where possible. Strategies such as these have been
developed for use in large classrooms in Africa – for example, in the USAID‐funded Read
to Succeed project in Zambia.
 Many of these best practices are in step with the skill areas, teaching strategies, and
materials proposed by Children’s Book Project for implementation under the FFE II project.
At the time of the baseline assessment, teacher professional development had not yet
begun. Future project assessments (i.e. at midline and endline) will document potential
changes in teacher practices, materials use, and student literacy as measured by classroom
observations, teacher interviews, and the EGRA. Comparisons of student and teacher
performance between intervention and comparison groups—and comparisons of each
group’s performance between baseline and midline/endline—will provide an indication of
the effectiveness of CBP’s approach. At present, baseline results suggest that CBP’s focus on
phonemic awareness and phonetics, vocabulary, fluency, reading comprehension, writing,
library development, the supply of reading materials and community involvement are
appropriate, and needed, strategies.  
 One significant difference found between respondents at the PCI intervention schools and
those in comparison schools was in the percent of students indicating that they are usually
hungry or very hungry at school, with a much lower percentage of students at the PCI
schools reporting feeling hungry. This likely reflects the fact that school feeding is already
taking place in most of the PCI schools (only a small percentage of the comparison schools
had school feeding activities, and where they existed they consisted mostly of porridge
only). Lower reported levels of hunger, however, did not correspond to a significantly lower
level of students being reported as inattentive by their teachers, however, nor of lower
levels of school absence due to ill health, nor of improved reading skills.  
 It is difficult to know whether or not teachers are able to accurately report at a given point
in time a number of their students who are inattentive. In addition, it is likely that there are
many factors that contribute to student attentiveness, including hunger and illness, but also
including conditions outside the scope of the project, such as class size.  It was seen in the
baseline that average class size was very large (over 70 students), and few schools were
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 48
able to accommodate multiple streams or sessions, due to lack of space, teachers, and/or
time in the day. In treatment schools, a statistically significant negative correlation was
found between class size and overall mean EGRA scores (i.e., a higher number of students
registered in a class and actually in attendance both correlated with lower EGRA scores);
similarly, a statistically significant correlation was observed in both study groups between
class size and the number of students identified as inattentive (larger class sizes being
positively correlated with higher numbers of students being reported as inattentive).
 Though it is important to make sure that school children know how they can prevent
disease and promote better health, it is not clear that improving student knowledge in
health and nutrition will on its own have an impact on the project’s higher‐level indicators
such as improved health and dietary practices, school attendance or learning outcomes.
Efforts to ensure improved access to water and sanitation, health screening and services or
referrals, involvement of parents and communities, and the school feeding component are
likely to have a more direct impact on school health and performance and may merit
relatively higher levels of effort and resources.  
 Parent responses revealed high levels of engagement – including participation on school
committees and participation in school events – as well as high levels of awareness about
the benefits of sending their children to school. While the selection of parents was not
random, and as a result it is not clear that the sample of parents was representative of
parents at the schools in general, it is clear that the program will have a number of channels
for reaching parents and encouraging their participation and that there is a strong base of
parent engagement which could be built on.  
  
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 49
VI. INDICATOR TRACKING  
Baseline values of the key baseline survey indicators are as shown in the table below. These
values (for the PCI intervention schools) are also reflected in the Indicator Performance
Tracking Table (IPTT), included as Annex 2 (showing baseline survey indicators only). Because of
small sample sizes, baseline results (and therefore targets) cannot be established at a district‐
by‐district level.
Suggested annual targets for each indicator, based on the baseline estimates, are as shown on
the IPTT for the consideration of PCI.20 Adjustments in several of the final year targets have
been suggested, either because the original targets were too low or because, based on actual
baseline results, they do not appear to be achievable. Target‐setting, though, must necessarily
take into account the context and a variety of program considerations, so final targets should
be proposed by the PCI team, in consultation with other partners as appropriate.  
Two indicators in the PMP and IPTT for which baseline values were not determined are:
1. Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate improved literacy instruction as
identified by supervisors, mentors, or coaches
This indicator is defined in exactly the same way as a second indicator (Percent of teachers
in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools), and
thus is not reported separately. To define the indicator differently in order to determine a
baseline value, PCI would need to specify which behaviors, among those included in the
teacher observation protocol and/or interview, it would consider as constituting “improved
literacy instruction” (and as distinct from use of new and quality teaching tools and
techniques). Alternatively, PCI may consider assessing this indicator as written (e.g.
improvement as identified by supervisors, mentors or coaches) at the time of the midterm
and/or final evaluation, once these individuals have been identified.
2. Percent of Volunteer Student Aides (VSAs) with increased self‐confidence
At the time of conducting the baseline, PCI had not yet started its planned work with VSAs,
who will be recent female graduates who did not have the opportunity to attend secondary
school (although almost half of school administrators, both those at PCI intervention
schools and at comparison schools, reported that they currently have VSAs, possibly of
another type). This indicator will be assessed via survey at endline and via pre‐test during
the program intervention for baseline.   
 
20 It is assumed, given that most project interventions have not yet started, that baseline values and the year 1
(FY14) targets will mostly be the same.
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 50
Indicator Baseline Result Statistically
Significant
Difference
Intervention
Schools
Comparison
Schools
Percent of boys in target schools who, by the end of two
years of school, demonstrate reading comprehension
equivalent to their grade level as defined by national
standards21 at USDA supported schools
11.9%  
(n=35)
8.9%  
(n=9) None
Percent of girls in target schools who, by the end of two
years of school, demonstrate reading comprehension
equivalent to their grade level as defined by national
standards22 at USDA supported schools
9.3%  
(n=28)
8.2%  
(n=8) None
Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use
of new and quality teaching techniques or tools (defined as
those who achieve at least 50% on the classroom
observation instrument)
10%  
(n=6)
15%  
(n=3) None
Percent of teachers in target schools who allow students to
ask questions during class
17%  
(n=10)
21%  
(n=4) None
Percent of teachers in target schools who allow students to
respond to questions raised in class by other students  
12%
(n=7)  
17%
(n=3) 
None
Percent of school administrators in target schools who
demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or
tools (defined as those who report using at least 75% of the
target techniques and/or tools)
23%  
(n=7)
10%
(n=1) 
None
Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive
by their teachers
14%
(n=560) 
18%
(n=275) 
None
Percent of students in target schools who indicate that
they are “hungry23” during the school day
45%  
(n=271)
76%  
(n=152) p<.000
Percent of students who report a decrease in health‐
related absences
25%  
(n=151)
34%  
(n=68) None
Average number of days students report being absent from
school due to illness during the previous month
2.28  
(n=484)
2.37
(n=171) None
Percent of students in target schools who achieve a passing
score on a test of good health and hygiene practices
51%  
(n=308)
53%  
(n=106) None
Percent of parents in target communities who can name at
least 3 benefits of primary education
85%  
(n=146)
84%  
(n=49) None
 
21 In Tanzania, national standards for grade‐level literacy performance have not been established. See section
IV.A.2. for a discussion of the method used for determining these baseline values.   22 As above. 23 In line with MGD 1.2.1, students were asked if they are hungry or very hungry during the school day.
PCI Food
Annex 1
for Education Prog
1. Project‐Level
gram in Tanzania –
Results Framew
Baseline Survey Re
work
port Page 51
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 52
Annex 2. Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) – Baseline Survey Indicators Only
Year 1 (FY14) Year 2 (FY15) Year 3 (FY16)
Indicator
Source Indicator
Desired
Direction
of
Change
(+ or ‐) Baseline Target Actual
%
Achieved Target Actual
%
Achieved Target Actual
%
Achieved
Strategic Objective 1: Improved Literacy of School‐Age Children
USDA
Percent of boys in target
schools who, by the end of
two years of school
demonstrate reading
comprehension equivalent
to their grade level as
defined by national
standards at USDA
supported schools + 12% 12% 20%
40%
50%
USDA
Percent of girls in target
schools who, by the end of
two years of school
demonstrate reading
comprehension equivalent
to their grade level as
defined by national
standards at USDA
supported schools + 9% 9% 20%
40%
50%
Objective 1: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction
USDA
Percent of teachers in target
schools who demonstrate
improved literacy instruction
as identified by supervisors,
mentors, or coaches
+ N/A 75%
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 53
Year 1 (FY14) Year 2 (FY15) Year 3 (FY16)
Indicator
Source Indicator
Desired
Direction
of
Change
(+ or ‐) Baseline Target Actual
%
Achieved Target Actual
%
Achieved Target Actual
%
Achieved
1.1.4 Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
USDA
Percent of teachers in target
schools who demonstrate
use of new and quality
teaching techniques or tools + 10% 10% 40% 75%
PCI TZ
Percentage of teachers that
allow students to ask
questions during class + 17% 17% 25% 35%
PCI TZ
Percentage of teachers that
allow students to respond to
questions raised in class by
other students. + 12% 12% 20% 30%
1.1.5 Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators
USDA
Percent of school
administrators in target
schools who demonstrate
use of new techniques or
tools + 23% 25% 50% 75%
1.2 Improved Attentiveness
USDA
Percent of students in
classrooms identified as
inattentive by their teachers  ‐  14% 14% 12%
10%
15%
1.2.1 Reduced Short‐term Hunger
USDA
Percent of students in target
schools who indicate that
they are "hungry" during the
school day
   ‐  45% 45% 35%
25%
95%
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 54
Year 1 (FY14) Year 2 (FY15) Year 3 (FY16)
Indicator
Source Indicator
Desired
Direction
of
Change
(+ or ‐) Baseline Target Actual
%
Achieved Target Actual
%
Achieved Target Actual
%
Achieved
1.3.2 Reduced health‐related absences
USDA
Percent of students who
report a decrease in health‐
related absences + 25% 25% 30%
35%
20%
PCI TZ
Average number of days per
student that they were
absent from school the
previous month due to
illness   ‐         2.28 2.28 2.15 2.0
SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices
2.1 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices
USDA
Percent of students in target
schools who achieve a
passing score on a test of
good health and hygiene
practices + 51% 51% 70% 90%
1.3.5 Increased community understanding of benefits of education
USDA
Percent of parents in target
communities who can name
at least 3 benefits of primary
education + 85% 85% 90% 90%
USDA
Percent of Volunteer Student
Aides with increased self‐
confidence + N/A 70%
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 55
Annex 3. Baseline Survey School Sample
PCI Intervention Districts = Bunda, Butiama, Musoma Rural Districts Included in FFE I Newly added in FFE II
Comparison District = Serengeti District
District School Name District School Name District School Name District School Name
Bunda Kambarage Butiama Kihuzu Musoma Rural Buira Serengeti Majimoto
Bunda Mariwanda B Butiama Bukinga Musoma Rural Burungu Serengeti Zakia Meghji
Bunda Haruzale Butiama Masurura Musoma Rural Kinyang’erere Serengeti Mbalibali
Bunda Nyantare Butiama Mwikoko Musoma Rural Kwibara Serengeti Iharara
Bunda Nyamakombu Butiama Muriaza Musoma Rural Bukumi Serengeti Iseresere
Bunda Kamulebya Butiama Ryamisanga24 Musoma Rural Buraga Serengeti Nyansurumunti
Bunda Mchigondo Musoma Rural Wanyere Serengeti Kitunguruma
Bunda Kiroleli Musoma Rural Butata Serengeti Matare
Bunda Igundu Musoma Rural Busungu Serengeti Nyaigabo
Bunda Marambeka Serengeti Masomgo
Bunda Kenkombyo
Bunda Busambara
Bunda Bulendabufwe
Bunda Bushigwamala
Bunda Nansuruli
24 Random replacement selection for Kinyambwiga B in Bunda District (at the latter school, which was originally selected for the sample, the data collection
team found no one there on the scheduled day of the survey, as a result of the death of a teacher the previous evening)
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 56
Annex 4. PCI FFE II – Baseline Survey –Training of Enumerators/Supervisors
Day 1 ‐ Monday Day 2 ‐ Tuesday Day 3 ‐ Wednesday Day 4 ‐ Thursday Day 5 ‐ Friday
08:30 ‐ 
09:00 Arrival and Registration Arrival and Registration School Practice #1 and
feedback/lessons
Arrival and Registration School Practice #2
09:00 ‐ 
09:30
Introduction to Project and EGRA
(why do we assess reading ability
with EGRA)
Review of previous day; Review of EGRA
basic scoring rules
Classroom Observation
practice
09:30 ‐ 
10:30
Roles and responsibilities of
enumerators, supervisors,
assessment manager and PCI
Practicing EGRA Task 1 and Task 2 Practicing EGRA Task 1 and Task 2
10:30 ‐ 
11:00 Tea Break Tea Break Tea Break
11:00 ‐ 
11:30 Sampling
Practicing EGRA Task 3 and Task 4 11:30 ‐ 
12:00
General Instructions, Introduction
and rapport, Obtaining consent
Classroom Observation
practice
12:00 –
13:00
Completing basic information section;
EGRA Scoring Rules
Student Questionnaire
13:00 ‐ 
14:00 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
14:00‐ 
14:30 Kiswahili letter sounds – EGRA task 2
Teacher Questionnaire Feedback from
practice
14:30 –
16:00
Introduction and practice of EGRA
Tasks
Head Teacher
Questionnaire and
School Checklist
Parent Questionnaire
16:00 ‐ 
16:45
Using a timer – scoring all tasks
quickly
EGRA practice in triads Practice Closing and
preparations
16:45 ‐ 
17:00 Closing Closing Closing Closing
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 57
Annex 5. Enumerator and Supervisor’s Training Guide
[To be submitted as a separate document]
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 58
Annex 6. Final Data Collection Instruments: PCI FFE II Baseline Survey
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                    Page 59
Fomu ya Majibu ya Mwanafunzi Maelekezo na Mwongozo wa Mdodosaji, 
EGRA KISWAHILI 
Maelekezo ya Jumla: 
Wakati wa kufanya uchunguzi huu, ni muhimu kuonyesha mwelekeo wa kucheza na kuburudika na wanafunzi 
kwa kuanza kuzungumza nao juu ya maswala rahisi yatakayowapendeza (tazama mfano ulioko hapa chini). 
Mwanafunzi anapaswa kuchukulia uchunguzi huu kama mchezo wa kujifurahisha kuliko mtihani wa 
kuogopewa. Ni muhimu kusoma TU zile sehemu zilizo ndani ya visanduku pole pole na kwa ufasaha. 
Hujambo! Ningependa kujitambulisha kwako. Jina langu ni ____ na ninaishi _____. (Mwambie kwa 
ufupi kuhusu familia yako, idadi ya watoto wako na umri wao, michezo upendayo, n.k.)
1. Hebu nieleze kwa ufupi kuhusu familia yako. (Ngojea jibu la mwanafunzi kwa muda mfupi. Ukiona 
kwamba anasita, uliza swali la pili; lakini asiposita, enda kwenye sehemu ya idhini ya Kusemwa). 
2. Unapenda kufanya nini wakati hupo shuleni? 
Idhini ya Kusemwa 
 Hebu nikueleze sababu za kuja kwangu hapa hivi leo. Ninafanya kazi na taasisi ya PCI 
kwenye program ya chakula na elimu II. 
 Ulichaguliwa kushiriki kwa bahati, kama katika mchezo wa bahati nasibu. 
 Tunakuomba ushirikiane nasi katika shughuli hii. Lakini usishiriki katika shughuli hii iwapo 
hutaki. 
 Tutacheza mchezo wa kusoma. Nitakuuliza usome herufi, maneno na hadithi fupi kwa sauti. 
 Nitatumia hii saa ya kasi ili kupima muda utakaotumia kusoma. 
 Huu SIYO mtihani na alama zako za mitihani shuleni hazitaathirika. 
 Pia nitakuuliza maswali kuhusiana na shule na afya.
 Sitanukuu jina lako kwenye karatasi hii kwa hivyo hakuna mtu atakaejua haya ni majibu 
yako.
 Kumbuka kwamba una hiari ya kutoshiriki katika shughuli hii. Vile vile, tutakapoanza 
shughuli hii, utajibu maswali kwa hiari yako na ni sawa iwapo hutaki kujibu swali. 
 Je, una swali lolote? Uko tayari kuanza? 
Tia alama ya sahihi ikiwa mwanafunzi ametoa idhini: NDIO 
 (Kama idhini ya mdomo haikutolewa ,mshukuru mtoto na uendelee kwa mtoto anayefuata kwa kutumia fomu 
hiyo hiyo) 
A. Tarehe ya uchunguzi : Tarehe : _______ 
Mwezi:_______ 
G. Darasa viwango 
mchanganyiko ?  0 =Hapana  1 = Ndiyo
B.1. Jina la mdodosaji : H. Kiwango: 
B.2. Alama binafsi ya 
Mdodoswaji: I.Jina la mkondo: 
C.1. Jina la shule: J. Alama binafsi ya 
mwanafunzi : 
C.2. Nambari ya usajiri wa 
shule:: K. Umri wa 
mwanafunzi :
 D. Wilaya: L. Jinsi ya mwanafunzi  0 =msichana 
 1 = mvulana 
E. Mkoa: 
M. Muda wa kuanza : ____ : _____ Asubuhi / Mchana 
F. Zamu ya shule: 
 1 = Siku nzima 
 2 = Asubuhi tu 
 3 = Mchana tu 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                    Page 60
Sehemu ya Kwanza: utambuzi wa sauti 
Soma kwa sauti kila kikundi cha maneno mara moja tu na mwanafunzi aseme neno gani linaanza na sauti
tofauti na mengine.
Hili ni zoezi la kusikiliza. Nitasema maneno matatu. Moja linaanza na mlio wa tofauti, nataka uniambie 
ni neno gani linaanza na sauti ya tofauti? 
1. Kwa mfano; 
“bata”, “dada” ,“baba”. Neno gani linaanza na sauti ya tofauti? 
Iwapo mwanafunzi atajibu kwa usahihi mwambie, vizuri sana, “dada” linaanza na sauti ya tofauti. 
Iwapo mwanafunzi hatajibu kwa usahihi, sema: “bata”, “dada”, “baba”. “Dada” linaanza na sauti ya 
tofauti kuliko “bata” na “baba.” 
2. Sasa jaribu neno lingine: “chura,” “chupa,” “kula.” Neno gani linaanza na sauti ya tofauti? 
Iwapo mwanafunzi atajibu kwa usahihi mwambie, vizuri sana “kula” linaanza na sauti ya tofauti. 
Iwapo mwanafunzi hatajibu kwa usahihi, sema: “chura,” “chupa,” “kula.” “Kula” linaanza na sauti ya 
tofauti kuliko “chupa” na “chura.” 
Je, umeelewa unavyopaswa kufanya? 
Uko tayari? Anza. 
Sehemu hii haitapimwa muda 
Utaratibu wa kusitisha mapema: sitisha zoezi hilo, ikiwa mwanafunzi hana majibu sahihi ndani ya seti tano 
ya mwanzo. 
Neno gani linaanza na sauti ya tofauti? [soma kila kikundi mara moja tu]
1 Meno Soma Saba [Meno] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
2 Yeye Yona Kona [Kona] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
3 Kile Kama Baba [Baba] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
4 Wewe Tatu Watu [Tatu] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
5 Cheza Juma Jiko [Cheza] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
6 Ndizi Ndege Mbuzi [Mbuzi] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
7 Peku Saba Paka [Saba] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
8 Viti Kanzu Kuni [Viti] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
9 Nguo Ngazi Mbegu [Mbegu] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
10 Pipi Kuni Panzi [Kuni] □jibu sahihi □jibu lisilosahihi □kutojibu
Number of correct responses: 
Weka alama katika kisanduku hiki iwapo shughuli ilisitishwa kwa sababu mwanafunzi 
hana majibu sahihi ndani ya seti tano ya mwanzo. 
y
PCI Food for E
Sehemu
Muonyesh
Karatasi hii
Kwa mfano
Hebu tufany
Iwapo ja
Iwapo ja
Sasa, hebu 
Iwapo ja
Iwapo ja
Je, umeelew
Nikisema “A
Nitamkie sa
katika mstari 
nitanyamaz
A
k
h
u
hiyo kisha ue
mwanafunzi 
umwambie “
anataja jina 
herufi”. We
zoezi hilo. 
BAADA YA
ya mwisho a
Utaratibu w
wote wa juu,
Mifano: n
i 
u 
U 
R 
th 
s 
u 
a 
a 
g 
i 
Muda uliosa
Weka alam
mwanafunz
Idadi ya ma
Education Pro
 ya Pili: 
he mwanafun
 ina herufi m
, sauti ya he
ye mazoezi:
awabu la mwa
awabu la mwa
jaribu heru
awabu la mwa
awabu la mwa
wa unavyop
Anza”, tafad
auti za heruf
wa juu baada
za kimya nik
Anzisha saa y
kusoma kwak
hakuweza ku
umemkosoa 
endelee. Una
anasita kwa
“Tafadhali 
la herufi, tof
eka alama ya
 SEKUNDE
aliyosoma. H
wa kusitisha k
, hata kwa ku
n E W 
T 
i 
Z 
W 
Z 
n 
a 
e 
h 
L 
T 
alia katika sa
ma katika kis
zi hakusoma
ajibu sahihi:
ogram in Tanz
Ufahamu
nzi orodha ya
mbali mbali.
erufi hii [kish
: Nitamkie s
anafunzi ni sa
anafunzi sio sa
fi nyingine: 
anafunzi ni sa
anafunzi sio sa
paswa kufan
dhali zitamk
fi, kuanzia h
a ya mfano kis
kusikilize, is
ya kupimia k
ke ukitumia p
uitamka. Iwap
mwanafunzi 
apaswa kuw
a muda wa se
endelea.”K
ofauti na saut
a mkwaju kw
E 60, SEMA,
Halafu endel
kusoma map
ujikosoa, sem
m 
B 
w 
S 
D 
M 
A 
A 
i 
d 
m 
aa ya kupima
sanduku hik
a kwa usah
:
ania – Baselin
u wa Sau
a herufi iliyo
. Tafadhali z
ha mwonyeshe
auti ya heru
ahihi, sema : V
ahihi, sema: S
nitamkie sa
ahihi, sema: V
ahihi, sema: S
nya? 
ke sauti za h
hapa kisha k
sha uendelee h
ipokuwa pa
kasi pindi mw
penseli kisha
po, mwanafu
katika jibu a
wa kimya, isip
ekunde 3, mp
Kisha uweke 
ti yake, mpe 
wenye herufi u
“Acha kus
lea na zoezi l
pema: Iwapo
ma “Asante
i a
a N
a O
W n
a o
k i
i m
k t
L sh
a i
i a
a kasi kufikia
ki iwapo shu
hihi neno lol
ne Survey Rep
uti ya He
omo katika ki
zitamke saut
e herufi n) ni 
ufi hii [mwony
Vyema, saut
Sauti ya her
auti ya heruf
Vyema, sauti
Sauti ya her
erufi hizi ha
kuendelea h
hadi mwisho w
ale utakapoh
wanafunzi an
a utie alama 
unzi anajisah
ambapo alijis
pokuwa waka
pe jawabu ha
alama ya ku
sauti ya heru
uliotaja mwe
soma.” Hal
linalofuata. 
o mwanafunz
e !”na endele
a K
N U
O m
n ch
o i
i h
m L
t E
h O
i Dh
a K
a mwisho wa 
ughuli ya ku
lote katika m
ort
rufi 
ijitabu cha m
ti zote; 
“nnn” 
yeshe herufi E
ti ya herufi h
rufi hii ni “e”
fi hii [mwony
i ya herufi h
rufi hii ni “w
araka iwezek
hivi. [Elekeza
wa mstari huo
hitaji msaad
naposoma sa
ya mkwaju (
hihisha, jibu 
sahihisha, ti
ati unampa m
alafu mwelek
uonyesha hak
ufi na sema :
enyewe. Furs
lafu weka ala
zi hatapata m
ea na zoezi l
T 
y
m i 
h a
b
N
a
a
 n
h a
T 
kusoma (ida
usoma ilisitis
mstari wa kw
       
mwanafunzi. 
E]: 
hii ni “e” 
”
yeshe herufi w
ii ni “www”
www” 
kenavyo lak
a kidole chako
o]. Unapokua
a. Uko taya
auti za herufi
(/) katika kila
hilo ni sahih
a alama ya d
mwanafunzi 
keze katika he
kupata jibu s
: “Tafadhal
sa hii ifanyik
ama ya mab
majibu sahihi
linalofuata.
K 
U 
Gh
I 
A 
I
E 
I 
A 
A 
K 
adi ya SEKU
shwa kwa s
wanza. 
                        
Kisha sema 
w]: 
kini kwa mak
 katika herufi 
a unataja sa
ri? Anza.
fi ya mwanzo.
a herufi amb
hi. Iwapo ulik
duara (O) kw
majibu, ifua
erufii inayof
sahihi. Kama
li utaje sau
ke mara moja
bano ( ] ) kat
i hata moja k
n 
Y 
M 
u 
N 
n 
a 
Ny 
V 
U 
n 
UNDE) : 
sababu 
  Page 61
ifuatavyo: 
kini. 
ya kwanza 
auti 
. Fuatiliza 
ayo 
kuwa 
wa herufi 
tavyo: Iwapo
fuata kisha 
a mtoto 
uti ya 
a tu kwenye 
tika herufii 
katika mstari
L 
g 
e 
i 
o 
A
f 
K 
ng' 
P 
L 
o
i
(10)
(20)
(30)
(40)
(50)
(60)
(70)
(80)
(90)
(100)
PCI Food for E
Sehemu
Muonyeshe m
Karatasi hii
moja moja l
Hebu tufany
[Iwapo mwa
[Iwapo mwa
Sasa, hebu 
[Iwapo mwa
[Iwapo mwa
Nikisema “A
upande wa 
kimya nikus
Uko tayari?
A
kw
Iw
ka
Unapaswa k
kwa muda w
endelea.”K
BAADA YA
neno la mwi
Utaratibu w
kwanza, sem
huu na uend
Mifano: j
Z
g
m
ru
m
nd
n
t
h
y
Education Pro
 ya Tatu
mwanafunzi 
 ina maneno
lakini ulisom
ye mazoezi:
nafunzi atas
nafunzi haku
jaribu neno
nafunzi atas
nafunzi haku
Anza”, yaso
kushoto ku
sikilize, isip
? Anza. 
Anzisha saa y
wake ukitum
wapo, mwan
atika jibu am
kuwa kimya 
wa sekunde 3,
Kwa kila nen
 SEKUNDE
isho alilosom
wa kusitisha k
ma “Asante
delee na sehe
juna fis
1 
Zefu 
owe 
mapa 
ubwa 
beta 
weku 
nziki 
toso 
hefa 
yota 
Muda ulios
Weka alama
m
ogram in Tanz
: Kutamb
orodha ya m
o yaliyobun
me neno zim
: tafadhali lis
ema “huka ”,
usoma neno 
o lingine la k
ema “fisa ”, m
usoma neno 
ome maneno
elekea upan
okuwa waka
ya kupimia ka
mia penseli ki
afunzi anajis
mbalo alijisah
isipokuwa w
, mpe jibu ha
no unalomsom
E 60 SEMA, 
ma. 
kusoma map
!”, sitisha sh
emu inayofua
sa huka
2 
Vicha 
Kengu 
Nepu 
Mwate
Ripi 
Ndami
Howe 
Regu 
Ndaho
Chuso 
salia katika s
a katika kisan
mwanafunzi h
ania – Baselin
bua Man
maneno ya ku
iwa. Ningep
ma. Kwa mfa
some neno 
”, mwambie]: 
“huka” vizuri
kubuni: Tafa
mwambie]: “
“fisa” vizuri, 
o haraka iwe
nde wa kulia
ati unapohit
asi pindi mw
isha utie alam
sahihisha, jib
hihisha, wek
wakati unamp
alafu mwelek
mea mwanaf
“Tafadhali, 
pema: Iwapo
hughuli hii, k
ata. 
a 
3
choy
nyuz
ndis
chen
sine
msin
hon
mto
josa
rime
saa ya kasi k
nduku hiki iw
hakusoma kw
ne Survey Rep
neno ya K
ubuni iliyomo
penda usom
ano, neno hi
hili [mwonye
“Vizuri san
ri, mwambie]:
adhali soma
“Vizuri sana
mwambie]: N
ezekenavyo
a wa ukuras
taji usaidizi.
wanafunzi ana
ma ya mkwaj
bu hilo ni sah
ka alama ya d
pa mwanafun
keze katika n
funzi, weka a
acha kuso
o mwanafunz
kisha uweke 
yu m
za v
se S
na f
e
no bw
nzi sh
ofi K
a k
e n
kufikia mwish
wapo shughu
wa usahihi n
ort
Kubuni 
o ndani ya ki
me maneno y
ili la kubuni
eshe neno “h
na : “huka” 
: Neno hili la
a neno lifuat
a : “fisa” 
Neno hili la 
o lakini kwa 
sa huu, ukia
. Je, umeele
aposoma nen
ju (/) katika k
hihi.Iwapo u
duara (O) kw
nzi majibu, if
neno linalofua
alama ya kuo
oma.” Halaf
zi hakusoma 
alama katika
4 
mwela 
vube 
Shifi 
fipe 
riki 
wara 
haru 
Kine 
kenzi 
gute 
o wa kusom
uli ya kusoma
eno lolote ka
       
ijitabu cha m
yote unayow
 ni: “ juna” 
huka”] 
a kubuni ni 
talo mwonye
kubuni ni “f
makini. Yas
nzia mstari 
ewa jinsi una
no la kwanza
kila neno am
ulikuwa umem
wa neno hilo 
fuatavyo: Iw
ata kisha um
onyesha haku
fu weka alam
vilivyo mane
a kisanduku 
5 
nzinga
Vili 
mtozo
hungu
Gazu
Kabe
leye
Ngiso
Dusu 
Kuvi 
a (idadi ya S
a ilisitishwa k
atika mstari w
Idadi ya ma
                        
mwanafunzi, 
weza. Usitam
“huka.” 
eshe neno: “f
fisa.” 
some manen
wa kwanza.
avyopaswa 
a. Fuatiliza k
mbalo hakuso
mkosoa mwa
kisha uende
apo mwanaf
mwambie “Ta
upata jibu sa
ma ya maban
eno yote kati
kilicho chini
(5)
(10)
(15)
(20)
(25)
(30)
(35)
(40)
(45)
(50)
SEKUNDE): 
kwa sababu 
wa kwanza. 
ajibu sahihi: 
  Page 62
halafu sema,
mke herufi 
fisa”. 
no kutoka 
. Nitakuwa 
kufanya? 
kusoma 
oma vilivyo. 
anafunzi 
elee. 
funzi anasita 
afadhali 
hihi. 
no (]) katika
ka mstari wa
i ya ukurasa 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
,
a
a
PCI Food
Juma ana
Wiki iliy
Juma ali
alipokuw
Alipelek
siku mbi
mchezo 
Ijumaa a
alimwam
W
Sehem
Muonye
Hii hapa
kwa ma
umeelew
ya uwez
chochote
neno kish
unalomso
Baada ya
katika ne
Utaratibu
mstari wa
for Education Prog
HA
apenda kucheza m
yopita, timu yao i
funga magoli ma
wa akifanya mazo
kwa hospitalini. D
ili. Juma alihuzun
wa Jumamosi.52
aliporudi hospital
mbia mguu umep
Muda
Weka alama katika
mu ya Nne (
eshe mwanafunzi
a ni hadithi fup
akini. Ukimaliza
wa jinsi unavyo
zo wako. Nitany
Anzisha saa y
kusoma kwak
ambalo hakus
alijisahihisha
e, isipokuwa waka
ha umwonyeshe n
omea mwanafunzi
a sekunde 60, sem
eno la mwisho ali
u wa kusitisha ku
a kwanza, sema “
gram in Tanzania –
ADITHI 1: KU
mpira wa miguu.
ilicheza na timu j
atatu. Alishangili
oezi, aliumia mgu
Daktari alimwamb
nika sana. Alifiki
2
lini, daktari 
ona. Juma alifura
a uliosalia katika sa
a kisanduku hiki iw
(a): Kusoma
i hadithi iliyomo
i. Ningependa 
a kuisoma, nitak
opaswa kufany
yamaza nikusik
ya kupimia kasi pi
ke ukitumia pensel
soma vilivyo. Iwap
a, weka alama ya d
ati mwanafunzi ata
eno linalofuata na
i, weka alama ya 
ma, “Tafadhali, 
ilosoma. 
usoma mapema: I
“Asante !”, sitish
– Baseline Survey R
SOMA
. Yeye ni mcheza
jirani. 18 
wa na kupewaza
uu.32 
bia apumzike kw
iri angekosa kush
ahi sana. 62 
aa ya kasi kufikia m
wapo shughuli ya k
hakusoma kwa usa
a Hadithi kw
o katika kijitabu 
uisome kwa sa
kuuliza maswal
ya? Nikisema “A
kilize. Uko taya
indi mwanafunzi a
li kisha uweke ala
po ulikuwa umem
duara (O) kwa ne
asita kwa muda w
a kumwambia“Ta
kuonyesha hakup
acha kusoma.”
Iwapo mwanafunz
ha shughuli hii, ki
Report
aji hodari.10 J
[
T
[
awadi. Juzi N
a
[
wa muda wa 
hiriki katika 
D
[
K
a
mwisho wa kusom
kusoma ilisitishwa k
ahihi neno lolote k
wa Sauti 
cha mwananfun
auti, haraka iwe
li kuhusu yale u
Anza,” isome h
ri? Anza. 
anaposoma neno l
ama ya mkwaju (/)
mkosoa mwanafunz
eno hilo kisha uen
wa sekunde 3 amba
afadhali endele
pata jibu sahihi. 
” Halafu weka ala
zi hakusoma vilivy
isha uwekemstari.
Juma anapenda k
[mpira wa miguu
Timu ya Juma ilic
[Ilicheza na timu 
Ni nini kilifanyik
akifanya mazoezi
[Aliumia, aliumia
Daktari alimwam
[Apumzike/apum
Kwa nini Juma al
aliambiwa amepo
a [idadi ya SEKUN
kwa sababu mwan
katika mstari wa kw
Idadi ya jibu s
nzi. Halafu sema
zekanavyo laki
uliyosoma. Je, 
adithi vizuri ka
la kwanza. Fuatili
) katika kila neno 
zi katika jibu amb
delee. Usiseme 
apo sasa utamsom
ea.” Kwa kila nen
ama ya mabano (
yo maneno yote ka
.
Page 63
MASWALI
kucheza mchezo g
u]
cheza na timu ga
jirani, timu ya ji
ka kwa Juma alipo
i? 
a mguu, aliumizw
mbia Juma afanye 
mzike kwa siku m
lifurahisana?[kw
ona / sasa angech
NDE): 
nafunzi 
wanza. 
sahihi: 
 hivi, 
Seh
Baad
kusom
kisha
Mpe m
kuling
Soma
mwan
SEM
hadi
wako
ini 
adri 
iza 
balo 
mea 
o 
( ] ) 
atika 
gani? 
ani? 
rani] 
okuwa 
wa mguu] 
 nini? 
mbili] 
a sababu 
heza mpira tena] 
hemu ya Nn
da ya kukamilika k
ma hadithi, IOND
 uulize swali la kw
mwanafunzi hadi 
gana na jibu lake,
a maswali ya kila m
nafunzi alikomea k
MA: Sasa nitaku
thi uliosoma. J
o.
JIBU 
SAHIHI L
Muda wa
ne (b). Kuso
kwa sekunde 60 au
DOE hadithi kut
wanza hapa chini.
sekunde 15 alijib
, halafu uendelee 
mstari hadi katika
kusoma.
uuliza maswal
Jaribu kujibu m
JIBU
LISILOSAHIH
a Kumaliza: ____
oma na Kufa
u Iwapo mwanafu
toka mbele ya m
.
u swali, weka ala
katika swali linal
a mabano yanayo
i machache ku
maswali kadri 
HI
KUTOJIBU
_:____ AM / PM
ahamu 
unzi atamaliza 
mwanafunzi, 
ma sahihi 
lofuata. 
onyesha mahala 
uhusiana na 
ya uwezo 
U
M
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 64
Sehemu ya Tano: Usaili juu ya mazingira ya mwanafunzi 
Muulize mwanafunzi swali kwa mdomo kwa lengo la kumdodosa.Usisome majibu kwa sauti. 
Subiri mwanafunzi ajibu na andika jibu katika sehemu iliyotolewa au weka alama ya vema 
kwenye kisanduku cha jibu linalooana na jibu la mwanafunzi. Kama hakuna maelekezo 
yaliyotofauti basi jibu moja linaruhusiwa. 
1  
Je, ulikula chakula kinachotolewa shuleni jana? (Kama
mwanafunzi hakuwepo shuleni jana, muulize siku
nyingine ya karibu aliyokuwepo shuleni. Kama jana
haikuwa siku ya chakula shuleni, uliza siku kabla ya
jana)
1  □ Ndiyo  
2  □ Hapana  (Kama jibu ni “Hapana ”,
endelea na swali la  4.)
99  □ Sijui/Sina jibu (endelea na swali la  
4.)
2
[Kama jibu ni “Ndiyo” kwa swali la 1] Shuleni jana
(“siku hiyo” kama siyo jana), ulikunywa uji, wali na
maharage, au vyote?  
1  □ Uji
2  □ Wali na maharage  
3  □ Uji, wali na maharage  
99  □ Sijui/Sina jibu
3   Baada ya kula chakula shuleni jana, (“siku hiyo", kama
siyo jana) ulisikia  njaa?
1  □ Ndiyo
2  □ Hapana  
99  □ Sijui/Sina jibu
4  Huwa unasikia njaa au njaa kali ukiwa shule?
1  □ Ndiyo  
2  □ Hapana
99  □ Sijui/Sina jibu
5
Kabla ya mwezi mmoja kufunga shule, ulishindwa
kufika shuleni kwa muda wa siku ngapi kwa sababu ya
afya isiyo nzuri/ugonjwa?
______ (Andika idadi ya siku ambazo
mwanafunzi hakuhudhuria)
99  □ Sijui/Sina jibu
6
Je, umekosa kuhudhuria shule kwa sababu ya afya
isiyo nzuri au kuumwa zaidi mwaka huu  kuliko mwaka
jana, au pungufu mwaka huu kuliko mwaka jana, au
kwa viwango vinavyolingana?
1 □ Zaidi mwaka huu kuliko mwaka
jana  
2 □ Pungufu mwaka huu kuliko mwaka
jana  
3  □ Kwa viwango vinavyolingana  
99  □ Sijui/Sina jibu  
Sasa napenda kukuuliza maswali juu ya afya na usafi wa mwili. Nitasoma maelezo na utaniambia
kama unafikiri maelezo hayo ni  kweli au si kweli  (Soma kila maelezo kwa wanafunzi na uweke alama
kuhusiana na jibu lake)
7
Ugonjwa unaweza kusababishwa na mambo
mengi ikiwa ni pamoja na lishe isiyo nzuri na
uchafu wa mwili.  
1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
8
Baadhi ya magonjwa yanaweza kuzuiwa kwa
kuvaa viatu. 1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 65
9
Hakuna njia ya kuzuia watoto kuharisha  au
kufariki kutokana na magonjwa ya kuhara   1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
10
Chakula hutupatia nguvu, hutukinga na
magonjwa, na hutusaidia kukua.   1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
11
Chakula chenye uwiano mzuri  kina wanga
pekee. 1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
12 Njia nzuri ya kujikinga na virusi vya UKIMWI ni
kuacha ngono.   1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
13
Njia muhimu ya kuepuka magonjwa ni
kusafisha mikono na maji na sabuni kabla ya
kupika au kula na baada ya kutoka chooni.  
1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
14
Sisi wanafunzi tunaweza kuifanya shule kuwa
safi, salama na sehemu yenye afya. 1  □kweli 2  □ siyo
kweli
99 □ Sijui/Sina
jibu
Vizuri sana, sasa tumemaliza. Umefanya kazi nzuri. Nakushukuru kwa ushirikiano wako, tafadhali
rejea darasani kwako nakutakia masomo mema.
 
Muda wa kumaliza : ____ : _____ Asub / 
Mchana 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 66
EARLY GRADE READING ASSESSMENT 
STUDENT STIMULI BOOKLET
KISWAHILI 
BASELINE SURVEY, JULY 2014
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 67
2. Sehemu ya Pili: Ufahamu wa sauti Herufi
Mfano: n e W 
i T m i a K T K n L 
u i B a N U y U Y g 
U Z w a O m i Gh M e 
R W S W n ch a I u i 
th Z D a o i b A N o 
s n M k i h N I n A 
u a A i m L a E a f 
a e A k t E a I Ny K 
a h i L sh O n A V ng'
g L d a i Dh a A U P 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 68
4. Sehemu ya Tatu: Kutambua Maneno ya Kubuni 
Mfano: juna fisa huka 
Zefu Vicha choyu mwela nzinga 
gowe Kengu nyuza vube vili 
mapa Nepu ndise Shifi mtozo 
rubwa Mwate chena fipe hungu 
mbeta Ripi sine riki gazu 
ndweku Ndami msino bwara kabe 
nziki Howe honzi sharu leye
toso Regu mtofi Kine ngiso 
hefa Ndaho josa kenzi dusu 
yota Chuso rime ngute kuvi 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report Page 69
4. Sehemu ya Nne (a): Kusoma Hadithi kwa Sauti 
Juma anapenda kucheza mpira wa miguu. 
Yeye ni mchezaji hodari. Wiki iliyopita, timu yao 
ilicheza na timu jirani. 
Juma alifunga magoli matatu. Alishangiliwa na 
kupewa zawadi. Juzi alipokuwa akifanya 
mazoezi, aliumia mguu. Alipelekwa hospitalini. 
Daktari alimwambia apumzike kwa muda wa 
siku mbili. 
Juma alihuzunika sana. Alifikiri angekosa 
kushiriki katika mchezo ya Jumamosi. Ijumaa 
aliporudi hospitalini, daktari alimwambia mguu 
umepona. Juma alifurahi kabisa. 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 70
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM – FOMU YA UANGALIZI DARASANI 
DISTRICT NAME:
JINA LA WILAYA  
DATE OF INTERVIEW:  
TAREHE YA USAILI___/___/____  (tar/mwez/mwaka)
WARD NAME:
JINA LA KATA  
TIME OF INTERVIEW/OBSERVATION (START) [Use 24
hour clock]:
MUDA WA KUANZA KUDODOSA [Tumia mda wa  
kalenda ya masaa 24]
SCHOOL NAME:
JINA LA SHULE   
TIME OF INTERVIEW/OBSERVATION (END) [Use 24 hour
clock]:
MUDA WA KUMALIZA KUDODOSA [Tumia mda wa  
kalenda ya masaa 24]
ENUMERATOR NAME:
JINA LA MDODOSAJI
ENUMERATOR SIGNATURE:
SAHIHI YA MDODOSAJI
SUPERVISOR NAME:
JINA LA MSIMAMIZI
SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:
SAHIHI YA MSIMAMIZI
PART 1: INTRODUCTION, CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT / 
SEHEMU YA 1:   UTANGULIZI,USIRI NA RIDHAA
Greet the teacher and introduce yourself: My name is____________ and I am working for the PCI Food For Education (FFE
II) program. We are observing and interviewing teachers in Standards 2 and 4 to learn about reading and other
topics. We would like to observe you in the classroom in order to learn about the teaching of reading. We will
also interview you after the observation. If you agree to participate in the survey, all the observations and
answers that you provide will be kept private – only members of the survey team would have access to this
information. You may choose to stop the observation or interview at any time. However, observing your class and
your honest answers to our questions will help us better understand how students learn to read and the support
they receive. We greatly appreciate your cooperation. The observation will take about 30 minutes. Do you have
any questions for me?     
Msalimie mwalimu na ujitambulishe kwake Jina langu ni ____________na ninafanya kazi PCI katika mpango II
wa Elimu na Chakula. Tunaangalia na kufanya usaili na walimu katika darasa la 2 na la 4 kujifunza juu ya kusoma
na masuala mengine. Tunapenda kukuangalia darasani ukifundisha ili kujifunza juu ya kufundisha kusoma Pia
tutafanya usaili baada ya kuangalia. Ikiwa unakubali kushiriki katika utafiti huu maoni na majibu yako yote
yatahifadhiwa kwa siri. Ni wajumbe wa utafiti huu tu watakaoona taarifa hizi. Unaweza kuamua kusitisha
kuangaliwa na hata usaili wakati wowote. Kwa vyovyote, kuangalia kwetu darasa na majibu yako ya uaminifu
kwa maswali yetu vitatusaidia kuelewa vema ambavyo wanafunzi wanajifunza kusoma na msaada wanaopata.
Tunashukuru sana kwa ushirikianO wako.Uangalizi wetu utachukua kiasi cha dakika 40. Una swali lolote
kwangu?
1. Do you agree to participate in this observation?
Je! unakubali kushiriki katika uchunguzi huu?
0  □ No/Hapana
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 71
PART 2: TEACHER IDENTIFICATION / SEHEMU YA 2: UTAMBULISHO WA MWALIMU 
[Before the observation, ask the teacher the following questions] [Kabla ya uangalizi,muulize mwalimu
maswali yafuatayo]
2. LEAVE BLANK (ACHA WAZI)
3.
Is the class being observed multi‐grade (that is, does it combine
more than one grade)?  
Je! darasa lenye kuangaliwa  ni darasa lenye wanafunzi wa
madarasa tofauti?
0  □ No/ Hapana  
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo  
4. Subject of class to be observed: Somo linaloangaliwa:              
1  Reading /kusoma      
2    Language/Literature  
Lugha/Fasihi    
3  Literacy/ kusoma na kuandika
5. # of students registered in Class:  Wanafunzi waliosajiliwa
darasani:          
1 Total/Jumla _____________    
2 Boys/ wavulana__________
3 Girls/wasichana___________
PART 3: CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT/ SEHEMU YA 3: MAZINGIRA YA DARASANI 
[Complete this section before teacher begins lesson.]  [Jaza  sehemu hii kabla ya mwalimu kuanza kusomesha]
6.
Number of students attending class this day (count them):  
Idadi ya wanafunzi waliohudhuria masomo siku ya leo: (wahesabu)
1 Total/Jumla _____________    
2 Boys/ wavulana__________
3 Girls/wasichana___________
7. Does the room/space have a blackboard?    
Je, chumba cha darasa kina ubao wa kuandikia?  
0  □No/ Hapana  
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo  
8. Does the teacher have a chalk/marker?  
Je ,mwalimu ana chaki /kalamu za ukutani?  
0  □No/ Hapana  
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
9.
Do all students have seats?  
Wanafunzi wote wanakaa kwenye viti?:
0  □ No/Hapana  
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo  (Ikiwa jibu ni
“Ndiyo”endelea swali la 11  
10.
If no, who mainly does not have a seat?   
Kama hapana ,ni  wanafunzi gani  hasa hawana viti vya kukalia?  
1  Boys/ wavulana
2    Girls/wasichana
3  equal /Hapana utofauti (ni sawa
kwa wote/hakuna tofauti)
11. Who is mainly seated at the back of the room/space?
Ni  wanafunzi gani  hasa wanakaa sehemu za nyuma kabisa
darasani?
1  Boys/ wavulana
2    Girls/wasichana
3  equal /Hapana tofauti (ni sawa
kwa wote/hakuna tofauti)  
12.
Students are seated in:  
Wanafunzi wanakaa kwa:
1  rows (safu)        
2    clusters/groups (vikundi)       
3  circle/semicircle (duara/nusu
duara)   
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 72
4  pairs (Jozi)      
5    Other
(Nyinginezo)______________
13. From the back of the room, it is possible to see what is written on
the blackboard:  
Kukaa viti vya nyuma darasani inawezekana kuona kile
kilichoandikwa ubaoni.
0  □ No/Hapana  
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo  
99   Not applicable (Haihusiki)
14. From the back of the room, it is possible to hear what is being said
at the front of the class.  
Kukaa viti vya nyuma darasani inawezekana kusikia kile
kinachosemwa mbele ya darasa.
0  □ No/ Hapana
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo  
99   Not applicable/haihusiki  
15. [Ask teacher to show his/her own teacher’s book or guide for
teaching this class] Muombe mwalimu  kuonesha kiongozi cha
mwalimu.  
Teacher has his/her own teacher’s guide applicable to this class.  
(Mwalimu anacho kiongozi cha mwalimu stahiki kwa  matumizi ya
darasa hili.)  
0  □ No/Hapana
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo  
99   Not applicable/haihusiki
16. [Ask teacher to show his/her own lesson plan for teaching today’s
class]
Muombe mwalimu  kuonesha andalio la somo kwa matumizi yake
ya darasa ya leo]
Teacher has his/her own lesson plan for today’s lesson. (Mwalimu
analo andalio la somo lake mwenyewe)
0  □ No/Hapana (if no, skip to 19)
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo  
99   Not applicable/haihusiki
17. Is the most recent lesson plan entry signed by the Head Teacher (or
by the responsible teacher)?  
Je andalio la somo la hivi karibuni limesainiwa na mwalimu mkuu
au mwalimu husika?
0 □ No/Hapana  
1□ Yes/ Ndiyo (If “Yes ”, skip to 19)   
Kama jibu ni “Ndiyo”, nenda swali 19
18.
When was the last entry signed by the Head Teacher (or by the
responsible teacher)?
Andalio la mwisho la somo lilisainiwa lini n a mwalimu mkuu [au
mwalimu husika]?
1  The day before  /     Siku moja
kabla
2    The week before   /   Wiki moja
kabla
3  Last month / Mwezi uliopita
4  Last term  /   Muhula uliopita
5    There is no signature/Hakuna
sahini  
For Questions 19, 20, and 21, ask children to hold up textbook or printed material (question 19), exercise
book/paper/slate (question 20), and pencil or pen (question 21) for the lesson. Count.
Swali la 19, 20 na 21 omba wanafunzi wanyanyue juu vitabu/karatasi/vibao, na penseli kwa ajili ya  somo
husika. Hesabu.
19. How many students have a textbook or printed material for the
observed lesson?  
1  All (wote)          
2    Half or more than half (nusu au
zaidi ya nusu)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 73
Ni wanafunzi wangapi wana vitabu vya darasa au machapisho ya
somo husika?
3  Less than half (chini ya nusu)          
4  None (hata mmoja)       
99    Not applicable/Haihusiki
20.
How many students have an exercise book, paper or slate?  
Ni wanafunzi wangapi wana madaftari, karatasi au vibao?
1  All (wote)          
2    Half or more than half (nusu au
zaidi ya nusu)
3  Less than half (chini ya nusu)          
4  None    (hata mmoja)       
99    Not applicable/Haihusiki
21.
How many students have pencil or pen?
Ni wanafunzi wangapi wanazo penseli au kalamu?
1  All (wote)          
2    Half or more than half (nusu au
zaidi ya nusu)
3  Less than half (chini ya nusu)          
4  None    (hata mmoja)       
99    Not applicable
22.
The following are available and displayed in the classroom:    Vitu
vifuatavyo vinavyopatikana na vinaonekana darasani:
(Tick all that apply; only tick if the material is present in the classroom and
you see it)
Weka vema kwa vyote vinavyohusika , kama vinapatikana na
vinaonekana darasani
a  No/ Hapana  
b  reading books  / vitabu vya
kujisomea
c  posters/charts/pictures
bango/Majarida/Picha  
d  letter cards or flash cards /kadi
za herufi
e  flip charts (bango kitita)
f  alphabet strip or word wall
(Maandishi ya ukutani)
g  Other (specify)
Mengineyo(ainisha)______________
__
23.
Student work is displayed in the room/space.  
(Kazi za wanafunzi zimewekwa  kwa kuonekana darasani.)
0  □ No/Hapana
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo  
99   Not applicable/Haihusiki
PART 4: LESSON OBSERVATION / SEHEMU YA 4: WAKATI HALISI WA UANGALIZI WA SOMO 
Class Start‐up. Tick “observed” only once as the action first occurs.  At end of observation, tick actions that
were not  observed)  
Darasa linaanza( weka alama ya vema katika neno “lilijitokeza” mara moja tu pale kitendo
kinapoanza.Mwishoni mwa uangalizi, weka alama ya vema katika vitendo ambavyo havikujitokeza.
24. Observation of reading/literacy lesson starts:
____:___ (hr:min)
Uangalizi wa somo unaanza______: _____
(saa.dakika)
25. Observation of reading/literacy lesson ends:
____:___ (hr:min)
Uangalizi wa somo unamalizika______: _____
(saa.dakika)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 74
Classroom Organization: Students are organized in  
Mpangilio wa darasa:Wanafunzi wamepangwa kwa…
Observed
Lilijitokeza
not observed
halikujitokeza
26. Whole class   /         Darasa  zima   
27. Small groups     / Vikundi vidogo   
28. Paired students /Jozi     
Instructional Content:  Teacher guides students to….
Mada : Mwalimu anaongoza wanafunzi…….
29. Identify differences and similarities of sounds
Kuainisha tofauti na uwiano wa sauti
  
30. Pronounce sounds of letters
kutamka sauti za herufi
  
31. Write letters   
Kuandika herufi
  
32. Associate words with letters  
Kuhusisha maneno na herufi
  
33. Discuss meaning of vocabulary words
Kujadili maana ya  maneno (msamiati)
  
34. Blend letter‐sounds to form syllables and words
Kuunganisha sauti ya herufi  ili kujenga silabi na maneno
  
35. Read full sentences (Not just words)
Kusoma sentensi nzima (siyo maneno tu)
  
36. Read full story‐ Kusoma hadithi nzima   
37. Read printed material or book (i.e.newspaper or book)
Kusoma maandiko au vitabu (gazeti au kitabu)
  
38. Answer questions about meaning of text, or draw picture to show they
understand a text  
Kujibu maswali au kuchora picha juu ya maana ya maandiko
  
39. Write words or sentences as dictated
Kuandika maneno au sentensi kama zilivyosomwa.
  
40. Create or write own texts (sentence or story)
Kutunga au kuandika maandiko yao wenyewe (sentensi au hadithi)
  
41. Speak about own lives, events or stories
Kueleza juu ya maisha yao,matukio au hadithi
  
Class Activities:  at some point during the lesson the students are …
Kazi za darasani: kwa kipindi fulani wakati wa somo wanafunzi huwa
42. Listening to teacher read out loud  
Wanamsikiliza mwalimu anasoma kwa sauti
  
43. Reading out loud together (choral reading)
Wanasoma kwa sauti kwa pamoja (usomaji wa pamoja)
  
44. Reading out loud to another student (paired reading)
Wanasoma kwa sauti kwa jozi (usomaji kwa jozi)
  
45. Reading independently (by him/herself)   
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 75
Wanasoma mwanafunzi  mwenyewe binafsi (mwenyewe binafsi)  
46. Reading out loud one student at a time
Wanasoma kwa sauti mwanafunzi mmoja mmoja
  
47. Repeating/Recitation  
Wanarudia/wanasoma kwa sauti
  
48. Answering  teacher’s questions  
wanajibu maswali ya mwalimu
  
49. Writing on blackboard
Wanaandika  ubaoni  
  
50. Writing on paper, in exercise book or slate
Wanaandika kwenye karatasi, daftari au vibao
  
51. Working on group projects  
Wanafanya kazi kwenye vikundi  
  
52. Playing learning games, skits or songs  
wanacheza michezo ya kujifunza, maigizo mafupi, vichekesho au nyimbo
  
Teaching Methods: Teacher …   
Mbinu za kufundishia: Mwalimu
53. Reads aloud to students
anasoma kwa sauti kwa wanafunzi
  
54. Demonstrates reading or writing skills
anaonesha  stadi za kusoma na kuandika
  
55. Asks students questions
Anauliza  wanafunzi maswali  
  
56. Responds to student questions  
anajibu maswali ya wanafunzi
  
57. Allows students to ask questions
Anaruhusu wanafunzi kuuliza maswali
  
58. Allows students to respond to questions asked by other students
Anaruhusu wanafunzi kujibu maswali ya wanafunzi wenzao
  
59. Provides explanation if students don’t understand
Anatoa maelezo zaidi ikiwa wanafunzi hawakuelewa
  
60. Gives classwork to students and helps them when needed  
Anawapa  wanafunzi kazi za darasani na anawasaidia inapohitajika
  
61. Concludes lesson with summary of what was learned
Anahitimisha somo kwa kutoa ufupisho kwa kile kilichofundishwa
  
62. Praises or compliments students
Anawapongeza au anawasifu wanafunzi
  
63. Criticizes, scolds or punishes students
Anakosoa, anakemea au anatoa adhabu kwa wanafunzi
  
64. Beats students
Anawachapa wanafunzi
  
Assessment:  Teacher assesses student learning by….
Tathmini: Mwalimu anatathmini usomaji wa wanafunzi kwa …
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 76
65. Asking questions during the lesson
kuuliza maswali wakati wa kusoma
  
66. Monitoring students as they work to check understanding
kufuatilia wanafunzi wakiwa wanafanyakazi ili kuangalia ufahamu wao
  
67. Observing student activities
kuangalia kazi za wanafunzi
  
68. Listening to individual students read aloud
kusikiliza mwanafunzi mmoja mmoja akisoma kwa sauti
  
69. Asking students to tell about what they just read
Kuwauliza wanafunzi waeleze kile walichokisoma
  
70. Checking student exercise book or homework
Kukagua madaftari ya wanafunzi au mazoezi ya ziada
  
71. Giving quiz or test to class
kutoa chemsha bongo au jaribio
  
Teaching Learning Material Use:  Teacher uses…
Matumizi ya nyenzo za kufundishia na kusoma: Mwalimu anatumia….
72. Blackboard /  Ubao     
73. Textbook/  
Vitabu vya kiada
  
74. Reading books  
Vitabu vya kusoma
  
75. Letter cards/flash cards
Kadi za herufi/kadi maalum
  
76. Poster/wall charts (with letters, words, pictures)   
Bango/chati za ukutani (zilizo na herufi,maneno, picha)
  
77. Supplementary reading resources
Vitabu vya ziada vya kusoma
  
78. Work sheets /
Karatasi za kufanyia kazi
  
79. Student exercise books and/or slates/  
Madaftari ya kuandikia ya wanafunzi na/au vibao
  
80. Manipulatives (e.g. real objects, sandbox, etc.)
Nyenzo nyingine (vitu halisi, boksi la mchanga, n.k)
  
Teacher Position: Teacher is…
Nafasi ya Mwalimu: Mwalimu ….
81. Sitting or standing in front of class or at blackboard
Anakaa au anasimama mbele ya darasa au karibu na ubao
  
82. Moving throughout the classroom/space
Anazunguka darasani kote
  
83. Not paying attention to students or doing his/her own work
Haangalii wanafunzi/anafanya kazi zake mwenyewe tu
  
84. Away from the classroom
Yuko mbali kabisa na darasa
  
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 77
PART 5: OBSERVER REFLECTIONS ON LESSON /SEHEMU YA 4: MAONI YA MWANGALIZI 
JUU YA SOMO 
[Provide your overall impressions of Lesson. Complete immediately after the end of lesson and always before
observing another teacher]   
[Maoni kwa ujumla juu ya somo (weka majibu mara tu baada ya kumalizika ufundishaji na kabla ya kumuangalia
mwalimu mwingine]
85.
Ask to see the teacher’s lesson plan or reading script
for the lesson just taught.
Teacher taught the same lesson as indicated in the
lesson plan, script or notes.      
Omba kuona andalio la somo la mwalimu au
maandiko ya kusoma kwaajili ya somo lililokwisha
kufundishwa. Mwalimu alifundisha somo lile
linalojionesha katika andalio lake la somo, maandiko
au nukuu za zomo.  
1  Mostly  /kwa kiasi kikubwa      
2    Partly  / kwa kiasi tu    
3  Not at all /  Hata kidogo   
4  No plan or script/  Hakuna andalio la somo wala
maandiko
  
86.
Class activities and discussion followed the lesson
plan, script or lesson notes.          
Kazi za darasani na majadiliano zilifuata  andalio la
somo,  maandiko au nukuu za zomo.          
1  Mostly  kwa kiasi kikubwa      
2    Partly   kwa kiasi tu    
3  Not at all   hata kidogo   
4 No plan or script  hamna andalio la somo wala
maandiko
Thank the teacher and confirm the time and place for the follow‐up interview.
           Mshukuru mwalimu na hakikisha muda na jipange kwa usaili wa ufuatiliaji.
 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 78
TEACHER INTERVIEW/ Mahojiano na Mwalimu 
DISTRICT NAME (Jina la wilaya): DATE OF INTERVIEW: ___/___/____  (dd/mm/yyyy)
(Tarehe ya mahojiano)
WARD NAME (Jina la kata): TIME OF INTERVIEW (START) [Use 24 hour clock]
(muda wa mahojiano)(kuanza) [Tumia mda wa  
kalenda ya masaa 24]:
SCHOOL NAME (Jina la shule):   TIME OF INTERVIEW (END) [Use 24 hour clock]
(muda wa mahojiano)(kumaliza) [Tumia mda wa  
kalenda ya masaa 24]:
ENUMERATOR NAME (Jina la mdodosaji): SUPERVISOR NAME (Jina la msimamizi):
ENUMERATOR SIGNATURE (Sahihi ya
mdodosaji):
SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE (Sahihi ya msimamizi):
PART 1. INTRODUCTION, CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 
Eneo 1:Utangulizi, Usiri na Ridhaa) 
Greet the teacher and introduce yourself: My name is____________ and I am working for the PCI Food For
Education (FFE II) program. Thank you for letting me observes your classroom earlier. I would now like to
ask you some questions about your experiences as a teacher. All the answers that you provide will be kept
private – only members of the survey team will have access to this information, and your name will not be
used or matched with your responses. You are free to choose not to answer any question that you would
prefer not to answer. You can stop the interview at any time, ask me to clarify any question, or ask me to
repeat something if you don’t understand. You may also choose to withdraw from the survey at any time.
However, your honest answers to our questions will help us better understand whether this program is
working well and how we might be able to improve it. We greatly appreciate your cooperation. The
interview will take about 15 minutes. Do you have any questions for me now?
Msalime mwalimu na ujitambulishe: Jina langu ni _________ nafanya kazi na taasisi ya PCI kwenye
programu ya chakula na elimu awamu ya II. Nashukuru kwa kuniruhusu kutazama darasa lako.
Ningependa kukuuliza maswali kuhusu taaluma yako kama mwalimu. Majibu yote utakayotoa
yatahifadhiwa kwa siri, ni wajumbe tu wa utafiti huu ambao watakaopata taarifa hizi, na jina lako
halitaambatanishwa na majibu yako. Una uhuru wa kutojibu swali lolote ambalo hujisikii kutoa majibu.
Unaweza kuahirisha mahojiano muda wowote, kuniomba ufafanuzi kwenye swali lolote au kuniomba
nirudie jambo kama hujanielewa. Pia uko huru wakati wowote kujitoa kwenye utafiti huu. Ingawa,
majibu yako ya uaminifu yatatusaidia kuelewa kama programu hii inafanya kazi vizuri na jinsi gani
tunaweza kuiboresha. Tunashukuru kwa dhati kwa ushirikiano wako.
Mahojiano yatatumia takribani dakika 15. Una swali lolote?
1. Do you agree to participate in this interview?  
(Je, unakubali kushiriki mahojiano haya?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 79
PART 2. TEACHER IDENTIFICATION, BACKGROUND, TRAINING 
Sehemu ya 2: Utambulisho wa mwalimu na mafunzo 
2. LEAVE BLANK (ACHA WAZI)
3. Gender (Jinsia)   1  □ Male (mwanaume)
2  □ Female (mwanamke)
4. What is your age?   
(Una miaka mingapi?) _______ (in years)  (miaka)  [Don’t Know (Sijui) = 99]
5.a. Which grade(s) do you normally teach at
this school?
(Kwa kawaida unafundisha darasa gani katika
shule hii?)
(Tick all that apply)
(Weka vema majibu yote anayotaja mwalimu)
a  □ Pre‐primary  (darasa la awali)
b  □ Standard 1    (darasa la kwanza)
c  □ Standard 2     (darasa la pili)
d  □ Standard 3    (darasa la tatu)
e  □ Standard 4    (darasa la nne)
f  □ Standard 5     (darasa la tano)
g  □ Standard 6    (darasa la sita)
h  □ Standard 7    (darasa la saba)
5.b. Which subject(s) do you currently teach at
this school?  
(Unafundisha somo/masomo gani katika shule
hii?)
(Tick all that apply)  
(Weka vema majibu yote anayotaja mwalimu)
a  □ English (Kiingereza)
b  □ Swahili (Kiswahili)
c  □ Math (Hisabati)
d  □ Science (sayansi)
e  □ History (historia)
f  □ Geography (geografia)
g  □ Civics (somo la uraia)
h  □ Religion (somo la dini)
i  □ Physical Education (Mazoezi)
j  □ Vocational Skills (stadi za kazi)
k  □ Other (specify) [Mengineyo (ainisha) ‐
________________   
6. How long have you been teaching in total?
(Kwa ujumla umekuwa ukifanya kazi ya ualimu
kwa miaka mingapi?)
1  □ Less than 1 year (chini ya mwaka 1)
2  □ 1‐5 years (miaka 1 – 5)
3  □ 6‐10 years (miaka 6 – 10)
4  □ More than 10 years (zaidi ya miaka 10)
7. How long have you been teaching at this
school?  
(Umekuwa ukifundisha kwa miaka mingapi
katika shule hii?)
1  □ Less than 1 year (chini ya mwaka 1)
2  □ 1‐5 years (miaka 1 – 5)
3  □ 6‐10 years (miaka 6 – 10)
4  □ More than 10 years (zaidi ya miaka 10)
8. Have you received any training through the
PCI/FFE program?  
(Umewahi kupokea mafunzo yoyote kupitia
PCI mpango wa chakula na elimu?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 10) (Kama
jibu ni “hapana” endelea na swali la 10)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 80
9. What type of training have you received
through PCI/FFE?
(Ulipokea mafunzo gani kupitia PCI mpango
wa chakula na elimu?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)
[Weka vema kwenye majibu yote
yanayotolewa na mwalimu]
a  □ INSET (In‐service Education and Training) (specify
main topic of training) Mafunzo kazini (ainisha
yaliyofundishwa)_________________________
b  □ Readership Teaching Methodologies (with
Children’s Book Project)   Kufundisha namna ya
kusoma kupitia shirika la Children’s Book Project
c  □Readership Teaching Methodologies ‐ TOT (with
Children’s Book Project)     Namna ya kufundisha
kusoma kwa Wawezeshaji kupitia shirika la
Children’s Book Project
d  □ Library Management (with Children’s Book
Project) Usimamizi wa maktaba kupitia shirika la
Children’s Book Project
e  □ Journey of Life (Safari ya Maisha)
f   □ Formation of Health Clubs (kuunda klabu za afya)
g  □ Health Screening (uchunguzi wa afya)
h  □ Zinduka
i   □ School Gardening (bustani  ya shule)
j   □ Commodity & Store Management/ Safe Food
Storage & Preparation (Usimamizi wa bidhaa na
maghala / uhifadhi salama na utayarishaji wa
chakula)
k  □ School Administrators Training (mafunzo ya
wasimamizi wa shule)
l  □ Mobenzi
m  □ Other (specify) / Mengineyo (eleza)__________
PART 3. FOCUS ON READING Sehemu ya 3: Msisitizo kwenye Usomaji 
10. Do you have a scheduled time for teaching
Reading [in the observed class]?  
(Una ratiba ya kufundisha usomaji [darasa
lililochunguzwa]?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 12)
(Kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na swali la 12)
11. What time does the reading lesson
usually start and end [in the observed class]?
(Kipindi cha usomaji huanza na kumalizika
muda gani?)
___:___  (start)   [mfano 8:00] (kuanza)
___:___  (end)   (kumaliza)
□ Time varies (no usual start/end time)  
(Muda unategemea [hakuna muda maalumu wa
kuanza na kumaliza])
12. In general, how often do you teach reading
or other literacy lessons to your class [in the
observed class]?   (Kwa ujumla, ni mara ngapi
unafundisha somo la usomaji au vipindi vingine  
vya KKK [katika darasa lililochunguzwa]?)
1  □ Every day (kila siku)
2  □ 3‐4 times/week (mara 3 ‐ 4 kwa wiki)
3  □ 1‐2 times/week (mara 1‐ 2 kwa wiki)
4  □ Less than once/week (chini ya mara  1 kwa wiki)
5  □ Never (hakuna)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 81
13. On average, how many minutes do your
reading or other literacy lessons last [in the
observed class]?
(Kwa wastani, kipindi chako cha usomaji au cha
KKK hutumia dakika ngapi ?[katika darasa
lilochunguzwa])
1  □ More than 45 minutes (zaidi ya dakika 45)
2  □ 31‐45 minutes (dakika 31 – 45)
3  □ 16‐30 minutes (dakika 16 – 30)
4  □ 0‐15 minutes (dakika 0 – 15)
14. Do you use lesson plans or scripts for your
reading lessons? (Unatumia andalio la somo
katika kipindi cha usomaji?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 16)
(Kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na swali la 16)
15. May I see your lesson plans or scripts?
(Naweza kuona andalio la somo?)
The teacher is able to show you lesson plans or
scripts for reading:
(Mwalimu anaweza kuonesha andalio la somo)
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo
2  □ No/ Hapana
16. Do you use any of the following methods to teach your
students to read?   (READ each of the items below to the
teacher and record the answer given)  
(Unatumia njia yoyote kati ya hizi katika kufundisha
wanafunzi kujua kusoma?)
SOMA kila kimoja ya vitu hapo chini na andika jibu
linalotolewa  
Yes (ndiyo) No (hapana) Don’t Know
(Sijui)
Choral reading
(kusoma pamoja kwa sauti)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Guided reading
(kusoma kwa kuongozwa)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Shared reading
(kusoma kwa kupokezana)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Silent reading
(kusoma kimya kimya)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Out‐loud reading
(kusoma kwa sauti)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Naming beginning and ending sounds in a word
(Kutaja sauti ya mwanzo na mwisho katika neno)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
  Blending sounds to form new words
(kuchanganya sauti kuunda maneno mapya)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Segmenting letter names and sounds
(kutenganisha herufi na sauti)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Word sorting (kuchagua neno) 1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Pre‐reading exercises, like teaching vocabulary
(mazoezi kabla ya kusoma, mfano kufundisha misamiati)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Re‐telling the text
(kurudia kutamka nakala)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 82
Finding the main idea
(kutafuta wazo kuu)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
Shared writing, group writing, and pair writing
(kuandika pamoja, kuandika kama kundi, kuandika watu
wawili)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
17. What methods do you use most often to assess
whether or not your students are learning to read?
(Tick all responses which the teacher mentions)
(Njia gani unatumia mara kwa mara kutathmini kama
wanafunzi wako wanajifunza kusoma?)
Weka vema majibu yote ya mwalimu  
a  □ Take no action (kutochukua hatua)
b  □ Ask students questions about lesson
(kuuliza wanafunzi maswali kuhusu
walichojifunza)
c  □ Monitor students as they work
(kuchunguza wanafunzi pindi
wakifanya kazi)  
d  □ Listen to students read aloud
(kusikiliza wanafunzi wakisoma kwa
sauti)
e  □ Ask students to tell about what they
just read (kuwauliza wanafunzi
waseme kuhusu walichosoma)
f  □ Check student exercise book or
homework (kutazama daftari la
mazeozi la mwanafunzi na kazi za
nyumbani)
g  □ Give quiz or test (kutoa chemsha
bongo au majaribio)
h  □ Other (specify) Mengineyo (ainisha)
_______________________________
18. What learning aids do you use to teach reading?
(Tick all responses which the teacher mentions)
(Unatumia vitu gani vya kumsaidia mwanafunzi kujifunza
wakati unafundisha usomaji?)
Weka vema majibu yote ya mwalimu
a  □ None (Hakuna )
b  □ Blackboard (Ubao)
c  □ Textbook (Vitabu)
d  □ Supplementary reading materials
(vitabu na machapisho ya ziada)
e  □ Story books (vitabu vya hadithi  
f  □Posters/charts/pictures
(Mabango/Chati/Picha)
g  □ Worksheets (Machapisho ya kazi)
h  □ Flashcards (Kadi maelezo)
i   □ Flipcharts (Chati zakuandikia
ukutani)
j   □ Computer/other audio/visual
(Kompyuta na vyombo vingine vya
kusaidia kuona/kusikiliza)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 83
k   □Alphabet strip (karatasi za herufi)
l     □ Word wall (Ukuta wa maneno)
m  □ Other (specify)
________________Vingine (ainisha)
19. Have you prepared any materials yourself or with your
fellow teachers to assist you in teaching reading? (Je, wewe
mwenyewe au kushirikiana na waalimu wenzako,
mmewahi kutayarisha vifaa kwa ajili ya kukusaidia
kufundisha somo la usomaji?)  
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 21)
(Hapana, kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea
na swali la 21)
20. If yes, please show me which materials you have made.
(Kama ni ndiyo, tafadhali naomba unioneshe vifaa
ulivyotengeneza)
(Tick all that apply; only tick if the material is present in the
classroom and you see it)
(Weka vema kwenye visanduku vyote vya  vifaa ambavyo
vinaonekana darasani)
a  □ None seen (sijaona)
b  □ Word charts (chati za neno)
c  □ Wall charts (chati za ukutani)
d  □ Paragraph charts (chati za aya)
e  □ Story books or other reading
materials (poems, songs) (vitabu vya
hadithi au maandiko mengine ya
kusomea [mashairi, nyimbo])
f  □ Posters/charts/pictures
(bango/chati/picha)
g  □ Worksheets (karatasi za kazi )
h  □ Flashcards (kadi neno)
i  □ Flipcharts(Chati zakuandikia ukutani)
j  □Alphabet strip (Karatasi za herufi)
k  □ Word wall (ukuta wa maneno)
l  □ Other (specify) Mengineyo (Ainisha)
________________
21. Have you received any guidance from anyone to help
you teach reading more effectively?
(Umepokea mwongozo kutoka kwa mtu yeyote ili
kukusaidia kufundisha somo la usomaji kwa ufanisi zaidi?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 23)
(Hapana, kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea
na swali la 23)
22. From whom did you receive this help?
(Nani alikupa msaada huu?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher mentions)
(Weka vema katika majibu aliyotaja mwalimu)
a  □ Head teacher (Mkuu wa shule)
b  □ Other teacher (Mwalimu mwingine)
c  □ District/Ward Education Officer
(Afisa elimu wa wilaya/Mratibu
elimu kata)
d  □ School Inspector (Mkaguzi wa shule)
e  □ Teacher Resource Center
Coordinator (Mratibu wa kituo cha
elimu )
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 84
f  □ Teacher Training College Trainer
(mkufunzi wa chuo cha mafunzo ya
ualimu)
g  □ PCI staff (mtumishi wa taasisi ya
PCI)
h  □ Children’s Book Project staff
(mtumishi wa mradi wa Children’s
Book project)
i  □ Other trainer (specify)(mkufunzi
mwingine) Ainisha __________
j  □ Other (specify)  Mwingine (ainisha)
________________
PART 4. SCHOOL FEEDING￾Sehemu ya 4. Lishe
23. How many students are in your class (the one
observed)? (kuna wanafunzi wangapi kwenye darasa lako?)
(darasa lilichunguzwa)
24. How many of the students in this class would you
describe as usually being “inattentive” during class?
(Wanafunzi wangapi katika darasa hili mara nyingi
wanaonekana kukosa usikivu wakati wa vipindi?)
25. Yesterday [or the most recent school day if yesterday
was not a school day, or the most recent school feeding
day], did you eat a meal at school provided by the PCI/FFE
program?
(Jana [au siku nyingine ya karibuni kama jana haikuwa siku
ya chakula shuleni) ulikula shuleni chakula kilichotolewa na
mpango wa PCI/chakula na elimu?
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No  (Hapana)
The interview is now over. Thank the teacher for his/her time.
(Mahojiano yamefikia mwisho/tamati. Mshukuru mwalimu kwa kutoa muda wake.)
 
Time Ended: ____ : _____ AM / PM 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 85
HEAD TEACHER INTERVIEW/ Usaili wa Mwalimu Mkuu 
DISTRICT NAME(Jina la wilaya): DATE OF INTERVIEW( Tarehe ya mahojiano):
___/___/____  (dd/mm/yyyy)
WARD NAME (Jina la kata): TIME OF INTERVIEW (START) (muda wa mahojiano
kuanza)[Use 24 hour clock]:Tumia saa 24
SCHOOL NAME(Jina la shule):   TIME OF INTERVIEW (END) (muda wa mahojiano
kumalizika)[Use 24 hour clock]: Tumia saa 24
ENUMERATOR NAME (Jina la anayesaili): SUPERVISOR NAME(Jina la msimamizi):
ENUMERATOR SIGNATURE (Sahihi ya
anayesaili):
SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE (Sahihi ya msimamizi):
PART 1. INTRODUCTION, CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT: 
Sehemu 1: Utangulizi, Usiri and Ridhaa 
Greet the teacher and introduce yourself: My name is____________ and I am working for the PCI Food
For Education (FFE II) program. We are carrying out a baseline survey, to collect information which will
help in designing the program and later measuring progress of the program towards meeting its
objectives. We will be talking to teachers, students, and parents, as well as observing teachers and
assessing the reading skills of some students. I would like to ask you some questions about this school and
about your participation in the PCI FFE II program. All the answers that you provide will be kept private –
only members of the survey team will have access to this information, and your name will not be used or
matched with your responses. You are free to choose not to answer any question that you would prefer
not to answer. You can stop the interview at any time, ask me to clarify any question, or ask me to repeat
something if you don’t understand. You may also choose to withdraw from the survey at any time.
However, your honest answers to our questions will help us better understand whether this program is
working well and how we might be able to improve it. We greatly appreciate your cooperation.  The
interview will take about 25 minutes.  Do you have any questions for me now?
Msalimie mwalimu na ujitambulishe: Jina langu ni _________ nafanya kazi na taasisi ya PCI kwenye
mpango wa Chakula na Elimu awamu ya II. Tunafanya uchunguzi wa awali, kukusanya taarifa
zitakazotusaidia kupanga programu na baadaye kupima Maendeleo kuhusiana na makusudio ya
mpango. Tutazungumza na waalimu, wanafunzi na wazazi pamoja na kuangalia walimu wakiwa
darasani na kupima stadi za kusoma kwa baadhi ya wanafunzi. Nitapenda kukuuliza maswali juu ya
shule na ushiriki wako katika mpango wa Elimu na Chakula awamu ya II. Majibu yote utakayotoa
yatahifahdhiwa kuwa siri –ni wajumbe wa uchunguzi huu pekee ndio wataweza kuona taarifa hizo,
na jina lako halitaambatanishwa na majibu yako. Uko huru kutojibu swali lolote ambalo hujisikii
kutoa majibu. Unaweza pia kuahirisha mahojiano haya muda wowote, kuniomba ufafanuzi kwenye
swali lolote au kuniomba nirudie jambo kama hujanielewa. Pia uko huru wakati wowote kujitoa
kwenye utafiti huu. Kwa vyovyote, majibu yako ya uaminifu yatatusaidia kuelewa kama mpango huu
unafanya kazi vizuri na jinsi gani tunaweza kuuboresha. Tunashukuru kwa dhati kwa ushirikiano
wako. Mahojiano yatatumia takribani dakika 25. Je, una swali lolote?
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 86
1. Do you agree to participate in this interview?
(Unakubali kushiriki katika mahojiano haya?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
PART 2. TEACHER IDENTIFICATION, BACKGROUND, TRAINING 
Sehemu ya 2: Utambulisho wa mwalimu na mafunzo 
2. LEAVE BLANK (ACHA WAZI)
3. Gender/Jinsi   1  □ Male (mwanaume)           2  □ Female (mwanamke)
4. What is your age?   
(Una miaka mingapi?) __________ (in years)  (miaka)         [Don’t Know (Sijui) = 99]
5. What is your job title at this school?
(Una nafasi gani ya uongozi katika
shule hii?)
1  □ Head Teacher (Mwalimu Mkuu wa shule)
2  □ Deputy Head Teacher (Mwalimu Mkuu Msaidizii)
3  □ Acting Head Teacher (Kaimu Mwalimu Mkuu )
4  □ Academic Teacher (Mwalimu wa Taaluma)
5  □ Other (specify) / Mengineyo (eleza)________________
6. How long have you been teaching in
total?
(Kwa ujumla umekuwa ukifundisha
kwa muda gani?)
1  □ Less than 1 year (chini ya mwaka 1)
2  □ 1‐5 years (mwaka 1‐ 5)
3  □ 6‐10 years (miaka 6 – 10)
4  □ More than 10 years (zaidi ya miaka 10)
7. How long have you been teaching
at this school?  
(Umekuwa ukifundisha kwa muda gani
katika shule hii?)
1  □ Less than 1 year (chini ya mwaka 1)
2  □ 1‐5 years (mwaka 1‐ 5)
3  □ 6‐10 years (miaka 6 – 10)
4  □ More than 10 years (zaidi ya miaka 10)
8. For how long have you been in your
current position at this school?
(Kwa muda gani umekuwa katika cheo
chako katika shule hii?)
1  □ Less than 1 year (chini ya mwaka 1)
2  □ 1‐5 years (mwaka 1‐ 5)
3  □ 6‐10 years (miaka 6 – 10)
4  □ More than 10 years (zaidi ya miaka 10)
9. Have you received any training
through the PCI/FFE program?
(Umepokea mafunzo yoyote kupitia
PCI mpango wa chakula na elimu?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 11) (Kama jibu ni
“hapana” endelea na swali la 11)
10. What type of training have you
received through the PCI/FFE
program?
(Umepokea mafunzo ya aina gani
kupitia PCI mpango wa chakula na
elimu?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions) (Weka vema majibu yote
anayotaja mwalimu)
a  □ INSET (In‐service Education and Training) (specify main
topic of training) Mafunzo kazini (ainisha
yaliyofundishwa)_______________________________
b  □ Readership Teaching Methodologies (with Children’s
Book Project)    Kufundisha namna ya kusoma kupitia
shirika la Children’s Book Project
c  □Readership Teaching Methodologies ‐ TOT (with
Children’s Book Project)      Namna ya kufundisha
kusoma kwa Wawezeshaji kupitia  Children’s Book
Project  
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 87
d  □ Library Management (with Children’s Book Project)
Usimamizi wa maktaba kupitia Children’s Book Project
e  □ Journey of Life (Safari ya Maisha)
f  □ Formation of Health Clubs (kuunda klabu za afya)
g  □ Health Screening (uchunguzi wa afya)
h  □ Zinduka
i  □ School Gardening (bustani  ya shule)
j  □ Commodity & Store Management/ Safe Food Storage &
Preparation (Usimamizi wa bidhaa na maghala /
uhifadhi salama na utayarishaji wa chakula)
k  □ School Administrators Training (mafunzo ya
wasimamizi wa shule)
l □ Mobenzi
m □ Other (specify) / Mengineyo (eleza)________________
PART 3. PEDAGOGICAL LEADERSHIP 
11. Is it one of your responsibilities to
help teachers teach better?
(Ni moja ya wajibu wako kuwasaidia
walimu wafundishe vizuri zaidi?)
1  □ Yes  (Ndiyo)  
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 13) / (Kama jibu
ni “ hapana” nenda swali la 13)
12. If yes, what are some ways in
which you help teachers teach better?
(Kama jibu ni ndiyo, ni kwa njia zipi
unawasaidia walimu wafundishe vizuri  
zaidi?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)  
(Weka vema kwa majibu yote
yanayosemwa na mwalimu)
a  □ Don’t know (Sijui)
b  □ Communicate often with teachers (kuwasiliana na
walimu mara kwa mara)
c  □ Communicate often with students and parents
(kuwasiliana na wanafunzi na wazazi mara kwa mara)
d  □Encourage teamwork among teachers (kusisitiza
walimu kufanya kazi pamoja)
e  □ Share knowledge with teachers (kushirikishana maarifa
na walimu)
f  □ Observe and give feedback to teachers (kutazama na
kutoa mrejesho kwa walimu)
g  □ Ensure teachers receive training  (kuhakikisha walimu
wanapata mafunzo)
h  □ Facilitate trainings/workshops for teachers (kuendesha
mafunzo/warsha kwa walimu)
i  □ Provide teaching materials (kutoa vifaa vya kufundishia)
j  □ Stay abreast of current innovations in pedagogy
(kuhakikisha  ubunifu katika mbinu za kisasa  za
ufundishaji/ elimu  zinaeleweka)
k □ Other (specify) __________________Mengineyo (eleza)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 88
13. How often do you meet with
teachers individually to talk about
their performance?
(Mara ngapi unakutana na mwalimu
mmoja mmoja kuzungumzia utendaji
kazi wao?)
1  □ Once or more than once a month/ Mara moja au zaidi
ya mara moja kwa mwezi
2  □ Once every two to three months/ Mara moja kila miezi
miwili mpaka mitatu
3  □ Once every four to six months / Mara moja kila miezi
minne mpaka sita
4  □ Once per year/ Mara moja kwa mwaka
5  □ Less than once per year or never/ Chini ya mara moja
kwa mwaka, au hakuna
14. Are teachers at this school
required to prepare lesson plans?
(Walimu katika shule hii wanatakiwa
kuaandaa maandalio ya somo?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 16)/ (Kama jibu
ni “hapana” endelea na swali la 16)
15. If yes, do you review the lesson
plans?
(Kama ndiyo, unafanya mapitio ya
maandalio ya somo?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
16. This academic year, have you
conducted classroom teacher
observations?
(Katika mwaka huu wa masomo,
umefanya uchunguzi wa walimu
darasani?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
17. On average, how often do you
observe a teacher in one academic
year?
(Kwa wastani, unamchunguza  
mwalimu mara ngapi katika mwaka
mmoja wa masomo?)
1  □ Once or more than once a month/ Mara moja au zaidi
ya mara moja kwa mwezi
2  □ Once every two to three months/ Mara moja kila miezi
miwili mpaka mitatu
3  □ Once every four to six months / Mara moja kila miezi
minne mpaka sita
4  □ Once per year/ Mara moja kwa mwaka
5  □ Less than once per year or never/ Chini ya mara moja
kwa mwaka, au hakuna
18. If a teacher has a problem
teaching, what do you do to improve
his/her teaching?
(Kama mwalimu ana tatizo la
ufundishaji, unafanya nini kuboresha
ufundishaji wake?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)
a  □ Don’t know/nothing  (Sijui/hakuna)
b  □ Inform district authorities  (Ninajulisha uongozi wa
wilaya)
c  □ Scold/discipline teacher  (Ninamchukulia hatua
mwalimu)
d  □Give low performance review  (Ninampa utendaji hafifu
katika tathmini yake)
e  □ Mentor/give feedback  (Ninamsaidia kumjenga/ninatoa
mrejesho)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 89
(Weka vema majibu yote ya mwalimu)  
f  □ Pair with a good teacher  (Ninamweka pamoja na
mwalimu mahiri)
g  □ Develop teacher improvement plan  (Tayarisha
mpango wa maboresho ya mwalimu)
h  □ Organize training (Andaa mafunzo)
i  □ Provide teaching materials  (Toa vifaa vya mafunzo)
j  □ Ask Teacher College/DEO for assistance  (Ninaomba
msaada wa Chuo cha Walimu/Afisa Elimu wa Wilaya)
k □ Other (specify) ________________Mengineyo (ainisha)
19. In your school timetable, how
often is reading to be taught in
Standard 2?
(Katika ratiba ya shule yenu, mna
vipindi vingapi kwa wiki vya somo la
Kusoma katika darasa la 2?)
1  □ Every day  (Kila siku)
2  □ 3‐4 times/week  (Mara 3‐4 kwa wiki)
3  □ 1‐2 times/week  (Mara 1‐2 kwa wiki)
4  □ Less than once/week  (Chini ya mara 1 kwa wiki)
5  □ Never  (Hakuna)
20. In your school timetable, how
much time is allocated to each reading
lesson in Standard 2?  
(Katika ratiba ya shule yenu, muda
gani umepangwa kwa ajili ya kipindi
cha Kusoma  katika darasa la 2?)
1  □ More than 45 minutes  (zaidi ya dakika 45)
2  □ 31‐45 minutes (dakika 31 – 45)
3  □ 16‐30 minutes (dakika 16 – 30)
4  □ 0‐15 minutes (dakika 0 – 15)
21. Apart from teaching reading, what
other activities are conducted by this
school to support reading?
(Tofauti na kufundisha Kusoma, shule
hii inafanya shughuli zipi kusaidia
usomaji?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)   (Weka vema kwa majibu
yote ya mwalimu)
a  □ Don’t know/nothing (sijui/ hakuna kitu)
b  □ Engage parents (kuwashirikisha wazazi)
c  □ Conduct community awareness (kuhamasisha ufahamu
wa jamii)
d  □ Collaborative monitoring (ufuatiliaji wa pamoja)
e  □ Library (maktaba)
f  □ Other (specify) ________________Mengineyo (ainisha)
PART 4. USE OF MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES 
Sehemu ya 4. Matumizi ya Zana za Usimamizi na Mbinu 
22. Have you developed a
________________? (READ each
item to the respondent; record if
he/she is able to show you the item)  
(Umewahi kuandaa  _________?  
(SOMA kila kipengele kwa anayejibu;
andika kama anaweza kukuonyesha
kitu hicho ….)
22.a. School timetable / Ratiba ya shule 1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
22.b. School budget/ Bajeti ya mapato na
matumizi ya shule
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
22.c. Weekly meeting plan with teachers/
Mpango wa  kikao cha walimu kila wiki
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
22.d. Teachers attendance record book /
Kitabu cha kumbukumbu ya mahudhurio
ya walimu
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 90
22.e. Teachers internal performance
evaluation plan/ Mpango wa tathmini ya
utendaji wa walimu
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □  No/Hapana
22f. School Development Plan/ Mpango
wa maendeleo ya shule
1  □ Yes/ Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
22g. List of School Committee members/
Orodha ya wajumbe wa kamati ya shule
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
22h. Book register of school supplies/
Daftari ya kumbukumbu ya vifaa vya
shule  
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
22i. Schedule of extra‐curricular activities
(e.g. clubs, sports) / Ratiba ya shuguli za
nje ya darasa  (e.g. klabu, michezo, n.k.)
1  □ Yes/Ndiyo
2  □ No/Hapana
23. What events has this school
organized in the past year to involve
parents or communities in the
education of their children?
matukio gani shule hii ilitayarisha
mwaka jana kuwahusisha wazazi au
jamii katika elimu ya watoto wao?
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)
Weka vema majibu yote ya
mwalimu
a  □ None  (Hakuna)
b  □ Don’t know/Don’t remember/No response  
(Sijui/sikumbuki/hakuna jibu)
c  □ PTA/School Committee meeting  (Jumuiya ya wazazi na
walimu/kikao cha kamati ya shule)
d  □ School feeding sub‐committee meeting  (Kikao cha
kamati ndogo ya chakula cha watoto shuleni)
e  □ Sensitization meeting (specify)  (Kikao cha uhamasishaji)
(ainisha) ____________________________
f  □ Another school event (specify)   (Tukio jingine la shule)
_________________________________(ainisha)
g  □Other (specify) _________________Mengineyo (ainisha)
PART 5. MATERIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT 
Sehemu ya 5. Vifaa na Miundombinu Saidizi
24. What is the total enrolment of
students in this school year (as of
March 2014)?       (Wanafunzi wangapi
walikuwa wameandikishwa katika
shule hii mwaka huu (kufikia mwezi
wa tatu 2014?)
Boys (wavulana) Girls (wasichana) Total (jumla)
    
25. Has your school received any
textbooks, guides, or manuals through
the PCI/FFE program? (Shule yenu
imepokea vitabu, kiongozi au
mwongozo wa walimu kupitia PCI
mpango wa chakula naelimu awamu?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana) (If “No”, skip to question 27)   (Kama jibu
ni “ hapana” nenda swali la 27)
26. If yes, which textbooks, guides, or
manuals has your school received?
a  □ Don’t know (sijui)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 91
(Kama jibu ni ndiyo, ni vitabu gani
kiongozi cha mwalimu au miongozo
ambayo shule yenu imepokea?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)  
(Weka vema majibu yote atakayotaja
mwalimu)
b  □ Student English textbook (kitabu cha kiada cha  
kiingereza)
c  □ Student mathematics textbook (kitabu cha kiada cha
hisabati)
d  □Student science textbook (kitabu cha kiada cha sayansi)
e  □ Guides related to reading (establishing libraries,
teaching reading, etc.) (specify) (kiongozi cha kusoma,
kuanzisha maktaba, n.k.)__________________(ainisha)
f  □ School garden manual (mwongozo wa bustani ya shule)
g  □ Zinduka guidebook (kitabu cha kiongozi cha  Zinduka)
h  □ Food Storage Handling and Preparation manual
(mwongozo wa kuhifadhi na maandalizi ya chakula )
i  □ School feeding guidelines (miongozo ya chakula shuleni)
j  □ Health Club materials (Vifaa vya klabu za afya )
k  □INSET manual (Moduli za  mafunzo kazini)
l  □ Materials related to school administration (guide for
head teachers, roles of school committees, etc.)
(specify)  (vifaa vinavyohusika na usimamizi wa shule,
kama kiongozi cha mwalimu mkuu, wajibu wa kamati
za shule, n.k.) _________________________(ainisha)
m □ Other (specify) (Mengineyo)(elezea) _______________
27. Has your school received any
supplementary reading materials or
story books through the PCI program?  
(Shule yako imepokea vitabu vya
ziada, au hadithi kupitia mpango wa
PCI wa Chakula na Elimu shuleni?)
1  □ Yes (specify) / Ndiyo (elezea)
_____________________________________________
2  □ No  (Hapana)
28. Has your school received any other
supplies or materials through the
PCI/FFE program? (Shule yako
imepokea vitu/misaada mingine
kupitia mpango wa PCI shuleni?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 30)/  Hapana (kama jibu ni
“hapana” nenda swali la 30)
29. Which other materials has your
school received?
(Ni vitu/misaada gani shule yako
imepokea?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)  
(Weka vema majibu yote ya mwalimu)
a  □ Blackboard  (ubao)
b  □ Calendar  (kalenda)
c  □ Map  (ramani)
d  □ Posters/charts/pictures  (bango/chati/picha)
e  □ Atlas  (kitabu cha ramani)
f   □ Dictionary  (kamusi)
g  □ Flashcards (kadi za mafundisho)
h  □ Flipcharts (chati za kuandikia ukutani)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 92
i   □ Science kit (kifurushi cha kufundishia sayansi)
j   □ Lesson plan  (andalio la somo)
k  □ Calculators  (kikokotozi)
l   □ Scissors/Rulers  (mkasi/rula)
m □ Stationery supplies (paper, pens, crayons, etc.)
karatasi, kalamu, kalamu za rangi  
n   □Other (specify)/ Mengineyo (eleza) ________________
30. What is the main source of
drinking water in this school?
  
(Nini chanzo kikuu cha maji ya kunywa
katika shule hii?)
(Tick only one answer)
(weka vema jibu moja tu)
0  □ No water source  (Hakuna chanzo cha maji)
1  □ River, stream, lake, pond (mto, mkondo wa maji, ziwa
au bwawa)
2  □ Unprotected well or spring (chemchemi isiyotunzwa)  
3  □ Taps / pipeline (bomba la maji)
4  □ Borehole (kisima)
5  □ Protected well or spring  (kisima au chemchemi
salama)
6  □ Rainwater harvesting system  (mfumo wa kuvuna maji
ya mvua)
7  □ Other (specify)  Mengineyo (eleza) ________________
Does this school have:
(Shule hii ina:)
Yes / Ndiyo No / Hapana Don’t Know / Sijui
31. A library or reading room?
(Maktaba au  chumba cha kusomea)
1     □ 2     □  (endelea
swali la 33)
99    □
32. (If yes) Was it supported by
PCI/FFE?  
(Kama ndiyo, iliwezeshwa  na mpango
wa PCI wa chakula na elimu?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
33. A school garden?
(Bustani ya shule?)
1     □ 2     □  (endelea
swali la 35)
99    □
34. (If yes) Was it supported by
PCI/FFE?
(Kama ndiyo, iliwezeshwa na mpango
wa PCI wa chakula na elimu?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
35. An energy‐saving stove?
(Jiko banifu?)
1     □ 2     □  (endelea
swali la 37)
99    □
36. (If yes) Was it supported by
PCI/FFE?
(Kama ndiyo, iliwezeshwa na mpango
wa PCI wa chakula na elimu?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
37. An active School Committee or
Parent‐Teacher Association (PTA)?
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 93
(Kamati ya shule au jumuiya ya wazazi
na walimu  inayotenda kazi?)
38. An active School Feeding
Committee?
(Kamati ya chakula ya shule
inayotenda kazi?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
39. An active School Water, Sanitation
and Hygiene (SWASH) Committee?
(Kamati ya shule ya maji, usafi wa
mazingira na usafi wa mwili
inayotenda kazi?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
40. An active Health Club?
(Klabu ya afya inayotenda kazi?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
41. Volunteer Student Aides (VSAs)?
(Wanafunzi  wasaidizi wa kujitolea?)
1     □ 2     □ 99    □
42. Besides PCI, is any other non‐
governmental organization supporting
this school currently?
(Tofauti na PCI, kuna taasisi nyingine
isiyo ya serikali inayotoa msaada
katika shule hii kwa sasa?)
1  □ Yes  (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 44)  (Hapana; kama jibu ni
“hapana” endelea na swali la 44)
43. If yes, in what area(s) are you
receiving support?  
(Kama ndiyo, ni katika maeneo yapi
mnapokea msaada?)
(Tick all responses which the teacher
mentions)  
(Weka vema majibu yote ya mwalimu)
a  □ School feeding  (kulisha watoto wa shule)
b  □ Teacher training  (mafunzo ya walimu)
c  □ School supplies  (vifaa vya shule)
d  □ Library  (maktaba)
e  □ SMC/PTA (Kamati ya shule/Jumuiya ya wazazi na
waalimu)
f   □ School garden  (bustani ya shule)
g  □ Health intervention  (hudumawa afya)
h  □ Water/Sanitation (maji/ usafi wa mazingira)
i    □Other (specify)  Mengineyo (eleza) ________________
44. Yesterday [or the most recent
school day if yesterday was not a
school day, or the most recent school
feeding day], did you eat a meal at
school provided by the PCI/FFE
program?
Jana (au siku ya karibuni iwapo jana
haikuwa siku ya chakula shuleni),
ulikula chakula shuleni kilichotolewa
na mpango wa PCI elimu na chakula?
1  □ Yes  (Ndiyo)
2  □ No  (Hapana)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 94
Thank the Head Teacher, tell him/her you would like to view the school infrastructure, and proceed to
next page.
Mshukuru mwalimu mkuu, mwambie unapendelea kutazama miundombinu ya shule na kuendelea
kurasa inayofuata.
Time Ended:/muda wa kumaliza ____ : _____ 
AM / PM/ asubuhi/mchana 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 95
SCHOOL OBSERVATION CHECKLIST/ Orodha ya Uchunguzi wa Shule 
Review the Head Teacher’s responses to questions 31. – 35. above. Go to physically see each of
the items below and complete the form accordingly.
Tathmini majibu ya mwalimu mkuu kwa swali 31 hadi 35. Nenda uangalie yafuatayo na ujaze
kikamilifu.
1.   Library or reading room is physically
present
(Kuna jengo la maktaba au chumba cha
kusomea?)
1  □ Yes / Ndiyo
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 5) / Hapana
(Kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na swali la 5)
2. Where is the library or reading room
located?
(Jengo la maktaba au chumba cha
kusomea kiko sehemu gani?
1 □ In separate room(s) dedicated to library
use  (chumba au vyumba pekee kwa
matumizi ya maktaba)
2  □ Book corner in a classroom  (kona  ya
vitabu darasani)
3  □ In the Head Teacher’s room (ndani ya
ofisi ya mwalimu mkuu  
4  □ In the teachers’ room (ndani ya ofisi ya
walimu)
5  □ In the store (katika stoo)
6  □ Other (specify)_________Nyingine (eleza)
3. How many books for early grades
(appropriate for Standards 1 or 2) are
there in the library?
(Ni vitabu vingapi kwa ajili ya madarasa
ya chini (kufaa darasa la 1 au 2 vipo katika
maktaba?)
1  □ less than 50  (chini ya 50)
2  □ 50‐100
3  □ 101‐200
4  □ 201‐500
5  □ more than 500  (zaidi ya 500)
4. Are students allowed to borrow books
from the library (take them out of the
library)?
Wanafunzi wanaruhusiwa kuazima vitabu
maktaba (kutoka navyo nje ya maktaba)?
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
5.   School garden is physically present
(Bustani ya shule ipo?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 8)  / Hapana
(kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na swali la 8)
6. There is evidence that the school garden
is currently in use.
(Kuna ushahidi kuwa bustani ya shule
inatumika kwa sasa?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
7. The following additional features are
present at the garden:  (Tick all that
apply)  Sifa za ziada zifuatazo zipo katika
bustani (weka vema kwa yanayohusika)
a  □ Solar Dryer  (Mashine ya kukausha
inayotumia nishati ya jua)
b  □ Indigenous trees  (Miti ya asili)
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 96
8. An energy saving stove is constructed on‐
site.
(Jiko banifu limejengwa kwenye eneo
husika?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 10)  /
Hapana (kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na
swali la 10)
9. There is evidence that the stove is being
used.
(Kuna ushahidi kuwa jiko linatumika?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
10. There is food at the school for preparing
school feeding meals.
(Kuna chakula kwa ajili ya kuandaa milo
ya chakula shuleni?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 12)  /
Hapana (kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na
swali la 12)
11. Food for the feeding program is stored off
the ground.
(Chakula kwa ajili ya mpango wa chakula
shuleni  kinahifadhiwa juu ya ardhi?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
12. The school has a latrine or toilets for
students.
(Shule ina matundu ya choo au choo cha
maji kwa ajili ya wanafunzi?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to question 16)  /
Hapana (kama jibu ni “hapana” endelea na
swali la 16)
13. Total number of drop holes/toilet stances
for female students only.
(Idadi ya jumla ya matundu ya choo kwa
wanafunzi wa kike pekee)
14. Total number of drop holes/toilet stances
for male students only.
(Idadi ya jumla ya matundu ya choo kwa
wanafunzi wa kiume pekee)
15. The boys latrine/toilets are physically
separated from the girls latrine/ toilets.  
(Vyoo vya wanafunzi wa kiume vimeteng‐
anishwa na vyoo vya wanafunzi wa kike?)
1□Yes (Specify distance apart)   
     Ndiyo (umbali unaotenganisha)________
2  □ No (Hapana)
16. Does the school have a hand‐washing
station?    (Shule ina sehemu ya  kunawa
mikono?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (If “No”, skip to end)  / Hapana (kama
jibu ni “hapana” sitisha mahojiano)
17. Do the hand‐washing station/ “tip‐taps”
have water for washing?
(Sehemu ya  kunawa mikono ina maji?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
18. Do the hand‐washing station/ “tip‐taps”
have soap?
(Sehemu ya  kunawa mikono ina sabuni?)
1  □ Yes (Ndiyo)
2  □ No (Hapana)
Mshukuru mwalimu mkuu
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 97
PARENT INTERVIEW / HOJAJI YA MZAZI 
DISTRICT NAME  / JINA LA WILAYA: DATE OF INTERVIEW: ___/___/____  (dd/mm/yyyy)  
TAREHE YA MAHOJIANO: ___/___/____  (tar/mw/mwaka)
WARED NAME / JINA LA KATA: TIME OF INTERVIEW (START) [Use 24 hour clock] /  
SAA YA KUANZA MAHOJIANO) [tumia saa 24]:
SCHOOL NAME / JINA LA SHULE:   TIME OF INTERVIEW (END) [Use 24 hour clock] /
SAA YA KUMALIZA MAHOJIANO [tumia saa 24 ]:
ENUMERATOR NAME / JINA LA ANAYESAILI: ENUMERATOR SIGNATURE / SAHIHI YA ANAYESAILI:
SUPERVISOR NAME  / JINA LA MSIMAMIZI: SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE /SAHIHI YA MSIMAMIZI:
PART 1. INTRODUCTION, CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 
SEHEMU YA 1. UTANGULIZI ,USIRI NA HIARI YA KUSHIRIKI 
Greet the student’s parent and introduce yourself: My name is____________ and I am working for
the PCI Food For Education (FFE) program. Thank you for coming to school and allowing me to ask you
some questions about your experience as a parent of a child attending this school. All the answers that
you provide will be kept private – only members of the survey team will have access to this information,
and your name will not be used or matched with your responses. You are free to choose not to answer
any question that you would prefer not to answer. You can stop the interview at any time, ask me to
clarify any question, or ask me to repeat something if you don’t understand. You may also choose to
withdraw from the survey at any time. However, your honest answers to our questions will help us
better understand whether this program is working well and how we might be able to improve it. We
greatly appreciate your cooperation. The interview will take about 15 minutes. Do you have any
questions for me now?
Msalimie mzazi wa mwanafunzi na ujitambilishe kwake: Jina langu ni ____________ na ninafanya
kazi na taasisi ya PCI katika mpango wa Chakula na Elimu .Tunakushukuru kwa kufika na kunikubalia
nikuulize maswali juu ya uzoefu wako ukiwa mzazi wa mwanafunzi anayesoma katika shule hii. Majibu
yote utakayotoa yatahifadhiwa kuwa siri binafsi. Ni wajumbe wa utafiti huu pekee watakaoona taarifa
hii, na jina lako halitaoanishwa na majibu yako. Una haki ya kuamua kutojibu swali lolote utakaloamua
kutojibu. Unaweza kukatisha mahojiano wakati wowote, kuhitaji ufafanuzi juu ya swali au kunitaka
nirudie pale ambapo hukuelewa. Pia unaweza kujiondoa katika utafiti wakati wowote. Kwa vyovyote,
majibu yako ya ukweli kwa maswali yetu yatasaidia kufahamu vema ikiwa mpango huu unatekelezwa
kama ulivyotarajiwa na endapo tunaweza kuuboresha. Tunakushukuru kwa ushirikiano wako.
Mahojiano yatafanyika kwa muda wa dakika 15. Una maswali yoyote kwangu kwa sasa? 
1. Do you agree to participate in this interview?
Unakubali kushiriki katika mahojiano haya?
1  □ Yes   Ndiyo
2  □ No    Hapana
PART 2. PARENT IDENTIFICATION, BACKGROUND 
SEHEMU 2. UTAMBULISHO WA MZAZI ,TAARIFA ZA MSINGI 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 98
2. LEAVE BLANK (ACHA WAZI)
3. Gender / Jinsia   1  □ Male / Mwanamume
2  □ Female / Mwanamke   
4. What is your age?  /  Una umri gani? __________ (in years)  (miaka)          
                       [Don’t Know (Sijui) = 99]
5. What is the name of your child who attends this
school? (Refer to the youngest child if more than
one)  
Jina la mwanao anayesoma katika shule hii ni nani?
(Kama ni zaidi ya mmoja chukua mtoto mdogo
zaidi)
6. Is (NAME of that child) a boy or girl?
Je (JINA la mtoto) mvulana au msichana?
1  □ Boy  / Mvulana
2  □ Girl /  Msichana
7. (JINA la mtoto ) anasoma darasa gani? 0  □ Pre‐primary  (darasa la awali)
1  □ Standard 1    (darasa la kwanza)
2  □ Standard 2     (darasa la pili)
3  □ Standard 3     (darasa la tatu)
4  □ Standard 4     (darasa la nne)
5  □ Standard 5     (darasa la tano)
6  □ Standard 6     (darasa la sita)
7   □Standard 7     (darasa la saba)
8. What do you think are the three main benefits
from ensuring that your child goes to school?
(Probe for up to 3 responses)
Ni faida zipi tatu za msingi zinazopatikana kwa
kumpeleka mtoto  shule?
(Dadisi kupata majibu hadi 3)
a  □ Don’t know/no response   Sijui/Hakuna jibu  
b  □ Reducing poverty / Kupunguza umaskini  
c  □ Gaining life skills and work skills  / Kupata
stadi za maisha na ujuzi wa kazi  
d  □ Gain knowledge, skills, and ethics  / Kupata
maarifa, ujuzi na maadili  
e  □ Ability to express themselves / Uwezo wa
kujieleza binafsi  
f  □ Self‐awareness and self – reliance /
Kujitambua na kujitegemea  
g  □ Building capacity for further development  /
Kujenga uwezo kwa maendeleo ya baadaye  
h  □ Increasing creativity and curiosity /
Kuongeza ubunifu na udadisi  
i  □ Get school meals / Kupata chakula shuleni  
j□    Increased confidence / Kuongeza kujiamini
k□  Other (specify)     Mengineyo (Eleza)
______________________________
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 99
9. Besides today, have you or any other adult
member of your household visited this school
during this school year?   
Tofauti na siku ya leo, wewe au mtu mzima yeyote
kutoka kaya yako amewahi kutembelea shule hii
ndani ya mwaka huu?  
1  □ Yes  / Ndiyo
2  □ No   / Hapana  
(If “No”, skip to question 11.)  
(Kama jibu ni “Hapana”, endelea na swali la 11.)
10. For what reasons have you (or that person)
visited this school?
(Tick all responses given)
Sababu zipi zilikufanya wewe (au mtu mwingine)
kutembelea shule hii?
(Weka vema majibu yote anayotaja mzazi)
a  □ Don’t know/Don’t remember/No response
Sijui/Sikumbuki/Sina jibu  
b  □ Talk to teacher about my child’s school
performance/ attendance/ behavior
Kuzungumza na mwalimu kuhusu
maendeleo ya mtoto wangu shuleni /
mahudhurio/tabia  
c  □ Attend a PTA/School Committee meeting
Kuhudhuria jumhuia ya wazazi na walimu
(PTA) /Kikao cha Kamati ya shule  
d  □ Attend a school feeding sub‐committee
meeting   Kuhudhuria kikao cha kamati
ndogo ya shule ya lishe  
e  □ Attend a PCI/FFE sensitization meeting
Kuhudhuria kikao cha uhamasishaji wa
mpango wa PCI/chakula na elimu (Eleza )
________________________________
f  □ Attend another school event  
Kuhudhuria matukio mengine shuleni  
(Eleza) __________________________
g  □Other reason   Sababu nyingine (Eleza)
________________________________
11. Are you a member of a school committee or
group?   
Je, wewe ni mwnachama wa kamati ya shule au
kikundi cha shule kingine?
1  □ Yes  / Ndiyo  
2  □ No   / Hapana  (If “No”, skip to question 13.)
(Kama jibu ni “Hapana”, endelea na swali la 13.)
12. If yes, which committees are you a member of?
(Tick all responses given)
Kama jibu ni ndiyo, ni mwanachama wa kamati ipi?
(Weka vema majibu yote anayotaja mzazi)
a  □ PTA / Jumhuia ya wazazi na walimu
b  □ School Management Committee   / Kamati
ya usimamizi wa shule  
c  □ School feeding sub‐committee   / Kamati
ndogo ya shule ya lishe  
d □ School SWASH sub‐committee   / Kamati
ndogo ya shule ya maji na usafi wa mazingira
e □  Other (specify)    Nyingineyo (eleza )
____________________________
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 100
13. In the one month before the break, about how
many days was your child, ___________ ,  absent
from school because of bad health or sickness?
Katika kipindi cha mwezi mmoja kabla ya likizo, ni
siku ngapi mwanao, ___________ ,   ameshindwa
kuhudhuria shuleni  kwa sababu ya afya isiyo nzuri
au ugonjwa ?
______ (Write number of days absent)
(Andika idadi ya siku ambazo hakuhudhuria)
99  □ Do not know/No response  
Sijui/Sina jibu  
14. Would you say that your child, ___________ ,  
has been absent from school because of bad
health or sickness more this year than last year, or
less this year than last year, or about the same?
Je, unaweza kueleza mwanao, ___________ ,  
hakuweza kuhudhuria shuleni kwa sababu ya afya
kutokuwa nzuri au ugonjwa:   mwaka huu zaidi
kuliko mwaka jana, mwaka huu pungufu kuliko
mwaka jana, au kwa kiwango sawa   
1  □ More this year than last year  / Mwaka huu
zaidi kuliko mwaka jana
2  □  Less this year than last year  / Mwaka huu
pungufu kuliko mwaka jana  
3  □ About the same  / Kwa kiwango sawa  
99  □ Do not know/No response  
Sijui/Sina jibu
End. Thank you very much for your time and feedback today. Do you have any additional comments or
questions?
Mwisho. Tunashukuru sana kwa muda wako na kwa kujibu maswali Je, una maoni yoyote au maswali
ya ziada?
 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 101
Annex 7. Additional Descriptions and Findings  
School Infrastructure and Support
The Head Teachers were interviewed regarding school facilities and resources and different
types of support received by the school. Interviewers also surveyed the school for further
information. A summary of key findings is as shown in the table below.
Table 40. School Infrastructure and Support
  
Intervention
Schools (n=30)
Comparison
Schools (n=10)
   # % # %
Library/Reading Room25 2 7% 1 10%
Main source of drinking water
None  ‐‐  ‐‐  1 10%
River, stream, lake, pond 5 17%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Unprotected well or spring 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Taps / pipeline 3 10% 1 10%
Borehole 12 40% 4 40%
Protected well or spring 3 10% 4 40%
Rainwater harvesting system   6 20%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
School Garden 22 73%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Of those, appeared to be in use 18 82% N/A N/A
Energy‐saving stove 21 70%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Of those, appeared to be in use 12 57% N/A N/A
      
Food for School Feeding program 22 73%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Of those, food is stored off ground 12 55% N/A N/A
Latrines/Toilets 28 93% 9 90%
Average # drop holes/toilet stances for girls 5 (range : 3‐12) 6 (range : 2‐12)
Average # drop holes/toilet stances for boys 5 (range : 2‐12) 5 (range : 2‐9)
Average # girls enrolled per drop holes/toilet stances   61 71
Average # boys enrolled per drop holes/toilet stances   68 72
 
25 The two “libraries” seen were both located in a store‐room.
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 102
Hand‐washing station, total 14 47% 1 10%
Hand washing station, with water 13 43% 1 10%
Hand washing station, with soap 5 17%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
      
Other NGO support 6 20% 3 30%
School supplies 3 10% 1 10%
Water/sanitation 4 13% 1 10%
Health  ‐‐  ‐‐  1 10%
Electricity 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Sports ‐‐  ‐‐  1 10%
Total 30 100% 10 100%
School Administrators at the 30 PCI intervention schools were asked about the materials they
have received from PCI (some of the schools selected for the sample have been newly added to
the program and have not yet received any material support at the time of the baseline).
Responses are as shown below:
Table 41. Materials Received by Schools
# %
Textbooks, Guides, Manuals
English textbook 18 60%
Math textbook 17 57%
Science textbook 5 17%
Reading guides 1 3%
School garden manual 1 3%
Zinduka guidebook  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Food storage handling/preparation manual 1 3%
School feeding guidelines 2 7%
Health Club materials  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
INSET manual  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
School administration guides  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Other  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 103
Supplementary Reading Materials 1 3%
Other Classroom Supplies/Materials   
Atlas 1 3%
Flipchart 1 3%
School administrators were asked, according to the school timetable, how often reading is to be
taught and for how long per lesson reading is to be taught, in Standard 2:
Table 42. Frequency and Length of Reading Instruction, Standard 2
  
  
Treatment Group Comparison Group
# % # %
Frequency of Reading Lessons
Every day 21 70% 4 40%
3‐4 times/week 8 27% 6 60%
1‐2 times/week 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Less than once/week  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Never  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Time Allocated to Reading Lesson
More than 45 minutes 1 3% 1 10%
31‐45 minutes 5 17% 4 40%
16‐30 minutes 24 80% 5 50%
0‐15 minutes  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Total 30 100% 10 100%
School administrators were asked about the techniques and tools they use to improve reading
outcomes:
  
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 104
Table 43. School Administrator Use of New/Quality Techniques or Tools
Intervention
Schools (n=30)
Comparison
Schools (n=10)
No. % No. %
Help teachers teach better by:        
Communicating often with teachers 22 73% 4 40%
Communicating with students and parents 5 17% 1 10%
Encouraging teamwork among teachers 18 60% 6 60%
Sharing knowledge with teachers 18 60% 7 70%
Observing and giving feedback to teachers 10 33% 1 10%
Ensuring training for teachers 4 13% 2 20%
Facilitating trainings for teachers 2 7%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Providing teaching materials 9 30% 3 30%
Keeping up to date on innovations in pedagogy 7 23% 1 10%
Other technique 1 3% 1 10%
Meet with teachers to talk about performance       
Once per month or more 22 73% 9 90%
Once every 2‐3 months 2 7%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Once every 4‐6 months 4 13%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Once per year 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Less than once per year or never 1 3% 1 10%
Observe teachers teaching      
Once per month or more 13 43% 4 40%
Once every 2‐3 months 5 17% 3 30%
Once every 4‐6 months 5 17% 2 20%
Once per year 3 10% 1 10%
Less than once per year or never 4 13%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Review lesson plans 28 93% 9 90%
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 105
Improve teacher performance through:      
Mentor/give feedback 23 77% 7 70%
Pair with good teacher 19 63% 8 80%
Develop teacher improvement plan 4 13% 2 20%
Organize training 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Provide teaching materials 4 13% 1 10%
Ask Teacher College/DEO for assistance 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Inform district authorities 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Scold or disciplining teacher 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Give low performance review 2 7%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Change teacher’s subject 3 10%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Other 2 7% 1 10%
Don’t know/nothing 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Support reading through:      
Engaging parents 5 17%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Conducting community awareness 5 17% 2 20%
Collaborative monitoring 14 47% 5 50%
Establishing library  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Other 9 30% 5 50%
None/Don’t know 3 10%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Develop a:      
School timetable 30 100% 10 100%
School budget 24 80% 9 90%
Weekly meeting plan with teachers 16 53% 5 50%
Teacher attendance record book 30 100% 10 100%
Teacher internal performance evaluation plan 22 73% 6 60%
School Development Plan 24 80% 8 80%
List of school committee members 30 100% 10 100%
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 106
Register of school supplies 28 93% 10 100%
Extra‐curricular activities schedule 21 78% 5 50%
Involve parents and communities through:      
PTA/School committee meetings 18 60% 5 50%
School feeding sub‐committee meetings 2 7% 1 10%
Sensitization meetings 11 37% 5 50%
Other school events 4 13% 1 10%
Other 1 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
None or Don’t Know 5 17% 2 20%
Establish school support structures:       
PTA/School committee   29 97% 10 100%
School feeding sub‐committee   23 77% 2 20%
SWASH committee 18 60% 5 50%
Health Club 23 77% 6 60%
VSAs 13 46% 4 40%
Student Interviews
Table 44. Student Participation in School Feeding
  
  
Treatment
Group
Comparison
Group
Total
# % # % # %
Ate at school yesterday    
Yes 391 65% 28 14% 419 52%
No 194 32% 163 82% 357 45%
Don’t Know 15 2% 9 5% 24 3%
          
Porridge 85 22% 25 89% 110 26%
Rice and beans 155 40% 1 4% 156 37%
Porridge plus rice and beans 146 37% 2 7% 148 35%
Don’t Know 5 1%  ‐‐  0% 5 1%
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 107
After eating, felt hungry           
Yes 41 10% 3 11% 44 11%
No 335 86% 25 89% 360 86%
Don’t Know 15 4%  ‐‐  0% 15 4%
Table 45. Student Health Test Correct Responses
Health Test Question
  
Treatment
Group
Comparison
Group
# % # %
Sickness may be caused by many things, such as bad nutrition and poor hygiene.
Correct   436 73% 158 79%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 164 27% 42 21%
Some diseases can be prevented by wearing shoes.
Correct   408 68% 135 68%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 192 32% 65 32%
There is no way to prevent children from getting diarrhea or dying from diarrheal
diseases.
Correct   327 55% 109 55%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 273 45% 91 45%
Food gives us energy, protects us from diseases, and helps us grow.
Correct   497 83% 172 86%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 103 17% 28 14%
A balanced meal includes carbohydrates only.
Correct   397 66% 127 64%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 203 34% 73 36%
The best way to prevent HIV is to abstain from sex.
Correct   364 61% 123 62%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 236 39% 77 38%
An important way to avoid illness is to wash hands with water and soap before
cooking or eating and after using the latrine.
Correct   524 87% 180 90%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 76 13% 20 10%
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 108
We students can help make this school a cleaner, safer, and more healthy place.
Correct   532 89% 179 90%
Incorrect/Don’t Know 68 11% 21 10%
        
Total 600 100% 200 100%
Teacher Interview
Table 46. Teacher Use of Improved Literacy Instruction
Intervention
Schools (n=58)
Comparison
Schools (n=20)
No. % No. %
Methods used to teach reading:      
Choral reading 52 90% 19 95%
Guided reading 52 90% 19 95%
Shared reading 56 97% 18 90%
Silent reading 39 67% 13 65%
Out‐loud reading 55 95% 20 100%
Naming beginning and ending sounds in a word 23 40% 10 50%
Blending sounds to form new words 31 53% 11 55%
Segmenting letter names and sounds 21 36% 6 30%
Word sorting   40 69% 14 70%
Pre‐reading exercises, like teaching vocabulary 34 59% 12 60%
Re‐telling the text 44 76% 13 65%
Finding the main idea 33 57% 10 50%
Shared writing, group writing, and pair writing 32 55% 11 55%
To assess if students learning to read:      
Take no action   ‐‐  ‐‐  2 10%
Ask students questions about lesson 42 72% 14 70%
Monitor students as they work 14 24% 7 35%
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 109
Listen to students read aloud 32 55% 6 30%
Ask students to tell about what they just read   19 33% 3 15%
Check student exercise book or homework   15 26% 9 45%
Give quiz or test   9 16% 3 15%
Other ‐‐  ‐‐  1 5%
Use of learning aids to teach reading:      
None   ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Blackboard   37 64% 13 65%
Textbook   44 76% 17 85%
Supplementary reading materials 8 14% 4 20%
Story books   ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Posters/charts/pictures 21 36% 10 50%
Worksheets   2 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Flashcards   14 24% 8 40%
Flipcharts   4 7% 2 10%
Computer/other audio/visual 1 2%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Alphabet strip   6 10% 3 15%
Word wall   3 5% 1 5%
Manipulatives 2 3% 2 10%
Prepares lesson plans      
As stated by teacher 22 38% 6 30%
As shown by teacher 16 28% 5 25%
Prepares materials to assist in teaching reading: 25 43% 13 65%
Word charts   9 16% 6 30%
Wall charts   2 3% 3 15%
Paragraph charts   ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Story books or other reading materials (poems,
songs)   2 3% ‐‐  ‐‐ 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 110
Posters/charts/pictures 7 12% 5 25%
Worksheets   1 2%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Flashcards   9 16% 5 25%
Flipcharts   2 3%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Alphabet strip   2 3% 5 25%
Word wall   1 2%  ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Model 1 2% 1 5%
Table 18. Teacher Training Received
PCI Training Received
Intervention School
Teachers (n=58)
# %
Commodity and Store Management/Safe Food Storage and
Preparation   9 16%
School Administrators Training 1 2%
INSET 3 5%
Formation of Health Clubs 1 2%
Health Screening 2 3%
Zinduka 4 7%
School Gardening 4 7%
Mobenzi 2 3%
Other Training 1 2%
EGRA ‐ Fluency
Student fluency results for EGRA Tasks 2 (Letter Sound Knowledge), 3 (Invented Word
Decoding), and 4a (Oral Reading Passage) are shown in Tables 47‐49 below.  
On average, students were able to correctly identify the sounds of about 15 letters per minute.
When reading invented words, students were able to correctly read about 20 words per
minute. On the oral reading exercise, students were able to read on average about 30 words
per minute. It is important to note that fluency rates were calculated only for those students
who were able to read enough letters or words so as to get beyond the first row of the exercise.
(Those who were not able to get beyond the first row are included in the calculation of “zero
scores”.)
Table 47. Task 2 (Letter Sound Knowledge) ‐ Correct Letters per Minute
   N Min Max Mean SD
Treatment 470 1.00 71.00 15.07 9.13
Comparison 138 0.00 52.00 15.75 9.37
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 111
Table 48. Task 3 (Invented Word Decoding) ‐ Correct Words per Minute
   N Min Max Mean SD
Treatment 331 0.00 54.44 20.15 11.85
Comparison 105 1.00 50.00 19.92 11.05
Table 49. Task 4a (Oral Passage Reading) ‐ Correct Words per Minute
   N Min Max Mean SD
Treatment 330 1.00 97.89 29.43 17.06
Comparison 103 1.00 71.54 29.36 16.23
An analysis of fluency by gender (See Tables 50‐52) shows no significant differences between
girls’ and boys’ results. In addition, no significant differences were detected between treatment
and comparison girls or between treatment and comparison boys.  
Table 50. Task 2 (Letter Sound Knowledge)  ‐ Correct Letters per Minute by Study Group and
Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean SD N Mean SD
Girls 230 14.86 10.12 59 15.64 8.91
Boys 235 15.34 8.13 78 15.72 9.76
Table 51. Task 3 (Invented Word Decoding)  ‐ Correct Words per Minute by Study Group and
Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean SD N Mean SD
Girls 159 19.90 11.73 46 19.87 11.18
Boys 168 20.31 12.03 58 19.64 10.85
Table 52. Task 4a (Oral Reading Passage)  ‐  Correct Words per Minute by Study Group and
Gender
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean SD N Mean SD
Girls 158 29.05 17.23 44 27.76 16.49
Boys 168 29.85 17.01 58 30.27 16.07
Lastly, an analysis of fluency by standard shows higher letters and words correctly read per
minute in Standard 4 than in Standard 2. This was true for both treatment and comparison
students. In the case of Invented Word Decoding and the Oral Passage Reading, Standard 4
student read, on average, 10 or more words per minute than Standard 2 students. No
significant differences were observed between treatment and comparison students in Standard
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 112
2, and no significant differences were observed between treatment and comparison students in
Standard 4 across all three timed tasks.
Table 53. Task 2 (Letter Sound Knowledge)  ‐ Correct Letters per Minute by Study Group and
Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean SD N Mean SD
Standard 2 211 14.02 8.55 63 13.75 10.11
Standard 4 259 15.93 9.51 75 17.44 8.39
Table 54. Task 3 (Invented Word Decoding)  ‐ Correct Words per Minute by Study Group and
Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean SD N Mean SD
Standard 2 128 14.37 8.72 39 13.62 9.26
Standard 4 203 23.80 12.13 66 23.65 10.36
Table 55. Task 4a (Oral Reading Passage)  ‐  Correct Words per Minute by Study Group and
Standard
   Treatment Comparison
   N Mean SD N Mean SD
Standard 2 125 21.18 11.92 34 19.68 10.81
Standard 4 205 34.46 17.77 69 34.13 16.39
Table 56. Total EGRA Score by Study Group, Grade, and Gender
   
   Standard 2 Standard 4
   Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison
   N
Mean
(%) SD N
Mean
(%) SD N
Mean
(%) SD N
Mean
(%) SD
Girls 147 13.81 13.11 51 13.28 14.69 153 28.72 21.15 47 26.3 20.49
Boys 149 18.52 15.41 49 15.48 13.52 144 31.21 22.11 52 32.81 20.65
Total 296 16.18 14.48 100 14.36 14.1 297 29.93 21.62 99 29.72 20.73
 
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 113
Annex 8. Background on EGRA and Explanation of Scoring
What is EGRA and What Does it Measure?
Under the Education Data for Decision Making (EdData II) project led by RTI, development of
the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) began in October 2006 in response to a call for a
measure to assess early grade reading skills in developing country contexts. Education officials
and development professionals at the World Bank, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), and other institutions identified the need for a simple, effective, and
low‐cost measure of student learning outcomes that could report on the foundations of student
learning in reading, including recognizing letters of the alphabet, reading simple words, and
understanding sentences and paragraphs.  
EGRA was subsequently developed after an exhaustive review of the literature and existing
assessment approaches in English and other languages, including well‐known tools such as
DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills), CTOPP (Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing), the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, and the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test. Tools developed by non‐governmental organizations, university
researchers, and research institutions for various research and development projects were also
reviewed. As of January 2011, EGRA had been applied in nearly 50 countries and 70 languages.
The framework underlying EGRA acknowledges that reading is acquired in phases and that the
rate of acquisition is likely to vary by language and context. Another basic underlying principle is
that learning to read in alphabetic languages requires the acquisition of similar foundation skills
(although the importance of each of those skills may vary by language). Put simply, the Simple
View of Reading framework (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) suggests that reading comprehension
can be predicted by the following formula:
Reading comprehension = Decoding x Language Comprehension
The EGRA instrument consists of a variety of subtasks designed to assess foundational reading
skills crucial to becoming a fluent reader. EGRA is designed to be a method‐ independent
approach to assessment (i.e., the instrument does not reflect a particular method of reading
instruction). Instead, EGRA measures the basic skills that a child must possess to eventually be
able to read fluently and with comprehension—the ultimate goal of reading. EGRA subtasks are
based on research regarding a comprehensive approach to reading acquisition across
languages. These skills are phonological awareness, phonics/decoding, fluency, reading
comprehension, and listening comprehension.
Phonological Awareness is considered to be essential for learning to read an alphabetic
language. Phonological awareness refers to an understanding that spoken words consist of
sounds of language that can map to letters, which is called the alphabetic principle. This
principle refers to the recognition and understanding of how the speech sounds of a language
relate to units of print (or letters, in Kiswahili). Mastering the alphabetic principle is critical for
decoding, or sounding out, new and unfamiliar words. One critical component of phonological
awareness is phonemic awareness, which refers to the understanding that words are made up
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 114
of “bits” of sound, or phonemes – the smallest unit of sound in a word. Phonemic awareness is
oral, and is developed before other phonological awareness skills are introduced.
Phonics/decoding is the most efficient way for beginning readers to learn to read words. This
skill builds on the alphabetic principle, beginning with letter‐sound correspondences that help
children develop automatic recognition of letter–sound patterns in common words. Eventually,
phonics is instrumental in the development of instant recognition of most words that are read.
This automatic or instant word recognition is manifested by fluent reading of connected text.
Fluency is often defined as the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and understanding. Oral
reading fluency is a common way to assess whether an individual is a fluent reader. Fluency is
considered critical for comprehension, as rapid, effortless word‐identification processes enable
the reader to focus on the text and its meaning rather than focus on word identification or
decoding words letter by letter (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
2000).
Reading comprehension, considered to be the goal of reading, refers to the ability to actively
engage with, and construct meaning from, the texts that are read.
Listening comprehension refers to a person’s ability to make sense of oral language in the
absence of print. Listening comprehension taps many skills and sources of knowledge, such as
vocabulary knowledge, facility with grammar, and general background knowledge. Although
students whose language of instruction differs from their home language have been found to
learn to read words at the same rate as those who are learning in their home languages, non‐
native speakers have been found to show greater difficulties in language comprehension in the
language of instruction (Geva and Yaghoub Zadeh, 2006). The Listening Comprehension subtask
in EGRA also taps working memory and short‐term memory; therefore, it cannot be considered
as a subtask that reflects listening comprehension skills apart from other memory and language
skills. This makes interpretation of this subtask more challenging than some of the other
subtasks. In addition, the Listening Comprehension subtask does not correlate with other EGRA
subtasks, so it is more difficult to interpret the results.
The table below is a general guide mapping these skills to the subtasks included within EGRA
adapted for use by FFE II.  
  
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 115
EGRA Tasks and Skills Assessed
Task Skill The child is asked to …
Phonemic Awareness   Ability to identify phonemes (the
smallest unit of sound) in words. This
only tests an awareness of individual
sounds in spoken words, not written
words. Phonemic awareness is one of
the critical foundational reading skills;
phonemic awareness predicts later
ability to learn to read.  
… say which of three words
begins with a different
sound (10 sets of words).
(Untimed )
Letter Sound
Knowledge
Knowledge of the sound each letter
makes (not the name of the letter).
This is a critical skill in preparation for
decoding.
… say the sound of each
letter on a printed page of
100 letters of the alphabet,
in random order, upper and
lower case. (Timed)  
Invented Word
Decoding
Alphabetic principle: Letter sound
correspondence and fluency;
automatic decoding. Being able to
decode, or link letters to their sounds
by “sounding words out,” then linking
them to words we know, is a critical
skill in learning to read unknown
words.  
… read a list of 50 non‐words
printed on a page. Words
were constructed from
actual orthography, but
were not real words. (Timed)
Oral Passage Reading Fluency: Ability to read with speed,
without hesitation, and with correct
intonation. EGRA tests speed only.
Fluency is important because it
predicts comprehension. Reading
speed is also important because we
can only hold a small amount of
information in short‐term memory, so
if we read too slowly, we forget what
we have read and therefore cannot
comprehend it.  
… read out loud a grade‐
level appropriate short story
printed on a page (about 60
words long). (Timed)  
Reading
Comprehension
Comprehension: Ability to describe
the meaning of what the child has
read
… verbally respond to
questions that the assessor
asks about the short story
the child has read.
Depending on how much the
child read, she may be asked
up to 5 comprehension
questions. (Untimed)  
 
PCI Food for Education Program in Tanzania – Baseline Survey Report                                   Page 116
EGRA measures each of the previously mentioned abilities/components to assess the
foundational reading skills. The skills are tested in individual subtasks and presented in order of
increased level of difficulty. Because the first few subtasks are easier, EGRA can therefore
measure a range of reading abilities for beginning readers. All EGRA administrations also
include a “stop” rule, which requires assessors to discontinue the administration of a task if a
student is unable to respond correctly to any of the items in the first line (the first 10 syllables,
the first five words, or the first line of the oral reading story). This rule was established to avoid
frustrating students who do not understand the subtask or lack the skills to respond. In the case
of the reading comprehension questions, students were only asked the questions that
correspond to the section of the text they had read within the available time.
References:
Gove and Wetterberg. The Early Grade Reading Assessment: Applications and Interventions to
Improve Basic Literacy. RTI Press, 2011.  
Brombacher, Nordstrum, Davidson, Batchelder, and King. National Baseline Assessment for the
3Rs (Reading, Writing and Arithmetic) Using EGRA, EGMA, and SSME in Tanzania. USAID ‐ 
EdData II, February 2014.
Scoring EGRA for FFE II
Scoring for the EGRA was applied as follows:  
 Task 1: Phonemic Awareness  (% Correct out of 100% Possible) –  
o # of Items Correctly Answered / Total # of Items (10)  * 100
 Task 2: Letter Sound Knowledge (% Correct out of 100% Possible)  ‐  
o # of Letters Correctly Sounded / Total # of Letters (100)  
 Task 3: Invented Word Decoding (% Correct out of 100% Possible) –  
o # of Words Correctly Read / Total # of Words (50) * 100
 Task 4: Oral Passage Reading (% Correct out of 100% Possible) –  
o # of Words Correctly Read / Total # of Words (62) * 100
 Task 5: Reading Comprehension (% Correct out of 100% Possible) –  
o # of Items Correctly Answered / Total # of Items (5) * 100
 Overall EGRA Score = Average % correct across Tasks 1 ‐ 5