Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture Mozambique FY 2015 McGovern￾Dole Food for Education Project FINAL EVALUATION JANUARY 2021 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared independently by Dr. Simone Doctors. DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. Mozambique McGovern-Dole Food for Education Project: Final Evaluation The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Education project in Mozambique (Phase II) was implemented by Planet Aid from 2015 to 2021. The project addressed the interrelated challenges of health, well-being and education of schoolchildren in Maputo Province through a comprehensive program that combined school feeding with nutritional education, bilingual literacy, on-site food production, construction, water and sanitation, and teacher training. Agreement Number: FFE-656-2015/009-00 Project Duration: 2015-2021 Implemented by: Planet Aid Inc. Evaluation Authored by: Dr. Simone Doctors With Calibio Matine, Valerie Legg, Apolowil Mozambique and NFER Food for Education Project phase 2 Prime Recipient: Planet Aid Inc Funded by the US Department of Agriculture Final Evaluation Report Author: Simone Doctors With Calibio Matine, Valerie Legg, Apolowil Mozambique and NFER January 2021 2 Table of contents Table of contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................. 5 List of abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 6 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 1. School feeding, water supply development, school gardens, and related activities .......................... 20 2. Early grade reading and writing intervention ..................................................................................... 20 3. Nutrition education program .............................................................................................................. 20 Overview of the FFE2 Final Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 21 The Final Evaluation team ............................................................................................................................ 21 Alignment with previous evaluations ........................................................................................................... 21 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Impact of Covid-19 on the final evaluation design ....................................................................................... 22 Online surveys .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Final evaluation findings ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Improved literacy of school-age children (SO1) ............................................................................................... 29 Analysis of internally-conducted EGRA......................................................................................................... 31 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction (MGD 1.1) ........................................................................................ 43 Access to School Supplies and Materials (MGD 1.1.2) ..................................................................................... 43 Literacy Instructional Materials (1.1.3) ............................................................................................................. 45 Skills and Knowledge of Teachers (1.1.4) ......................................................................................................... 45 In-service training in literacy of primary school teachers ............................................................................. 46 Teachers’ experience of in-service training .................................................................................................. 49 Initial teacher education in teacher training colleges (EPFs) ........................................................................ 61 Remedial Portuguese Support ...................................................................................................................... 68 3 Profiles of EPF trainers .................................................................................................................................. 71 Specialized subjects: trainer supply and demand ........................................................................................ 75 EPF directors’ and trainers’ view of the EPF system ..................................................................................... 77 Nutrition education within the EPFs ............................................................................................................. 79 Covid-19 in EPFs ............................................................................................................................................ 80 Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators (1.1.5) .................................................................................... 80 Attentiveness (1.2) ........................................................................................................................................... 81 Short-term hunger (1.2.1) ................................................................................................................................ 84 Access to food (school feeding) (1.2.1.1) ......................................................................................................... 87 Student attendance (1.3) .................................................................................................................................. 88 School infrastructure (1.3.3) ............................................................................................................................. 91 Enrolment (1.3.4) .............................................................................................................................................. 92 Capacity of government institutions (1.4.1) ..................................................................................................... 97 Government support (1.4.3) ............................................................................................................................. 97 Engagement of Local Organizations and Community output (1.4.4) ............................................................... 97 Use of Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices (SO2) ....................................................................................... 99 Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practice (2.1) ........................................................................................... 100 Knowledge of Safe Food Preparation and Storage Practices (2.2) ................................................................. 102 Knowledge of Nutrition (2.3) .......................................................................................................................... 103 School Gardens ........................................................................................................................................... 109 Home-Grown School Feeding Gardens ....................................................................................................... 112 Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services (2.4)...................................................................................... 115 Access to Clean Water ................................................................................................................................ 115 Access to Sanitation Services ...................................................................................................................... 118 Access to preventative health interventions (2.5) .......................................................................................... 119 Access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment (2.6) ............................................... 120 Capacity of government institutions (2.7.1) ................................................................................................... 121 Engagement of Local Organizations and Community output (2.7.4) ............................................................. 122 4 Crosscutting themes ....................................................................................................................................... 122 Human resources, capacity, collaboration and ownership ........................................................................ 122 Transport .................................................................................................................................................... 124 Administrative and financial systems and procedures ............................................................................... 124 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) .............................................................................................................. 125 Sustainability and relevance to the local and national school feeding policy and program environment . 127 Impact of Covid-19 on FFE2 project and assessment of the project’s response to Covid-19 ......................... 129 Impact of school closures on children’s education ..................................................................................... 129 Impact of Covid-19 on hunger and food supply ......................................................................................... 134 EPF students’ experience of measures put in place during EPF closures ................................................... 137 Covid-19 awareness .................................................................................................................................... 142 Remote Evaluation: challenges, delays and lessons learned .......................................................................... 146 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 150 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 152 Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................. 153 Annex 1: Results Framework of the Food for Education Project in Mozambique .......................................... 153 Annex 2: McGovern-Dole Results Frameworks .............................................................................................. 154 Annex 3: EGRA Subtask Findings .................................................................................................................... 155 Annex 4: Detailed presentation of EGRA benchmarks ................................................................................... 166 5 Acknowledgments The evaluation team would like to acknowledge the invaluable support received from the Planet Aid Inc., ADPP and FFE teams, who have worked tirelessly to assist with planning, provide information as requested and facilitate the evaluation logistics, all in the challenging context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We are grateful to all the participants who took part in interviews, focus groups and surveys, often at some personal inconvenience, given that schools were closed and many activities were disrupted by the pandemic. Our grateful thanks to all those who juggled homeschooling their children or caring for vulnerable relatives during lockdown with taking part in Zoom calls; who engaged in small group activities, observing social distancing, wearing masks and using sanitizer; who used their ingenuity and networks to reach out to teachers, school leaders and parents, to gather contact details of survey respondents despite schools being closed. This evaluation report is the proof of the creativeness and resilience of human beings during times of challenge: its existence is a tribute to the commitment and extreme hard work of a large number of individuals who persisted in the face of significant obstacles, in the belief that what they were working for would ultimately be useful. In particular, we would like to thank Kelly Vaena of Planet Aid for her responsiveness and flexibility in finding solutions to the challenges of working between three continents; Meriamo da Conceição, the project M&E Coordinator for her patience in making data available, answering questions and mobilising staff to facilitate the sampling of survey respondents; the project leaders Isaias Wate and Sebastião Mange, for their ongoing support and for demonstrating once again that there are no problems, only solutions to be found. Grateful thanks are due to Charlie Harper for meticulous data checking and proof reading. 6 List of abbreviations and acronyms ADPP Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para Povo Development Aid from People to People ASA American Soybean Association CE Cambridge Education CPD Continuous Professional Development CSB+ Corn Soy Blend-Plus DNUSE Direção Nacional de Nutrição e Saúde Escolar National Directorate for Nutrition and School Health, MINEDH DPEDH Direção Provincial de Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano Provincial Directorate of Education and Human Development EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment EPC Escola Primária Completa Complete primary school, which includes Grades 1-7 EPF Escolas de Professores do Futuro (teacher training colleges run by ADPP) FFE Food for Education (project title) FFK Food for Knowledge (alternative project title) FGD Focus Group Discussions GoM Government of Mozambique HGSFG Home Grown School Feeding Garden INDE Instituto Nacional para Desenvolvimento da Educação National Institute for Education Development ISET/OWU Instituto Superior de Educação e Tecnologia One World University (ISET/OWU) IT Information Technology KII Key Informant Interviews M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MGD McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program MINEDH Ministry of Education and Human Development NFER National Foundation for Education Research ODK Open Data Kit (data collection software for resource-constrained environments) PAI Planet Aid, Inc. PRONAE Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar National School Feeding Program QA Quality assurance SDAE Serviço Distrital de Actividades Económicas District Office for Economic Activities SDEJT Serviço Distrital de Educação, Juventude e Tecnologia District Office for Education, Youth and Technology SDSMAS Serviço Distrital de Saúde Mulher e Acção Social District Service for Women’s Health and Social Action SEN Special Educational Needs SFC School Feeding Committee SO Strategic Objective TB Tuberculosis ToC Theory of Change TTC Teacher Training Colleges USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA-FAS United States Department of Agriculture - Foreign Agricultural Service WFP World Food Program WHO World Health Organization WISHH World Initiative for Soy in Human Health WPM Words per minute 7 Executive summary The final external evaluation of the 2015-2020 McGovern Dole Food for Education project phase 2 (FFE2), supported and funded by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which builds on the 2012-2016 project of the same name, is presented in this report. FFE2 is a comprehensive school-feeding project with child health, nutrition education, teacher training, water and sanitation components, an innovative literacy component, including early grade literacy in local languages, and a local production component, with a focus on sustainability. The project is implemented in Mozambique by Planet Aid Inc. (PAI) and a consortium of implementing partners: Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para Povo (ADPP), Planet Aid’s local partner in Mozambique; the World Initiative for Soy in Human Health program (WISHH) of the American Soybean Association (ASA); Cambridge Education (CE) and the Ministry of Education and Human Development (MINEDH). The final evaluation reviews the project in December 2020 at the conclusion of its second phase, after more than eight years. This final evaluation has been conducted during the national emergency imposed in Mozambique in response to the Covid-19 pandemic: this is reflected in both the methods used and the focus of the evaluation. The methods used sought to maintain as much continuity with previous evaluations as possible, whilst ensuring the safety of all members of the evaluation team, project staff and beneficiaries. Key objectives of this evaluation are to compare the situation at end point against the baseline and midterm evaluations, to assess and document progress since the beginning of phase two; assess how the project has acted on recommendations and lessons learned from previous evaluations; and assess the impact of the project’s positive changes and the potential for these to be sustained over time, in the wider context of school feeding in Mozambique. A separate objective of the evaluation concerns assessing to what extent learning from the evaluation process, adapted to take account of the Covid-19 context, is applicable and generalizable for future evaluations in the post-Covid-19 reality. Three major components of the project were implemented with support from three different agencies: i) 90,278 students in 271 target schools in 4 districts of Maputo Province received a daily meal consisting of nutritious porridge made from corn soy blend-plus (CSB+). School gardens and eight large-scale Home Grown School Feeding Gardens (HGSFGs) sought to encourage diversification and sustainability of school feeding. These “core” areas of the project were implemented by the FFE project team. ii) The project literacy team, with technical assistance from CE, supported innovative literacy teaching in schools with materials developed to reinforce reading and writing skills for 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade children, teacher training and coaching. iii) A team managed by the WISHH implemented a comprehensive nutrition education campaign in the beneficiary districts of Maputo province. 8 The final evaluation of FFE2 was conducted by a consortium composed of: a) Dr Simone Doctors (evaluation lead and international evaluation coordination, qualitative data collection and analysis, main report author), b) Apolowil (quantitative data collection), c) the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER; quantitative data analysis), d) Calíbio Samuel Matine (national evaluation coordination, oversight of enumerator training, independent oversight and quality assurance [QA] of fieldwork, interview and Focus Group Discussion [FGD] facilitation), and e) Valerie Legg (data verification and checking against source data, producing charts and graphs, supporting analysis of quantitative data and drafting report sections). The consortium members worked collaboratively under the coordination of Simone Doctors. The evaluation was originally designed to build on the baseline and midterm evaluations of FFE2, comparing the same indicators at three time points and completing the cohort study of students begun at baseline. Constraints imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic have required a reorganization of the evaluation; while the methods used have sought to continue to compare the situation of all project indicators at end point, the source and nature of the data used has had to be modified, due to the fact that schools were closed and to the need to preserve the safety and health of informants (beneficiaries, the project team, government and non-governmental actors) and the evaluation team. Covid-19 Methodologies During previous evaluations, a combination of quantitative and qualitative information was gathered using a mixed method approach to gather and analyze three types of data: a) existing information provided by FFE; b) quantitative data collected and analyzed by the evaluation team, including literacy testing (Early Grade Reading Assessment [EGRA]) of students, interviews and anthropometric measurements of the same students, survey of a sample of project schools and teachers, classroom observation of teaching; and c) qualitative data collected and analyzed by the external evaluators: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), visits and observation of project schools, school gardens and HGSFGs, visits to the project headquarters and main warehouse; visits and observation of three Escolas de Professores do Futuro (EPFs; teacher training colleges run by ADPP) to observe teaching practice by EPF students, and internal self-review by the project team and stakeholder review workshop. Given the impossibility of international travel and of conducting fieldwork in schools during the Covid-19 pandemic and the undesirability of undertaking significant travel to communities to collect data, the final evaluation was conducted as follows:  The evaluation was coordinated at distance by an international coordinator, working closely with a national coordinator based in Mozambique;  A risk assessment involving the entire evaluation team, the FFE leadership and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) team was conducted prior to commencing fieldwork;  Much of the fieldwork was conducted remotely, with KIIs and FGDs conducted using video conferencing or audio calls and an internal self-review by project staff conducted using video conferencing; 9  A limited number of KIIs and FGDs was conducted face-to-face by the national coordinator, using Covid-19 secure methods and implementing the risk assessment;  No fieldwork was conducted in project schools or directly with children, meaning it was not possible to continue the cohort study begun at baseline and continued at midterm (including an EGRA, anthropometric measurements and interviews of students), to conduct face-to-face surveys of teachers and school directors or conduct school visits and observations, including lesson observation;  As an alternative, four remote surveys were conducted using mobile technology and  Existing project monitoring data, including EGRA data collected by the project literacy team, was analyzed by the evaluation team, as an alternative to conducting externally administered EGRA. The four online surveys, of schools, teachers, parents/community members and EPF students respectively, aimed to collect comparable information to that originally planned. All evaluation instruments, including the four remote surveys, were extended and adapted to include a focus on the impact of the Covid-19 crisis and the project’s response. Structure of the Report This report follows the structure adopted for the midterm evaluation report, according to the logic of the project Theory of Change (ToC). Findings are grouped according to the project indicators, beginning with Strategic Objective 1 (SO1, improving literacy of school-age children in Mozambique), then addressing Strategic Objective 2 (SO2, increasing the use of health and dietary practices). Further attention is given to a number of crosscutting themes, followed by a section on the impact of Covid-19 on the FFE2 project and assessment of the project’s response to Covid-19. In line with the project’s ToC, project interventions were designed to improve the quality of literacy instruction through training teachers in project schools in literacy, a significant addition in phase two of the project, giving learners improved access to school supplies and materials and other interventions to improve attendance. Interventions designed to improve health and dietary practice include nutrition education, school gardens and deworming. Achievement of both SO1 and SO2 depend upon increased engagement of local organizations and community groups and increased capacity of government institutions. Improving school infrastructure and increasing enrolment and attendance, as a result of the school feeding program and other interventions to increase enrolment, was expected to further contribute to improving child literacy. Improved Literacy of School-age Children (SO1) Assessing the literacy levels of students who have benefited from the literacy program supported by CE is key to evaluating the success of this intervention and of the wider project (SO1, MGD 1.1). At final, 100,403 individuals were benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions, resulting in a final target 117% achieved. 10 The number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions was 361,112, which exceeds the project’s target. In order to assess students’ literacy levels, a cohort study to measure students’ performance in EGRA at three time points had been begun at baseline and continued at midterm, with the intention of completing this at end point. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the complete closure of schools in Mozambique at the time of the final evaluation, it was not possible to complete the cohort study, or to collect any data from students. Instead, the FFE literacy team made available internally conducted EGRA results dating from the period following the midterm evaluation for the evaluation team to analyze. Of the datasets, analysis was performed on a full EGRA, conducted in September and October 2019 for a sample of 204 students from class one, 211 students from class two and 208 students from class three, in the three program languages (Portuguese, Xichangana and Xirhonga), consisting of sub-tasks 3 to 9 (the same sub-tasks used at midterm with the exception of sub-tasks one and two) for classes one and two, and sub-tasks 8 and 9 only for class three. The results of each EGRA subtask for each year group were analyzed across the following comparisons: a) Portuguese as the language of testing vs local languages used for testing; b) the “home language” (the language that students reported speaking at home) as the language of testing vs use of a different language from that spoken at home for testing. The results of the full EGRA show that students tested in local languages performed better than those tested in Portuguese in 17 of the 28 cases reported. The difference was even more pronounced in the second comparison group: students tested in their home language outperformed those tested in a different language in 25 of the 28 cases reported. This finding provides promising evidence that instruction in local languages helps facilitate a more rapid transition to literacy for young learners. EGRA results also showed progress since midterm in relation to the percentage of students meeting the literacy benchmark. Of all the year 3 students tested, 25.9% met the benchmark (they were able to read all of the selected text correctly and answer the first 3 comprehension questions correctly). This is 58% of the project’s final target. When considered against the very low baseline levels and the overall challenging context of the Mozambican education system, this is a considerable achievement. It is unfortunate that it was not possible to finish the cohort study, as lack of comparability between instruments used and the students tested mean it is not possible to attribute with certainty the results presented in this report to the project literacy intervention, or to claim that they are representative of the performance of all students benefiting from that intervention. However, taken together with both the evidence from the midterm evaluation and the qualitative evidence gathered at end point, these results provide further confirmation of the findings of the midterm report, namely that the literacy intervention and bilingual program are proving effective. Interestingly, a survey of parents showed that their attitudes to their children learning to read in the home language are lagging behind this and demonstrates that there is still work to be done to communicate the 11 benefits of bilingual education (this is outside the scope of the project; the information was gathered to provide context). The project ToC encapsulates the assumption that the quality of literacy instruction will be improved by a) better access to school supplies and materials and b) increased skills and knowledge of teachers. The project has contributed to teachers and pupils having improved access to teaching and learning materials. At final, 85,609 textbooks and other teaching and learning materials had been provided as a result of USDA assistance (SO1, MGD 1.1.2), resulting in 216% achievement of the final target. 271 schools had received school supplies and materials as a result of USDA assistance, resulting in 103% achievement of the final target. Awards have been provided to both pupils and teachers since the beginning of the project to encourage both to make efforts in teaching and learning, with the final targets for awards to teachers and students being surpassed. A range of literacy books and pedagogical materials in local languages Xichangana and Xirhonga and in Portuguese has been produced by the project literacy team, and final targets for distributing these have been surpassed. These teaching and learning materials are now official MINEDH textbooks for bilingual literacy instruction and are being used as a model for adaptation in other local languages in other provinces, leaving schools with the capacity, both in terms of skills and materials, to continue to teach reading in local languages (SO1, MGD 1.1.3). A major dimension of the project targets improving the skills and knowledge of teachers (SO1, MGD 1.1.4): 586 teachers in project schools received training in teaching reading and writing using phonics and 27 reading coaches provided ongoing in-school support until schools were closed due to Covid-19. GoM informants reported that the program was considered so successful that it is now being modeled in other regions of Mozambique. At provincial level, the DPEDH have set up a bilingual teaching strategy for 2021-29, drawing on the project’s expertise and experience. At the end of the program, since it was not possible to observe teaching, the results from the teacher survey of questions considered to demonstrate “new and quality teaching techniques” were analyzed, and the final target was considered to have been surpassed. Despite the interruptions due to Covid-19, schools have the teaching and learning materials they need to continue early grade literacy instruction in local languages, as well as teachers who are confident in phonics and child-centered learning methods. Prior evaluations of the FFE project have underlined the important contribution the eleven ADPP-run teacher training colleges (EPFs) are making to Mozambique’s teacher pool. At the time of the final evaluation, 9,222 trained teachers had been trained or certified at the EPFs, more than double the final target. EPF students at final were surveyed regarding their attitudes to teaching and studying at the EPF. The responses showed overwhelmingly that trainee teachers are highly motivated, consider their instruction to be of very high quality and revealed that active learning methods are in regular use at the EPFs. The EPF teacher training also provides 12 significant improvement in Portuguese language competence via remedial support to student-teachers who arrive at the EPF with poor levels of Portuguese: at the final evaluation 75% of students had improved their Portuguese literacy skills during pre-service training. Based on data gathered from the final survey of school directors, the final target for the number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance has been 106% achieved (SO1, MGD 1.1.5); the target for the number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance has been 161% achieved. Short-term hunger leads to lack of attentiveness in the classroom, leading to problems in learning. The final evaluation sought to gather data on attentiveness and short-term hunger to compare with baseline and midterm (SO1, MGD 1.2, 1.2.1). This proved somewhat challenging, as Covid-related school closures meant that teachers were reporting from their memory of pupils in the classroom nine months earlier, and parents had to be surveyed in place of the students themselves. At final, 94% of teachers reported that their pupils “often” or “sometimes” had attention problems, a higher percentage than at baseline. 87% of teachers said that their pupils “often” or “sometimes” appeared to be hungry during the school day, an increase from 76% at baseline. It is difficult to draw clear conclusions from this for several reasons, among them the fact that teachers surveyed at the final evaluation were not the same group of teachers as those surveyed previously, and have a much greater level of awareness of concentration problems caused by short-term hunger, due to in-service training received as part of the project. Parents were less likely to report their children experiencing attention problems or hunger during the school day than students at baseline or midterm, however these results cannot be considered truly comparable to earlier reports from students themselves and must be treated with caution. The distribution of school meals was very nearly to target (SO1 MGD 1.2.1.1). As of September 2020, 43,524,765 daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) were provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance prior to Covid-19 school closures, which is 90% of the final target. 90,278 school-age children were receiving daily school meals, exceeding the final target. Following school closures CSB+ was distributed in the form of take-home rations; targets for these were achieved. 94% of parents and 100% of teachers surveyed said they thought the project’s organization of school lunches had been “excellent” or “good”. Analysis of project monitoring data demonstrates that final targets for school attendance (SO1, MGD 1.3) have been surpassed. Due to school closures at the time of the final evaluation, these figures are based on the project’s own reporting system which uses the biannual report recording the highest number of meals distributed (in this case report 8, in September 2019). One project activity intended to promote increased school attendance is support to extra-curricular learning clubs. Of the schools surveyed at final, all but one reported having one or more learning clubs. 134% of the final target has been achieved for the number of after-school learning clubs active, and 117% of the final target for 13 the number of school children participating. Due to the closure of schools due to the pandemic, a program of revitalizing after-school clubs with new registration procedures had to be cut short. Targets for maintaining the school infrastructure provided by the project have been surpassed (SO1, MGD 1.3.3), with 1,852 maintenance interventions performed in kitchens, storerooms, and firewood-saving stoves at final, or 234% of the final target. The project ToC considers enrolment as a prerequisite to attendance and therefore to improved learning. Final targets for enrolment of students have been surpassed, achieving 122% (SO1, MGD 1.3.4). Information provided by the DPEDH contained some inconsistencies, however when considered over the period from 2012 to 2019 the data shows an overall trend of reduction in dropouts in project schools. At the time of the final evaluation, the project reports two investments leveraged through public-private partnerships to a total value of $401,292 (SO1, MGD 1.4.3): 100% of the final target for number of public-private partnerships and 502% of the final target for the value of investments. At final, 271 school feeding committees (SFC) were reported to have been supported, exceeding the final target. The parents’ survey revealed a willingness on the part of many parents to participate in the preparation of school lunches without incentives, a sign of ownership and positive engagement with the project, although some parents still regretted the absence of incentives (SO1, MGD 1.4.4). Use of Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices (SO2) The project’s second Strategic Objective (SO2) concerns the use of health, nutrition and dietary practices. Targets for training in good hygiene practice, including training volunteer cooks in health and hygiene, have been greatly surpassed. In regard to the percentage of students that demonstrate acceptable knowledge of health and hygiene practices, the final target has been 170% achieved; the final target for food preparers at target schools trained in hand washing, safe food preparation and storage practices has been 123% achieved. FFE2 targets for training individuals in child health and nutrition have been greatly surpassed, at 247% of the target (SO2, MGD 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Local production of food is both part of the plan for sustainability of school feeding and an important element of students’ education. School gardens have been encouraged and supported since the inception of the project, and the final target for the number of school children benefiting from school gardens has been achieved. Eight Home Grown School Feeding Gardens (HGSFGs), which function on a much larger scale, were implemented by the project in phase two, providing more diversified food to students and their families. This has become particularly significant during the Covid-19 pandemic. Project agricultural technicians report that the HGSFGs provide the surrounding communities with a healthier diet and the potential to create jobs and increased cash 14 flow. The technicians report the communities where they work have learned significantly since the midterm evaluation, and are also applying newly-learned farming techniques and environmentally sustainable approaches to their own small-scale agricultural production. Once the support from the project finishes, the HGSFGs will need to be self-sustaining if they are to continue their contribution to school feeding. This will require considerable leadership and good management in order to succeed. Access to safe water is critical for school feeding, as well as for the health, hygiene and wellbeing of students, teachers and the community. At final evaluation, project records reveal that all of the project schools are using an improved water source (SO2, MGD 2.4), resulting in almost 90,000 school children benefitting from clean water sources. The majority of schools report the creation of water committees responsible for management and regular maintenance and cleaning of the water infrastructure, an important step towards autonomy and sustainability after the project’s end. However, a number of schools report continued challenges with the provision of clean water, including the fact that it is sometimes not possible to repair a water source and that funds are not always sufficient to repair the infrastructure. Some schools only have water during the rainy season, thanks to rainwater harvesting. The final target for number of schools with improved sanitation facilities was surpassed, leading to more than 88,000 school children benefitting from access to latrines and hand washing facilities. At midterm it was recommended to identify latrines likely to become full imminently and work with schools to either empty these where possible or to cover them over and replace them; interviews with project staff indicate that this recommendation has been followed. The final target for number of students receiving deworming medications was 200% achieved, using door-to-door distribution of the medication at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic (SO2, MGD 2.5) Distribution of laundry and dish soap to volunteers was introduced in FFE2 following a recommendation made by evaluations of FFE1. This has continued since midterm, with soap being distributed to a further nearly 3,000 volunteers by the final evaluation (SO2, MGD 2.6). Qualitative data collected at final confirms that this relatively small incentive provides significant returns in volunteer motivation and commitment. Targets associated with the objective of building capacity of government officials at national, provincial and district levels to continue to provide school feeding after the project’s closure have all been surpassed, as has training of community leaders, school council members and SFC members. FGDs and KIIs during the final evaluation revealed positive assessment of the training received (SO2, MGD 2.7.1, 2.7.4). 15 Crosscutting Themes and the Impact of Covid-19 The evaluation provides further analysis of crosscutting themes which concern the overall operations, strategy and vision of the project. These are human resources, capacity, collaboration and ownership; transport; administrative and financial systems and procedures; monitoring and evaluation; and sustainability and relevance to the local and national school feeding policy and program environment. Finally, the evaluation reports on the impact of Covid-19. This is outside the scope of project indicators, however the final survey presented an opportunity to gather information on the pandemic, emergency response measures and their effectiveness in maintaining continuity across the project’s areas of oversight and support, using survey questions formulated by the project itself. This data provides context for the report as a whole and could prove useful to government and other organizations working in the region. Emergency measures taken by the project included a series of classes produced by the literacy program for broadcast via radio and television. Parents and teachers had mixed opinions on the usefulness of these lessons; although the majority considered them to be of good enough quality, many parents do not have the means (radio or television access) to receive the broadcasts, and 42% could not support their children in understanding them. Of the schools that were able to maintain contact with at least some of the children, 95% of teachers reported producing and distributing worksheets for their students. The impact of Covid-19 school closures on hunger and food supply is also examined through responses to parent surveys. Some parents report being forced to resort to a variety of measures to deal with food shortages and limited access to food. The EPFs adopted a variety of responses to the Covid-19 crisis, including delivering the teacher training program online and extending the academic year, with an adjustment to the schedule for payment of fees. One positive aspect of the response to Covid-19 has been the individual and institutional learning regarding distance education, with WhatsApp and Google classroom used to continue teaching online. All of the final surveys included a series of questions designed to measure general awareness of Covid-19, including its symptoms and preventative measures. These consistently showed teachers to be the most well￾informed group. Teachers and EPF students were also more likely than parents to report using preventative measures to protect against spread of the disease. 16 Conclusion Over the course of 8 years, the FFE project has worked with government, communities and schools to create the infrastructure, systems and capacity to feed 90,000 pupils, grow food locally and develop and roll out two innovative programs: one to promote literacy in local languages, the other to deliver nutrition education. This is a significant achievement in the challenging environment of Mozambique. The evaluation team attributes much of this success to Planet Aid and ADPP’s community development approach, which builds community capacity on the ground through “working shoulder to shoulder with the poor”, combined with energetic leadership, a determination to get things done and progressively developing effective systems and procedures. Most of the project’s planned activities have been implemented as intended, and the majority of targets exceeded, many by a wide margin, despite considerable obstacles, including the pandemic. The project has responded to the pandemic with distribution of take-home rations, use of the HGSFGs to feed the surrounding communities, production and broadcasting of distance lessons for primary students, and the provision of online teacher training by the EPFs. Although Covid-19 restrictions on data collection make it difficult to compare outcomes between midterm and final, the evaluation reveals the project has led to much positive change: students are reading better; trainee teachers show improved literacy levels in Portuguese; in-service teachers are aware of active, student-centered learning approaches; the HGSFGs are producing large amounts of food to benefit schools and communities; school water committees exist to maintain water systems. The pandemic has interrupted the project’s withdrawal plan to transfer management and implementation to communities and government after the formal closure of the project. As the FFE project closes, the goal of sustainability must be maintained. FFE2 made significant progress in that direction, building human capital, knowledge and systems. Thanks to advocacy and collaboration with other agencies, school feeding is now on the GoM’s agenda, with progress made towards a national school feeding law. However, sustainability will require resources to fund the base food. The report ends with a call to the GoM to ensure that the necessary material and human resources are mobilized to ensure school feeding continues. Likewise, it is important to continue to pursue and expand the successes of the local language literacy program. The evaluation team congratulates the FFE project on its achievements and wishes the GoM every success in pursuing and building on these. 17 Introduction This report presents the findings of the final external evaluation of the 2015-2020 McGovern Dole Food for Education project phase 2 (FFE2), supported and funded by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which builds on the 2012-2016 project of the same name.1 FFE2 is a comprehensive school-feeding project with child health, nutrition education, teacher training, water and sanitation components, complemented by an innovative literacy component, including early grade literacy in local languages, and a local production component, all designed to promote sustainability after the end of the project. The project is administered in Mozambique by Planet Aid Inc. (PAI) and a consortium of implementing partners: Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para Povo (ADPP), Planet Aid’s local partner in Mozambique; the World Initiative for Soy in Human Health (WISHH) program of the American Soybean Association (ASA); Cambridge Education (CE) and the Ministry of Education and Human Development (MINEDH). The project was conceived as an integral part of the national school feeding program (Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar, or PRONAE) being developed and implemented by the Government of Mozambique (GoM) with collaboration and assistance from the World Food Program (WFP) and other partners, and designed to model different approaches to school feeding in order to support the PRONAE. The second phase of the project concluded in December 2020 after eight years. The final evaluation has been conducted during the unprecedented national emergency imposed in Mozambique in response to the Covid-19 pandemic: this is reflected in both the methods used and the focus of the evaluation. The methods used sought to maintain as much continuity with previous evaluations as possible, whilst ensuring the safety of all members of the evaluation team, project staff and beneficiaries. Despite the inevitable focus on Covid-19, the final evaluation seeks to assess FFE2 in its entirety and to  compare the situation at end point against the baseline evaluation and the midterm evaluation, in order to assess and document progress over three time points and changes since the beginning of phase 2;  assess how the project has acted on recommendations and learning from previous evaluations; and  assess the impact of the project in terms of positive changes produced and the potential for these to be sustained over time, in the wider context of school feeding in Mozambique. 1 The project is often referred to internally as Food for Knowledge (FFK) or Comida para o Saber, in Portuguese. FFE1 is the first phase of the project and FFE2 is the second phase. However, in reality these phases merged seamlessly, in terms of many activities and in the perception of the beneficiaries, so this distinction is particularly for organisational and contractual/accountability/budget issues. In this report, FFE2 is used when referring specifically to contractual dimensions e.g. the midterm evaluation, indicators, and some activities which were only introduced in phase 2, such as the literacy program. FFE is used when referring to the project in general, or to aspects which refer to both phases. This general rule also applies to the use of FFK. 18 Despite modifications due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this final report carefully builds on the phase 2 baseline and midterm reports, tracing continuity between the three time points, so as to:  Account to project stakeholders, including but not limited to the donor, for strategic directions taken and the use of resources; and  Identify lessons learned of relevance to other McGovern Dole projects and to the wider school feeding and early grade literacy agenda. A further objective, whose importance became apparent after beginning the evaluation planning and execution, concerns assessing to what extent learning from the evaluation process, adapted to take account of the Covid￾19 context, is applicable and generalizable for future evaluations or research activities in the post-Covid-19 reality and may be able to contribute to the new but growing body of new methods and evidence of best practice (see, for example, Lupton, 2020). The state of national emergency announced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which included the closure of all schools, is only the latest in a series of recent crises to affect Mozambique. The midterm evaluation report presented a worrying educational context and a deterioration in the wider political, economic and environmental context since the onset of the project. The ravages of cyclones Idai and Kenneth in March and April 2019, the ongoing international controversy surrounding the illegal debt and ensuing suspension of much international development aid and the ever worsening armed violence in the northern part of Mozambique, close to the third largest natural gas reserve in Africa, which is not being utilised for the good of the country, to combat poverty and inequality, all reveal an increasingly concerning political, economic and environmental context. The disruption caused by Covid-19 to education, school feeding and other activities, including the final evaluation of the FFE2 project needs to be considered against this wider backdrop, as do the results of the final evaluation reported here. Background The FFE2 project was informed by the McGovern-Dole (MGD) Results Framework and associated assumptions about causal, hierarchical change pathways within a holistic Theory of Change (ToC). It sought to promote the health, wellbeing and education of school aged children, through integrated, multifaceted interventions including school feeding, health interventions, water, sanitation, nutrition and local production components and a major literacy program. As captured by the McGovern Dole Results Framework (see Annexes 1 and 2), the project’s two overarching Strategic Objectives (SOs) were to improve literacy of school-age children in Mozambique (SO1) and to increase the use of health and dietary practices (SO2). 19 Under SO1:  Improvement of quality of literacy instruction was targeted by providing intensive literacy training to teachers in project schools including an innovative program of literacy in local languages;  increased skills and knowledge of primary school teachers were targeted by coaching of in-service teachers within project schools by a team of literacy coaches;  improved literacy instruction was targeted by providing teachers and learners with improved access to school supplies and materials, through the development and distribution of bespoke materials by the FFE2 literacy team;  reduced short-term hunger in the classroom was targeted by school feeding; reduced short-term hunger was expected to lead to improved student attentiveness and therefore learning;  improved student attendance was targeted through improved school infrastructure (including kitchens, water and sanitation);  increased enrolment was targeted through increased student access to food within school. Under SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices is targeted using:  improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices, such as hand washing;  increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices, for example through training of volunteer cooks;  increased knowledge of nutrition, through nutrition education and access to school gardens and Home Grown School Feeding Gardens (HGSFGs);  increased access to clean water and sanitation (latrines);  increased access to preventative health interventions, such as de-worming and tuberculosis (TB) screening. The Foundational Results of increased engagement of local organizations and community groups and increased capacity of government institutions are assumed to be prerequisites for the achievement of both SO1 and SO2. The strategic effort to achieve these objectives involved three major components, implemented by different agencies, yet closely integrated: 20 1. School feeding, water supply development, school gardens, and related activities The project provided over 90,000 students in 2712 target schools in Moamba, Magude, Manhiça and Matutuine districts of Maputo Province with a nutritious daily meal of fortified corn and soy porridge. School gardens and eight large-scale HGSFGs were intended to encourage diversification of students’ diet whilst contributing to sustainability of school feeding after the end of the project. Schools were provided with a safe and adequate school water supply, latrines and hand-washing facilities. Students received regular de-worming. In order to provide an improved learning environment, enrolment and attendance for all pupils, after-school clubs were established and kits of educational and recreational materials provided. These “core” areas of the project are implemented by the FFE project team. 2. Early grade reading and writing intervention Innovative literacy teaching, in both Portuguese and local languages (Xirhonga or Xichangana), used specially developed materials to reinforce reading and writing skills for 1st 2nd and 3rd grade children 3. Literacy coaches moved between schools to train and support teachers to use the new methods, through classroom observation and lesson coaching. The literacy intervention was implemented by a dedicated FFE project literacy team, supported by CE. 3. Nutrition education program A comprehensive nutrition education program operated in the 4 beneficiary districts of Maputo province and the 11 teacher training colleges run by ADPP (the Escolas de Professores do Futuro: EPFs). Teachers from project schools were trained as Nutrition Educators or “coaches,” and trained colleagues in the same schools. The EPFs provided nutrition education as an integral part of their teacher training curriculum. Nutrition and health education curricula for teacher trainers, teachers, and students were produced and approved for use by the MINEDH. The Nutrition Education program was implemented until the end of 2019 by a team based in the project office managed by the WISHH program; after this, responsibility for nutrition education was transmitted to the wider project team as part of the wider sustainability and project exit strategy. 2 Significantly increased from the original proposal and contract with USDA to provide meals to 74,000 students in 264 schools and, again, from the 88,000 students benefiting at midterm. 3 Although most students in project schools speak only Xichangana or Xirhonga when they enter school, they have traditionally been taught to read in Portuguese, the official national language. This is a major obstacle in their acquisition of reading and writing skills and wider education. Bilingual education introduces early literacy in the home language, whilst simultaneously teaching the language of instruction, into which teaching and learning transitions in grade 3. 21 Overview of the FFE2 Final Evaluation The Final Evaluation team The final evaluation of FFE2 was conducted by an international consortium, whose April 2020 bid to conduct the evaluation was successful. The consortium was composed of: a) Dr Simone Doctors (evaluation lead and international evaluation coordination, qualitative data collection and analysis, main report author); b) Apolowil (quantitative data collection); c) the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (quantitative data analysis); d) Calíbio Samuel Matine (national evaluation coordination, oversight of enumerator training, independent oversight and quality assurance (QA) of fieldwork, interview and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) facilitation); e) Valerie Legg (data verification and checking against source data, producing charts and graphs, supporting analysis of quantitative data, and drafting report sections). Alignment with previous evaluations Regular evaluations of the FFE project have been conducted, in accordance with the project Evaluation Plan:  a baseline study of FFE1 in May 2013 by project staff with support from an external evaluator;  a midterm evaluation of FFE1 in 2014 by an external evaluation team;  a final evaluation of FFE1 in late 2016 (report dated July 2017) by an external evaluation team;  a baseline study of FFE2 in 2017 (report dated July 2018) by project staff with support from an external evaluator (to avoid redundancy and in order to make the best use of resources, the baseline of FFE2 built on the final evaluation of FFE1).  a midterm evaluation of FFE2 in 2019 (report dated October 2019) The current and final evaluation of the FFE2 project completes this series. It was originally designed to build on the baseline and midterm evaluations of FFE2, comparing the same indicators at three time points and completing the cohort study of students begun at baseline. Constraints imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic have required a reorganization of the evaluation; while the methods used have sought to continue to compare the situation of all project indicators at end point, the source and nature of the data used has had to be modified, due to the fact that schools were closed and to the need to preserve the safety and health of informants (beneficiaries, the project team, government and non-governmental actors) and the evaluation team. 22 Methodology During previous evaluations, a combination of quantitative and qualitative information was gathered using a mixed method approach, with the objective of maintaining consistency and comparability of the information gathered and methods used, allowing assessment of change over the duration of the project. Three types of information were gathered and analyzed:  Existing information provided by FFE / Direção Provincial de Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano (DPEDH), and reviewed, collated and analyzed by the evaluation team;  Quantitative data collected and analyzed by the evaluation team, including: literacy testing (Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)) of students in project and comparison schools, interviews and anthropometric measurements of the same students, survey of a sample of project schools, survey of teachers from project schools, classroom observation of teaching in project and comparison schools, statistical modelling to account for measured background differences between intervention and comparison group, to measure potential changes associated with the program.  Qualitative data collected and analyzed by the external evaluators: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), visits and observation of project schools, school gardens and HGSFGs, visits of the project headquarters and main warehouse; visits and observation of three EPFs, observation of teaching practice by EPF students, results of an internal self-review by the project team, results of a stakeholder review workshop. Impact of Covid-19 on the final evaluation design Given the impossibility of international travel and of conducting fieldwork in schools during the Covid-19 pandemic and the undesirability of undertaking significant travel to communities to collect data, the final evaluation was modified from the original plan as follows:  The evaluation was coordinated at distance by an international coordinator, working closely with a national coordinator based in Mozambique.  A risk assessment involving the entire evaluation team, the FFE leadership and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) team was conducted prior to commencing fieldwork.  Much of the fieldwork was conducted remotely, with KIIs and FGDs conducted using video conferencing or audio calls and an internal self-review by project staff conducted using video conferencing.  A limited number of KIIs and FGDs was conducted face-to-face by the national coordinator, using Covid-19 secure methods and implementing the risk assessment. 23  No fieldwork was conducted in project schools or directly with children, meaning it was not possible to continue the cohort study begun at baseline and continued at midterm, including an EGRA, anthropometric measurements and interviews of students; nor was it possible to conduct face-to-face surveys of teachers and school directors or conduct school visits and observations, including lesson observation.  As an alternative, four remote surveys were conducted using mobile technology.  Existing project monitoring data, including EGRA data collected by the project literacy team, was analyzed by the evaluation team, as an alternative to conducting externally administered EGRA. All evaluation instruments, including the four remote surveys, were extended and adapted to include a focus on the impact of the Covid-19 crisis and the project’s response to that. Table 1 below shows how data collection methods used at baseline and midterm were adapted to maintain maximum continuity and comparability of data. Data gathered at baseline and midterm Methods used at end point (including Covid-19 adaptation/compensation strategies) Internal self-review by project leaders and staff conducted during workshop with external evaluation team Internal self-review by project leaders and staff conducted using hybrid small groups – remote methods EGRA conducted with sample of students from intervention and comparison schools Analysis by NFER of EGRA and mini-EGRA conducted by project literacy team for internal monitoring Interviews and anthropometric measurement of same students Survey of parents/community members (including some of the questions usually asked of students) Survey of sample project schools/head teachers Remote survey of same sample of head teachers (same questions as baseline and midterm) Survey of sample of project teachers Remote survey of extended sample of project teachers (same questions as baseline and midterm and extended content) Lesson observation of intervention and comparison schools Extended remote teacher survey FGDs and KIIs FGDs and KIIs conducted remotely or in person using Covid-19 secure methods Analysis of project monitoring records Remote analysis of project monitoring records Visits to EPFs, observation, FGDs with EPF trainers, KIIs with EPF directors. Visit to EPF Maputo, FGD with trainers from EPF Maputo, remote KIIs with EPF directors Observation of teaching practice by EPF students; FGDs with EPF students Remote survey of EPF students Table 1: Data collection methods and how these were adapted for final evaluation due to Covid-19 to maintain maximum continuity and comparability of data 77 key informant interviews and 8 focus group discussions were conducted, either remotely or face-to-face using Covid-19 secure methods. Interviewees included representatives of USDA/FAS, Planet Aid, ADPP (including EPF headteachers and staff), FFE staff and volunteers, WISHH, CA, the GoM, school directors and pedagogical directors and other organizations working in school feeding. 24 Online surveys Four online surveys were conducted: of schools, teachers, parents/community members and EPF students respectively, in an attempt to collect comparable information to that which would have been possible without the Covid-19 pandemic. The rationale for conducting each survey and sampling method used in each case, summarized in table 2 below, was as follows: School surveys/directors: the survey sought to follow up on the survey of a sample of 170 project schools conducted at baseline and midterm. For that reason, the evaluation team attempted to contact only the head teachers of schools which had already responded to the survey at the previous two time points. 54 responses were obtained. Teachers: the survey sought to a) follow up on the survey of a sample of 200 teachers in project schools conducted at baseline and midterm; the evaluation team attempted to re-contact all of those teachers; and b) add an additional 300 teachers who had had particular roles or responsibilities within the project, such as storeroom manager, nutrition focal point or literacy specialist. The team attempted to contact a further 350 teachers identified by the FFE2 M&E team as corresponding to those criteria. Of the total 550 teachers targeted, 199 responses were submitted. Parents/community members: since it was not possible to collect data from school students, and thus complete the cohort study begun at baseline and continued at midterm, the survey sought to engage with parents of students in project schools, in the hope of gathering some comparable information from them. Initially a rigorous sample of families was drawn up, based on interval sampling of families of all approximately 90,000 students enrolled in project schools. However, it proved very difficult to obtain contact details for this sample of parents, due to schools being closed, and to the limited number of parents with functional mobile phones. An alternative strategy was therefore used: ten families from each project school were selected by the FFE2 project staff, based on those whose phone numbers they were able to obtain (this is obviously a less rigorous sampling method and is likely to result in the respondents selected being known to project staff, with the risk that these were possibly not wholly representative of the population of parents: it is possible they were more prominent or engaged in the school or the community overall and had maintained contact with the school during the closure due to the State of Emergency; however, it was decided that it was preferable to have a larger sample of not wholly representative parents than a very small sample). This survey was conducted by phone call by research assistants in Xichangana, Xirhonga or Portuguese as appropriate, in order to reach parents who had a simple mobile phone but not a smart phone and /or do not speak Portuguese sufficiently well to participate in that language. Of the 1,200 parents whom researchers attempted to contact, 550 responses were obtained. EPF students: Since it was not possible to visit individual EPFs or conduct focus groups with students, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and since the EPFs had put in place a significant program of distance support to their 25 students during the closure of schools, it was decided to conduct a survey of 200 EPF students (trainee teachers). The sample was drawn using interval sampling of the entire population of students from the 11 EPFs. It was anticipated that the response rate would be high, so only 200 students were selected. In the event, 170 responses were received, including from 13 students who declined to participate, making a total of 157 responses. Survey Sampling rationale Number of contacts attempted Number of responses anticipated Number of responses obtained School directors (survey in Portuguese) All those surveyed at midterm recontacted, as follow up 170 Up to 170 54 Teachers (survey in Portuguese) All those surveyed at midterm recontacted + 350 additional teachers identified by FFE2 M&E team based on project roles 550 500 199 Parents/community members (survey conducted by research assistants in Xichangana, Xirhonga or Portuguese) Initially interval sampling of all families; after major difficulties contacting these, 10 families per school identified by FFE project officers 1200 900 559 EPF students (survey in Portuguese) Interval sampling of students from all 11 EPFs (only 200 were selected, on the assumption the response rate would be better than it was) 200 200 157 (+ 13 who declined to participate, so 170 responses received in total) Table 2: Sampling method, number of respondents contacted and responses obtained for four remote surveys Management and quality assurance of the Final Evaluation The evaluation team members worked collaboratively under the coordination of international external evaluation coordinator Simone Doctors to design, plan and conduct the evaluation. Simone and national external evaluation coordinator Calibio Matine worked remotely throughout the planning, data collection and analysis, to ensure these processes ran smoothly and ensure effective communication between the consortium members. Planet Aid and the FFE leadership and staff assisted the evaluation team with planning and logistics and made information available but were not involved in data gathering activities. 26 The evaluation instruments, including FGD and KII scripts, the internal self-review and four surveys were developed collaboratively by Simone Doctors and Calibio Matine, based on those used at baseline and midterm, with input from members of the FFE team where necessary, so that the information collected would meet the needs and vision of the project team. All instruments were modified to include a focus on the impact of and project’s response to Covid-19. After finalization of the four survey instruments in paper form and approval by the FFE M&E team and relevant components, these were scripted and coded in Open Data Kit (ODK) by Apolowil, in preparation for remote data gathering. Each of the four surveys was extensively tested by Simone and Calibio and amended by Apolowil so that they worked as intended. Each was pre-tested, and a data set reviewed by Simone Doctors and the NFER team: the small number of “bugs” identified in the instruments was then addressed by Apolowil before the survey went live. Since the survey of parents/community members was conducted by research assistants, these were recruited and trained by Apolowil and Calibio over a period of one week in Maputo city. The training materials were prepared in liaison with Simone Doctors and included a strong focus on Covid-19 security and data collection ethics. The capacity of the research assistants to conduct remote interviews in Portuguese, Xichangana and Xirhonga was carefully assessed by Calibio. The data sets collected using the remote surveys were cleaned by Apolowil, then uploaded to NFER’s secure server for analysis. Qualitative data from KIIs and FGDs was collected by Simone Doctors and Calibio Matine using video and audio conferencing. Calibio Matine conducted carefully controlled visits to each of the project districts to visit HGSFGs, interview government officials (Serviço Distrital de Educação, Juventude e Tecnologia - District Office for Education, Youth and Technology (SDEJT), and Serviço Distrital de Saúde Mulher e Acção Social - District Service for Women Health and Social Action (SDSMAS)) and conduct FGDs with School Feeding Committees (SFCs), volunteer cooks and water committees, observing Covid-19 secure methods. Calibio also visited EPF Maputo and interviewed the director and pedagogical director. KIIs and FGDs were recorded using a digital voice recorder, then transcribed by Apolowil, before being analyzed by Simone Doctors, using a version of framework analysis. Simone Doctors assumed overall responsibility for the quality of the data collection and analysis process. Quality assurance (QA) protocols used to ensure consistency during data collection and data validity included:  QA by Calibio of data gathering by research assistants, including monitoring their performance in Xichangana and Xirhonga, conducting random spot checks and providing support during data gathering4 ;  Review of all evaluation instruments, including translations, by Calibio and Simone; 4 In the only case where a research assistant was found to have falsified a small number of interviews, these were deleted from the data set; the research assistant was then retrained and their work monitored intensively, both during data gathering and after uploading. 27  QA of Apolowil’s transcription of FGDs and KIIs by Apolowil, first by Ernest (Apolowil) then by Simone, conducting random spot checks of 10% of transcriptions, including checking against original recordings;  Intensive testing of all remote data collection instruments first by Apolowil, then by Simone and Calibio;  Analysis of data sets by Apolowil to ensure inter-enumerator consistency and validity of the data gathered. Rigorous data security protocols were in place. Following signing of a data management agreement between all consortium members and Planet Aid, all data were uploaded to NFER’s secure server, so data containing personal information was not transmitted using email or other non-secure methods. Data collected from remote surveys was stored on encrypted computers, then uploaded to NFER’s secure server. Qualitative data for transcription were uploaded to NFER’s secure server. For more information about the data gathering process, please see the evaluation Fieldwork Report, dated 6 December 2020. Preparation of the draft report was coordinated by Simone Doctors, with extensive support from other consortium members. The draft report was then sent to Planet Aid, FFE and the other implementing partners for factual verification. The evaluators wished to ensure that the report fairly and accurately reflected the lived experience of the implementing teams and incorporated any information which provided context for the report’s findings. The evaluation team responded to all comments and requests for clarification received, retaining a strictly independent stance, and dealing with each comment on a case-by-case basis. The final draft of the report was prepared by Valerie Legg and Simone Doctors, and reviewed by Planet Aid before finalization by the evaluation team. 28 Final evaluation findings This report follows the structure adopted for the midterm evaluation report, according to the logic of the project ToC (see Annex 1). Findings are grouped according to the project indicators, beginning with SO1, then following back through the various change pathways, then addressing SO2 and each of the associated change pathways in turn. A number of crosscutting themes: Human Resources, capacity, collaboration and ownership; Transport; Administrative and financial systems and procedures; M&E; and Sustainability and relevance to the local and national school feeding policy and program environment are then addressed, followed by a section on Impact of Covid-19 on the FFE2 project and assessment of the project’s response to Covid-19. Like the midterm report, where appropriate, each section addresses the three evaluation questions which had informed previous evaluations, minimizing overlap and repetition:  Internal validity (did the project do what it said it would do?)  Initial impact (has it made a difference?)  Strategic relevance regarding effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability (were these the right things to do? what can be learned?) At the beginning of each section, boxes summarize the relevant project targets and results, broken down by the indicators associated with each activity. Figures given are as of the end of September 2020. In the small number of cases where the final target had not been achieved as of the end of September 2020, a figure as of December 2020 is also given. Targets used are the project final targets unless indicated5 . The data presented comes from a variety of sources, which are indicated in each case. 5 The final targets are set out in the document entitled Attachment E in Amendment # 5: Performance Indicators Modification 1. Several of the project activities were extended into 2021 due to Covid-related disruptions, and a final target set for that fiscal year. Where this is the case it has been noted alongside specific indicators. 29 Improved literacy of school-age children (SO1) The first of the two large strategic objectives of the project within the project ToC, SO1 concerns improved literacy of school-age children. This report presents each project activity following the structure and logic of the ToC and associated indicators. Strategic Objective 1: Notable Achievements Students tested in reading in local languages tended to perform better than those tested in Portuguese, and students tested in the language they spoke at home consistently outperformed those tested in a different language. 25.9% of the students tested were able to meet the national literacy benchmark, a significant improvement from midterm. All schools received textbooks and other teaching and learning materials, achieving 216% of the final target for distribution. Teachers, students and government officials are very appreciative of these and consider them useful. Development of teaching and learning materials for the bilingual curriculum has led to sustainable capacity development as institutions and individuals supported by Cambridge Education ‘learned by doing.’ These materials are now the official MINEDH textbooks for literacy in Xichangana and Xirhonga and provide a model for adaptation in local languages in other provinces. The DPEDH have set up a bilingual teaching strategy for 2021-29, drawing on the project’s expertise and experience. The program has left schools with the capacity, both in skills and materials, to continue to teach reading in local languages. Continuous professional development and in-school support of primary school teachers in project schools continued until schools closed due to Covid-19. Despite the interruption, schools now have teachers who are confident in phonics and modern, child-centered teaching and learning methods. 9,222 primary teachers have been trained at the EPFs, more than double the final target. Trainee teachers at EPFs are highly motivated, consider their instruction to be of high quality and reported that active learning methods are in regular use at the EPFs. Remedial Portuguese language support provided at the EPFs enabled 75% of students to improve their Portuguese literacy skills during training. The target for the number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance has been 161% achieved. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, 90,278 school-age children were receiving daily school meals thanks to the project, exceeding the final target. After schools closed, CSB+ was distributed in the form of take-home rations for students, with targets achieved. 30 Indicator 26 (Outcome): Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text. Final target: 45% Final results (December 2020): 25.9%6 (Female: 26.7%; Male 21.7%) Final target 58% achieved (Female: 59%; Male 48%) Indicator 27 (Output): Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions. Final target: 85,560 (Female: 45,450; Male: 40,110; Continuing: 78,748; New: 6,812) Final result (September 2020): 100,403 (Female: 47,080; Male: 53,323; Continuing: 94,819; New: 5,584) Final target 117% achieved (Female: 104% achieved; Male: 133% achieved; Continuing: 120% achieved; New: 82% achieved) 6 The final evaluation team considered that the reading assessment texts provided internally in Portuguese and in Xichangana/Xirhonga were not strictly comparable - in particular, differences in the length and difficulty of the respective texts resulted in falsely inflated scores for the group tested in Portuguese: because the Portuguese text was relatively long, and the comprehension questions for the bilingual group concerned material that was earlier in the reading text, students in the bilingual group were more likely to be asked all of the questions and therefore had a greater chance of answering at least one question wrong. The team therefore explored different interpretations of the available data. The data in annex 4 (pp 167-174) presents the different interpretations considered by the evaluation team. The 25.9% of pupils recorded here are the pupils who met the benchmark in its most narrow interpretation (‘Benchmark A’): they correctly read the first 33 (Xichangana), 38 (Portuguese), or 41 (Xirhonga) words of the text and answered the first 3 comprehension questions correctly. ‘Benchmark B’ records pupils who attempted the first 33 (Xichangana), 38 (Portuguese), or 41 (Xirhonga) words of the text, without necessarily reading all of them perfectly, and answered the first 3 comprehension questions correctly. In this case the percent meeting the benchmark increases to 38.1% of the pupils, or 85% of the final target. ‘Benchmark C’ consisted of the 69.6% of students who attempted to read enough of the text to answer the questions, then answered the first 3 comprehension questions correctly (155% of the final target). All of these students demonstrated ability to draw meaning from a grade-level text, though not all strictly met the literacy benchmark. School attendance has improved. The overwhelming majority of schools reported having one or more extracurricular learning clubs, which positively influenced students’ attendance and attainment. School infrastructure provided by the project (kitchens, storerooms, and firewood-saving stoves) has been maintained, with more than twice the final target met. There is some evidence that enrolment increased and dropouts decreased as a result of project activities, with an overall downward trend in the dropout rates in project districts. Two investments were leveraged through public-private partnerships to a total value of $401,292. Finally, 271 School Feeding Committees were created and supported, exceeding the final target. 31 Indicator 28 (Output): Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions. Final target: 336,000 Final result (September 2020): 361,112 Final target 107% achieved Analysis of internally-conducted EGRA In order to assess the literacy levels of students who have benefited from the literacy program delivered by FFE, with technical assistance from CE, a cohort study to measure students’ performance in EGRA at three time points had been begun at baseline and continued at midterm, with the intention of completing this at end point.7 Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the complete closure of schools in Mozambique at the time of conducting the final evaluation, it was not possible to complete the cohort study, or to collect any data from students. As a solution the literacy team supported the final evaluation team by making available several internally conducted EGRA results from the period following the midterm evaluation. Two data sets were analyzed:  A “mini-EGRA” conducted in April 2019 for a sample of 217 students from class three, in the three program languages (Portuguese, Xichangana and Xirhonga), consisting of sub-task 8 (timed reading aloud of a short text followed by comprehension questions);  a full EGRA, conducted in September and October 2019 for a sample of 204 students from class one, 211 students from class two and 208 students from class three, in the three program languages (Portuguese, Xichangana and Xirhonga), consisting of: o for class one and two, sub-tasks 3 to 9 (the same sub-tasks used at midterm with the exception of sub-tasks one and two); o for class three, sub-tasks 8 and 9. The evaluation team had no influence over the selection of students or the instruments used. The literacy team reported that a sampling process was used (selecting students at defined intervals on the class list) but were aware that the samples may not have always been rigorously drawn and were open and transparent about this fact. Subsequent analysis of the instruments by the evaluation team revealed some inconsistency between some of the instruments: in particular, although most of the texts had been designed to be equivalent between languages, in the mini-EGRA the Portuguese text was simpler and less demanding than the bilingual one, and in the full EGRA the Portuguese text was longer than the bilingual one (although it was deemed to be comparable in difficulty). Despite some reservations about the sampling of students and calibration of the instruments, the evaluation team considers them able to reveal findings of note, particularly in light of the fact that they reveal 7 The midterm data collection took place in March-April 2019 and used a carefully calibrated instrument designed to be equivalent in the three languages. 32 consistent trends across stratification groups, as will be shown. Having considered the inconsistencies in the instrument used for the mini-EGRA, although it was originally planned to use the mini-EGRA results to assess pupils’ progress in relation to national benchmarks, the benchmark results were instead drawn from the full EGRA, subtask 8 (assessing reading fluency and comprehension).8 The full EGRA consisted of 7 subtasks designed to assess progressively more complex pre-reading then reading skills. Each of the three language versions consisted of the following language-specific subtasks:  ST39 . Phonological awareness (indicate the picture of an object whose name begins with the same initial sound as that of a stimulus object – 10 items)  ST4. Concepts of print (perform tasks to demonstrate familiarity with how printed language functions – 10 items)  ST5. Letter sounds (produce the letter sounds when shown printed lower and upper case letters – 100 items)  ST6. Syllable recognition (read aloud syllables consisting of consonant and vowel combinations permitted in the target language – 50 items)  ST7. Reading simple words (read aloud a list of words progressively longer and less common - 30 items)  ST8. Reading fluency (read a short passage – number of words read correctly within 60 seconds –ranging from 15 to 95 items depending on the assessment) and reading comprehension (respond to questions based on the passage just read – 3 to 5 items [three for year 1, four for year 2, and five for year 3])  ST9. Writing (correctly write first name and family name – 2 items) and dictation - words (correctly write 5 words dictated – 5 items). Detailed discussion of the students’ performance on each EGRA subtask can be found in Annex 3 of this report. EGRA results: Presentation At midterm students’ scores were compared based on whether they had received both school feeding and the literacy intervention, school feeding only, or neither. For the final evaluation, scores were compared in two contrast groups: the first comparing students tested in Portuguese with those tested in local languages, and the second comparing students tested in the same language that they spoke at home with those tested in a different language to that spoken at home. A comparison of the EGRA subtask scores for year 1 students reveals that in the first contrast group (students tested in Portuguese compared with students tested in local languages) the students tested in local languages outperformed those tested in Portuguese in seven out of eleven subtasks (indicated in red in tables 3 and 4 below). Year 1 students who were tested in the same language that they spoke 8 Cambridge Education representatives were in agreement with the evaluation team’s concerns regarding the validity of the mini-EGRA data. 9 ST1 and ST2 assess very rudimentary pre-reading tasks and were not analyzed. 33 at home performed better than students tested in a different language in nine out of the eleven subtasks, and in a tenth (reading comprehension) there was no difference in score. EGRA subtasks Mean score achieved Year One overall Contrast One Contrast Two Portuguese as language of testing Bilingual language of testing Home language same as language of testing Home language different from language of testing Phonological awareness 8 7.7 8.3 8 7.9 Concepts of print 8.3 8.1 8.5 8.4 8.0 Letter sound recognition 16.2 17 15.4 16.8 14.2 Reading syllables 9.8 8.5 11 10.6 7.2 Reading words 5 3.7 6.3 5.4 3.7 Reading fluency (WPM) 6 6.4 5.6 6.2 5.4 Comparative reading fluency 32.4 28.8 36 34.5 25.5 Comprehension of reading 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Writing dictation: individual words 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.4 Table 3: EGRA results compared, year 1 students Writing own name Percent of students able to perform task correctly Year One overall Contrast One Contrast Two Portuguese as language of testing Bilingual language of testing Home language same as language of testing Home language different from language of testing Writing first name correctly 59% 61% 57% 58.9% 59.2% Writing family name correctly 24.5% 24% 25% 25.8% 20.4% Table 4: EGRA name-writing subtask results compared, year 1 students Among year 2 students, in the first contrast group the students tested in local languages outperformed those tested in Portuguese in six out of eleven subtasks (indicated in red in tables 5 and 6 below). In a further two subtasks, there was no difference between the two groups. Year 2 students who were tested in the same 34 language that they spoke at home performed better than students tested in a different language in all of the EGRA subtasks. EGRA subtasks Mean score achieved Year Two overall Contrast One Contrast Two Portuguese as language of testing Bilingual language of testing Home language same as language of testing Home language different from language of testing Phonological awareness 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.0 Concepts of print 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.1 8.7 Letter sound recognition 20.2 22.3 18.3 20.3 19.7 Reading syllables 15.7 17.2 14.4 16.1 14.5 Reading words 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.7 7.5 Reading fluency (WPM) 15.9 18.3 13.9 16.6 14 Comparative reading fluency 33.9 32.6 35.1 37.2 24.2 Comprehension of reading 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.0 Writing dictation: individual words 2.4 2.1 2.6 2.6 1.6 Table 5: EGRA results compared, year 2 students Writing own name Percent of students able to perform task correctly Year Two overall Contrast One Contrast Two Portuguese as language of testing Bilingual language of testing Home language same as language of testing Home language different from language of testing Writing first name correctly 80.2% 73.7% 86.1% 86.4% 62.3% Writing family name correctly 55.1% 54.5% 55.6% 59.7% 41.5% Table 6: EGRA name-writing subtask results compared, year 2 students Year 3 students were only tested on six of the EGRA subtasks, outlined in tables 7 and 8 below. In this year group, students tested in local languages outperformed those tested in Portuguese in four of the subtasks. Students who were tested in the same language that they spoke at home performed better than students tested in a different language in all but one of the EGRA subtasks. 35 EGRA subtasks Mean score achieved Year Three overall Contrast One Contrast Two Portuguese as language of testing Bilingual language of testing Home language same as language of testing Home language different from language of testing Reading fluency (WPM) 35.3 40 29.5 34.2 37.1 Comparative reading fluency 46.8 41.6 53.2 51.3 38.9 Comprehension of reading 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 Writing dictation: individual words 3.2 2.9 3.6 3.5 2.7 Table 7: EGRA results compared, year 3 students Writing own name Percent of students able to perform task correctly Year Three overall Contrast One Contrast Two Portuguese as language of testing Bilingual language of testing Home language same as language of testing Home language different from language of testing Writing first name correctly 85.9% 83.3% 89% 87% 83.8% Writing family name correctly 73.7% 68.4% 80.2% 79.4% 63.5% Table 8: EGRA name-writing subtask results compared, year 3 students Furthermore, in several of the subtasks reported above, students tested in local languages were more likely to achieve a perfect score (the maximum possible score) than were students tested in Portuguese; and students tested in their home language were more likely to achieve a perfect score than students tested in a language different from their home language. This result contrasts with the belief held by many of the parents surveyed (reported on pages 40-41, figure 4 and table 10 below) that instruction in Portuguese facilitates learning.10 An exact, exhaustive comparison of the final results with those obtained at baseline and midterm is unfortunately not possible, due to the different groups tested at these respective time points; however some general trends can be observed.11 The midterm group that lends itself most readily to comparison with findings 10 Over 70% of the parents disagreed with statements such as ‘it is better to learn in a language which one understands well,’ and 80% with ‘it is better to learn in the language spoken at home,’ however the results of the EGRA at final evaluation show that young students consistently perform better when tested in their home language. 11 At midterm three main cohorts of students were tested: those receiving school feeding plus the literacy intervention, those receiving school feeding only, and a control group. All were in grade 3. 36 from the final evaluation is the midterm “FFE + literacy” group, that is pupils who were benefitting from both school feeding and the literacy intervention at midterm. Although all of the pupils tested at midterm were in grade 3, it is striking to see that they were consistently outperformed by grade 2 and even, in many cases, grade 1 pupils at the final evaluation12 (see figures 1 and 2 below). The internal EGRA was conducted approximately 6 months later than the midterm evaluation, so some progress between the two assessments is to be expected.13 Figure 1: Midterm scores compared with final evaluation scores: phonological awareness and concepts of print 12 Grade 3 pupils did not undertake these subtasks at the final evaluation. 13 As previously indicated, the pupils tested at midterm and in the internal EGRA were not the same and the sampling method varied on each occasion, so caution should be exercised when considering these comparisons. The protocol of enumerator training also differed between midterm and final. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Phonological awareness Concepts of print EGRA Subtask Scores: Number Correct out of 10 Midterm grade 3 (FFE + literacy) Final grade 1 Final grade 2 37 Figure 2: Midterm scores compared with final evaluation scores: letter sounds recognition, syllables and words When the scores of pupils from the same year group are considered, grade 3 pupils from the final evaluation show a marked improvement over those tested at midterm (see figure 3).14 Figure 3: Baseline through final evaluation scores: percent of pupils able to correctly write their own names 14 Recall that in the internal EGRA conducted in September and October 2019, grade 3 students were tested only on subtasks 8 and 9 (reading comprehension and writing, respectively), therefore it has not been possible to provide comparison here with other subtasks performed at midterm. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Letter sound recognition Reading syllables Reading words EGRA Subtask Scores: Letter sounds, syllables, and words per minute Midterm grade 3 (FFE + literacy) Final grade 1 Final grade 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Writing first name Writing family name EGRA Subtask Scores: Writing first and family names Baseline Midterm grade 3 (FFE + literacy) Final grade 3 38 Progress in relation to national benchmarks The indicator “Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text” assumes a nationally accepted benchmark, or general agreement as to what children of a particular grade should be able to do. In the absence of official national benchmarks, but in line with recommendations developed by the USAID Vamos Ler (Let’s Read) project15, the project literacy team has been working with the following definition: 30 words per minute (WPM) for Portuguese; 25 WPM for local languages (Xichangana/Xirhonga) and 3/4 (75%) comprehension questions correct in each case. This is the measure of “demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text” which was therefore adopted for the purpose of previous evaluations of this project. Table 9 shows the percentage of students in each comparison group that attained the benchmark, with the higher results from each contrast in red. Comparison Groups Percent of students meeting the benchmark Year 3 students overall 25.9% Contrast One Portuguese as language of testing 24.1% Bilingual language of testing 28.0% Contrast Two Home language same as language of testing 28.0% Home language different from language of testing 21.9% Table 9: Percentage of year 3 students who attained literacy benchmark The analysis of students meeting the literacy benchmarks repeats the pattern identified in discussion of the full EGRA results: students tested in local languages perform better than those tested in Portuguese, and students tested in the language they speak at home achieve greater results than those tested in a different language to that spoken at home. Results from the final evaluation are also overall significantly higher than those recorded at baseline and midterm. However, due to the fact that the final results were from an internally conducted EGRA and therefore not comparable to the cohort studies conducted at previous evaluations, it is unfortunately not possible to draw definitive conclusions from comparison of these with previous results. 15 The five-year USAID-funded Mozambique Vamos Ler! Program, which began in 2016, develops bilingual education pedagogical tools and activities to improve national early grade literacy. 39 EGRA results: Discussion The EGRA results show that, at least for the sample of students tested, they had made considerable progress in reading when compared to the midterm evaluation results. Overall, bilingual students were likely to perform better than students tested in Portuguese. At all levels, students tested in their home language performed better than students tested in a language other than their home language. This is a noteworthy observation as it was never suggested to reading coaches to consider that a same or different home language should predict differences in pupil performance. This result is therefore unlikely to be due to any different treatment or expectations on the part of the coaches administering the tests. At least for the sample of students tested, then, these results provide further confirmation of the findings of the midterm report, that the literacy intervention is beginning to show promising results and that the bilingual program is working. It is unfortunate that it was not possible to finish the cohort study, which might have allowed this claim to be made more forcefully, based on the comparison of a sample of students, representative of the whole population of students benefiting from the literacy intervention, with other groups. Despite the caveats mentioned previously, it is nevertheless encouraging to see evidence that at least some students are learning to read in what has been a very bleak context for early grade literacy until recently. The evaluation has shown that at least some students as early as grade 1 are demonstrating the ability to perform pre-reading and reading tasks better than many grade 3 students tested at midterm. It is also encouraging that the students taught and tested in local languages are performing so well (the fact that students tested in their home language systematically outperformed those tested in another language reinforces the central premise of bilingual literacy education). There is work to do before these successes can be generalized to the whole early grade population. The fact that parents’ attitudes to learning to read in the home language are lagging behind this (see page 41) demonstrates that there is also much work to be done to communicate the benefits of bilingual education. However, taken together with both the evidence from the midterm evaluation and the qualitative evidence gathered at end point, these results suggest the literacy intervention has been successful in training and supporting teachers to better teach children to read. Parents’ experience of and attitudes toward the literacy program Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the closure of schools in Mozambique at the time of the final evaluation, it was not possible to collect survey data from students. In lieu of this, a remote survey of 550 parents of students benefiting from school feeding within the FFE project was conducted in the hope that this would to some extent function as a proxy for student interviews. It was not an aim of the project to change parents’ attitudes; this contextual information was considered to be relevant background to the evaluation of the bilingual program. The final evaluation survey included a number of questions relating to the parents’ experiences of and opinions about the literacy program. 53% of parents with children 5-10 years of age reported that their children could read fluently and understand everything, while 30% reported that their children could read fluently but had 40 difficulty understanding some words. 11% said that their children had difficulty understanding many of the words, while 5% reported that their children rarely or never read and had great difficulty with comprehension. Asked whether their children brought books home from school to read, 37% of parents reported that they did. Of these, 19% said that their children brought books home every day, 56% that they brought books home around once a week, and 24% around once a month.16 Asked whether their children had access to sufficient teaching and learning materials, 87% of parents thought that they did; 13% that they did not. When asked in what language(s) their children were learning to read, the vast majority (99%) of parents responded that their children were learning in Portuguese, with 23% also learning in Xichangana and 4% also learning in Xirhonga. The survey sought to gain insight into parents’ general beliefs about literacy education and attitudes towards language of instruction. Taken together, these results indicate an overwhelming belief amongst parents that the use of Portuguese facilitates student learning (83%), although a significant minority (34%) believe that the use of local languages facilitates student learning.17 11% of parents thought that the use of Portuguese made learning more difficult; 4% thought that the use of Xichangana made learning more difficult; only around 1% thought that the use of Xirhonga made learning more difficult (see figure 4 below). Figure 4: Parents’ opinions on which languages facilitate learning or make it more difficult The survey asked whether parents agreed or disagreed with a series of statements designed to further elicit their views on the use of Portuguese or local languages as language of instruction (LOI). Table 10 below compares 16 Here and in other instances where percentages do not total 100%, this is because the percent of responses was rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. 17 Parents were able to select multiple responses, hence the totals exceed 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Portuguese Xichangana Xirhonga Parents' Opinions on Languages of Instruction Facilitates learning Makes learning more difficult 41 the results. These reveal a range of opinion among parents, but show a definite inclination towards the use of Portuguese rather than local languages in schools. This aligns with the opinion of the majority of parents, stated above, that the use of Portuguese in schools best facilitates students’ learning. This is unsurprising given the social status of Portuguese as the official language and language of instruction in Mozambique, but is at odds with the expert consensus regarding the advantages of early learning in the home language (see, for example, Kioko et al, 2914), as well as the results shown in the EGRA. Statements regarding literacy instruction Percent of parents who agreed Percent of parents who disagreed It is better to learn in a language which one understands well 28% 72% It is better to learn in Portuguese, which will be more useful later on 59% 41% It is better to learn in Portuguese, because it is the language of school 45% 55% It is better to learn in the language spoken at home 20% 80% The language used is not so important; the most important thing is that the teacher teaches well 23% 77% Table 10: Parents’ opinions on literacy instruction For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 486-508. Literacy and language in the home environment In order to build a picture of the literacy levels and language use in the children’s home environments and to inform the analysis of the EGRA results, the survey for parents included a number of questions regarding languages spoken at home and the reading ability of the adults in the household. 46% of parents declared that Portuguese was most commonly spoken at home, 77% that Xichangana was most commonly spoken, and 11% that Xirhonga was commonly spoken.18 Parents were also asked about their perceptions of the use of different languages at home and how this might affect students’ learning at school; these are presented in figure 5 below. 18 Multiple answers were accepted for this question to allow for multi-lingual households. 42 Figure 5: Parents’ opinions on which languages facilitate learning or make it more difficult 54% of the parents stated that all of the adults in the family could read, 36% that at least one adult could read, and 10% that none of the adults in the family could read (see figure 6 below).19 For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 486-508. Figure 6: Parents report how many adults in the family are able to read 19 The UNESCO Institute of Statistics figure, as of 2017, puts the literacy rate in Mozambique overall at about 61% (reported by the World Bank, September 2020). ("Literacy Rate, Adult Total (% Of People Ages 15 And Above)”) These self-reported results are significantly higher, suggesting some social desirability reporting bias. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Portuguese Xichangana Xirhonga Parents' Opinions on Languages Spoken at Home Facilitates learning Makes learning more difficult Adults in the Family Able to Read All adults in the family At least one adult None of the adults 43 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction (MGD 1.1) According to the project ToC, two conditions are necessary to improve the quality of literacy instruction: a) better access to school supplies and materials and b) increased skills and knowledge of teachers. The project interventions to address these are presented below. Access to School Supplies and Materials (MGD 1.1.2) Indicator 2 (Output): Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 39,600 Final results (September 2020): 85,609 Final target 216% achieved Number of schools receiving school supplies and materials as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 264 Final results (September 2020): 271 Final target 103% achieved The project has continued to distribute textbooks and other instructional materials intended to support extracurricular learning clubs, although schools have discretion over how they are used. These materials are separate from the literacy materials developed by the literacy program and distributed in schools benefiting from the literacy program although this distinction is not always clear to teachers who receive them. At the final evaluation 96% of teachers said that they had received support materials for after-school learning clubs from the project (compared with just over 80% at midterm). Of these:  52% said that schools were consulted in selecting these materials (compared with just over 30% at midterm);  Nearly all (99%) of those who received support materials for learning clubs said that they made use of the materials (compared with 93% of teachers in FFE + literacy schools and 100% in FFE only schools at midterm);  54% of the teachers surveyed rated the materials as “extremely suitable” for club activities, 35% said that they were “well suited,” and 11% considered them “reasonably suited”. When teachers were asked whether their classes now had sufficient, suitable resources for teaching and learning, 65% replied that they did (compared with 52% of FFE + literacy teachers and 44% of FFE only teachers at midterm). For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 130-138. These responses confirm the contribution made by the project to ensuring improved access to teaching and learning materials. Previous evaluations revealed that the range of materials was appreciated by teachers, who 44 found these brought variety and useful additions to the textbooks they usually receive. Although the interpretation of some of the responses to the teacher survey is unclear given that schools were closed at the time, previous evaluations have confirmed through a variety of methods (including school visits, observation, KIIs and FGDs) that the materials provided by the project were both used and valued by teachers and students alike. The final evaluation revealed that government officials were similarly very appreciative of the materials provided by the project. One senior provincial government representative explained how valuable the project provision of teaching and learning materials had been: because in reality, we as a government do not have the capacity to produce materials … we have many limitations in terms of budget. However, now we have a lot of teaching and learning materials. Number of awards given to students. Final target: 30,000 Final results (September 2020): 30,453 FInal target 102% achieved Number of awards given to teachers. Final target: 7,500 Final results (September 2020): 8,118 Final target 108% achieved Since the onset of the project, rewards were bestowed on both pupils and teachers to incentivize efforts in teaching and learning. FFE2 focused on more local events and competitions involving local schools and families to promote interest in school and sustainability of the project activities. Analysis of the project monitoring records reveals that the final targets for awards to both students and teachers have been surpassed. Project staff reported conducting activities, such as school competitions, to help those students with greater learning difficulties, although many events and competitions involving awards had to be cancelled due to the Covid-19 related school closures. Awards continue to be considered by school leaders and government officials as an effective incentive to motivate teachers and students. 45 Literacy Instructional Materials (1.1.3) Number of grade 1-3 children receiving literacy books. Final target: 22,300 Final results (September 2020): 33,345 Final target 150% achieved Number of supplementary literacy materials produced and distributed to project schools. Final target: 159,500 Final results (September 2020): 245,754 Final target 154% achieved As reported in the midterm evaluation report, the project literacy team, working with experts from Instituto Nacional para Desenvolvimento da Educação (INDE) and with support from CE’s reading experts, produced a range of literacy books and materials in Xichangana and Xirhonga and in Portuguese. Analysis of project records shows that targets for the production and distribution of literacy materials have been surpassed. The literacy team describes the experience of developing and implementing the literacy program and materials as a rich collaboration of linguists, methodology experts and curriculum experts, from CE, the FFE team and the MINEDH, which has led to real and sustainable development of the national capacity at both institutional and individual levels: For me, this mix [of professionals] led to a lot of learning, and Cambridge Education brought the experience of other international countries. We learned by doing. These teaching and learning materials are now the official MINEDH textbooks and are being used as a model for adaptation in other local languages in other provinces. Although at some point the pedagogical materials will need to be renewed, the program has left schools with the capacity, both in terms of skills and materials, to continue to teach reading in local languages. There has also been a notable change of culture surrounding reading books, with students and parents now expecting books to be brought home so students can practice reading regularly, rather than seeing them as something to be left in school. Skills and Knowledge of Teachers (1.1.4) Project interventions aiming to improve the skills and knowledge of teachers consist of: i) in-service training (continuous profession development, or CPD) of primary school teachers in schools in the project districts, as part of the literacy intervention coordinated and supported by CE and ii) the initial teacher education (pre￾service teacher training) delivered by the teacher training colleges (EPFs) run by ADPP in partnership with the MINEDH in each of the eleven provinces of Mozambique. The skills and knowledge of primary school teachers in project schools are considered below, followed by the skills and knowledge of trainee teachers in EPFs. 46 In-service training in literacy of primary school teachers Indicator 6 (Output): Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified (primary schools) as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 879 Final results (September 2020): 2,91620 Final target 332% achieved Number of teachers who receive in-service training as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 293 Final results (September 2020): 2,517 [586]21 Final target 859% [200%] achieved Indicator 5 (Outcome): Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 525 Final result: 539 (estimation)22 Final target 103% achieved The 586 teachers in project schools trained in phonics and their use in teaching reading and writing continued to receive training and the 27 reading coaches continued to provide ongoing in-school support to these teachers until schools were closed due to Covid-19. The literacy program, particularly the introduction of literacy in local languages, is considered by many informants as one of the outstanding successes of the FFE project, in terms of innovation and impact. GoM informants reported that the program was considered so successful that it is now being modeled in other regions of Mozambique. There are now 114 schools teaching the bilingual curriculum in the districts supported by the literacy program. The training of almost 600 teachers to teach in local languages and promotion of an active teaching and learning relationship between teacher and student, with students who feel more comfortable and 20 The figure of 2,916 refers to the number of person training events conducted, including all refresher trainings. The project reported that the teachers trained were not only from the 114 schools benefiting from the literacy program but that teachers from other FFE schools were also included in the trainings, as a response to SDEJT requests, as well as teachers from non-intervention districts such as Namaacha, Boane and Marracuene. 21 These numbers refer to in-service training activities accomplished, rather than number of teachers who have received in-service training. The literacy program reports having continued to train the same 586 primary teachers throughout the course of FFE2. The figure of 2,517 refers to person-training activities as literacy teachers received trainings during literacy team supervisions regarding the use of new tools and materials for teaching. The numbers in square brackets report the results in terms of numbers of teachers who received training. 22 At midterm this number was extrapolated from the results of teaching observation. Since it was not possible to observe teaching at end point, two questions from the teacher survey considered to demonstrate “new and quality teaching techniques” and where the responses had progressed considerably since baseline and through midterm were used to calculate this indicator. 94% of teachers surveyed claimed to use pupil reading books every day and 90% claimed to record the stages achieved by their students in a record book; these responses were used to estimate the result for this indicator. The average of these results (92%) was applied to the number of teachers trained by the project (586), to obtain 539. 47 confident participating and learning socially along with other students, have been greatly welcomed by the MINEDH, which had long hoped to implement phonics-based bilingual reading instruction and more student￾centered learning methods but had lacked the resources to do so. Other improvements brought by the project, through the mentoring by reading coaches, include more systematic use of continuous assessment and recording of student progress. At provincial level, the DPEDH have set up a bilingual teaching strategy for 2021- 29, drawing on the project’s expertise and experience. At the end of the program, despite the interruptions due to Covid-19, the schools have all the teaching and learning materials they need to continue teaching initial literacy in local languages and teachers who have been training in and are confident in phonics and child￾centered, active learning methods. Informants also cite the program’s involvement of parents in their children’s literacy education, by ensuring students took books home to read and communicating more with parents about the process of learning to read, as a huge step forward and a key to improving literacy outcomes among children. This includes encouraging parents to attend adult literacy classes to learn to read and to request access to the school books themselves. The level of collaboration with schools, school leaders and individual teachers was reported by teachers and the project literacy team to be good, with information sharing and cooperation a priority. One particular success was the level of ownership of the literacy program by district education officials (the SDEJT focal points), due to the decision early on to train and involve them as trainers/mentors to the teachers being trained. One literacy coach reported that everyone involved with the project (teachers, focal points, district and provincial education officers, government officials) took part in the training, either taking part or assessing. It was reported that the focal points in Magude district had subsequently taken the initiative to organize “quick” training sessions between teachers to capitalize on the training provided by the program. Adjusting to bilingual education Respondents reported initial skepticism and even hostility towards bilingual education on the part of school councils and local communities, with the perception that children would suffer from not learning in Portuguese, the perceived “correct” language of education. Despite initial reservations about bilingual education and an ingrained conviction that Portuguese was the proper language of education, once parents understood that bilingual education involved learning in both local languages and Portuguese, were glad their own children had the opportunity to learn to read and write in their home language. This was especially true of parents who were aware of the bilingual education available in neighboring South Africa and the advantages that has brought. Teachers, parents and school leaders held literacy in some contempt and didn’t understand its philosophy. But at the beginning of 2018, they started to understand how it worked and its advantages. This was when we started having good cooperation from schools, teachers and students, as well as parents. (An FFE reading coach.) 48 Several respondents claimed that bilingual students were achieving better outcomes than students studying only in Portuguese. One reading coach stated that, since the bilingual classes begin by teaching the most commonly used sounds, within a few weeks children are beginning to read. Having access to sufficient reading books in the language of instruction, including easy readers produced by the literacy program, allowed students to get into the habit of reading regularly. According to a program official, the bilingual program was also popular amongst government officials, due to the dynamism displayed: Sometimes, when we visit schools [for monitoring visits], all the supervisors want to visit the bilingual classes because the teacher-student interaction is spectacular. There was considerable pride in the bilingual literacy program at the wider level, as a significant innovation, in addition to the more immediate impact on students’ learning. One project staff member commented that: Bilingual teaching has challenged the government itself to make the most out of our cultural heritage and this was a good experience. Challenges, suggestions and lessons learned Challenges encountered by the program include the frequent transfer of teachers between schools, meaning that teachers who had been trained by the project in bilingual literacy would often be transferred to another school or even district, which was not part of the bilingual program, and replaced by a teacher who had not been bilingually trained (or, in certain cases, did not speak or read Xichangana or Xirhonga). Another challenge mentioned was the increased self- consciousness of students who would be hesitant to speak because they were unsure how to say something correctly. However, this reported disadvantage is probably indicative of a heightened linguistic awareness produced by the bilingual program, likely to translate into improved linguistic performance and learning over time. In certain cases, class sizes made it difficult to use the new methods: literacy coaches reported working in classes with a pupil-teacher ratio of up to 70:1. Literacy coaches reported that teachers were initially suspicious of their presence in the classroom and suspected them of spying on them. However, with time, teachers came to see the benefits of the new methods they were trained to use and became more confident in their own abilities, able to solve issues in the class and willing to ask for support when needed. They came to see the benefits of preparing lessons well, of collaborative working and team work, and of appropriate seating arrangements to support the more student-centered approaches and of displaying students’ work and teaching materials on the classroom walls. Reading coaches reported that, following the training, school leaders began supporting teachers to implement the new methods, whereas they had been quite skeptical, even hostile, at first. One significant milestone was the development 49 and introduction by the project of the Guide of Methodological Suggestions which allowed the teachers more autonomy to consult an independent source, rather than asking the reading coaches for help. Teachers also reported that it had not always been easy to adapt to the new methods and teaching and learning materials when they began using them in 2018; however, by the following year, they were reporting improved understanding of phonics, the child-centered approach, and bilingual education in general and in implementing these. Teachers who had benefited from the literacy intervention also report improved reading outcomes amongst their students. It was also suggested that bilingual education should be taken further and should include early grade numeracy. A further suggestion was that those who had taken part in the program should receive certificates of participation. For the literacy program’s response to the Covid-19 crisis, please see page 130. Teachers’ experience of in-service training 77% of the teachers who responded to the final survey said that they had benefitted from literacy training under the school feeding project (69% of the teachers from Portuguese-only schools and 90% of those from bilingual [both Portuguese and local languages] schools). The survey asked whether teachers had received certain types of pedagogical support and, if so, whether they had found them useful: 59% said they had received training in the five components of literacy (of which 99% found this useful), 97% had received materials to improve teaching of reading and writing (of which 100% found them useful), and 89% had received a Guide of Methodological Suggestions to help with lesson planning mentioned above (of which 100% found it useful).23 For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 182-183, 247-258. Increased teacher knowledge and awareness As part of the final evaluation survey, as at baseline and midterm, teachers’ knowledge of some basic literacy concepts, as presented in the literacy training, was evaluated by asking them to match five literacy concepts to their correct definitions (one extra definition was included in the survey). The correct responses at end point, 23 As indicated above, the proportion of teachers stating they had benefited from literacy training as part of the project (77%) is higher than the 58% who mentioned literacy training as one of the areas in which they had received support. One possible explanation for this is that the respondents took literacy training in this section of the questionnaire to refer to support with after-school clubs and using the materials provided for these, an activity provided to all schools as a separate activity from the literacy trained per se provided by the FFE literacy team with support from CE. The following questions were intended for teachers who had actually participated in the literacy training; it is possible that they were answered by some teachers who had not actually been part of the literacy program, in the belief that they referred to other materials provided, for example as part of the support to after-school clubs. Alternatively, they may have simply given the response they perceived to be expected. 50 midterm (disaggregated into FFE + literacy and FFE only teachers) and baseline are presented in table 11 below; the final evaluation answers appear in bold. Although prudence is required in interpreting these results, since the teachers surveyed at the final evaluation are not those surveyed at baseline and midterm, and those surveyed at end point are not disaggregated according to whether they benefited from the literacy intervention, a clear pattern emerges of teachers progressing since baseline in their ability to define the concepts correctly.24 Concept defined Final evaluation: all teachers surveyed (% of correct responses) Midterm: FFE + literacy (% of correct responses) Midterm: FFE only (% of correct responses) Baseline: all teachers surveyed (% of correct responses) Phonological awareness 53% 52% 32% 8% (23% of responses)25 Phonetics 46% 42% 23% 9% (26% of responses) Fluency 77% 62% 52% 30% (86% of responses) Vocabulary 73% 57% 52% 28% (80% of responses) Comprehension 78% 58% 62% 31% (89% of responses) Table 11: Teachers’ awareness of definitions of literacy skills When asked about the different stages of the instructional model “eu faço, nos fazemos, vocês fazem” (I do, we do, you do), taught to teachers as the basis of the literacy intervention, 61% of teachers (56% of Portuguese teachers and 71% of the bilingual teachers) were able to correctly define the stage “eu faço.” 66% of teachers (58% of the Portuguese teachers and 79% of the bilingual ones) were able to correctly define the stage “nos fazemos.” 64% of teachers (60% of the teachers from Portuguese-only schools, 71% of the teachers from bilingual schools) were able to correctly define the stage “vocês fazem.” The teachers from bilingual schools consistently performed better than the teachers from Portuguese-only schools in answering these questions. This is likely because the teachers from bilingual schools are more likely to have taken part in the literacy training and also had been provided with the Guide of Methodological Suggestions, which featured this content. Figure 7 below compares the performance of the teachers from Portuguese-only schools with that of the teachers from bilingual schools at the final evaluation. Figure 8 shows the progression from baseline to final of all teachers surveyed (although, as previously stated, the teachers surveyed at end point were not the same as at baseline and midterm). The table shows a clear progression between baseline and end point of the teachers surveyed; it 24 As previously stated, only some of the teachers surveyed at midterm were able to be recontacted at end point. Teachers who responded to the final evaluation survey were disaggregated into those who taught in Portuguese￾only schools and those who taught in bilingual (both Portuguese and local language) schools. Not all those surveyed benefited directly from training by the literacy program. 25 At baseline, there was a high proportion of non-responses. The figures in brackets are percentage of responses obtained. 51 is not surprising that FFE + literacy teachers at midterm performed better than all teachers combined at end point. Unfortunately it was not possible to follow these respective groups through to end point to ascertain their respective progress. Figure 7: Teachers’ ability to identify the stages of the instructional model at final evaluation: Portuguese and bilingual group compared Figure 8: Teachers’ ability to identify the stages of the instructional model: progression from baseline to final 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Portuguese teachers Bilingual teachers Awareness of Stages of the Instructional Model: Portuguese vs Bilingual Teachers eu faço (I do) nos fazemos (we do) vocês fazem (you do) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Baseline Midterm: FFE + literacy Midterm: FFE only Final Awareness of Stages of the Instructional Model eu faço (I do) nos fazemos (we do) vocês fazem (you do) 52 As at baseline and midterm, teachers were shown a series of paired statements relating to primary education and asked which they agreed with, in order to test their familiarity with modern classroom practice and approaches to literacy education, which are those taught and promoted by the project’s literacy intervention. The results are shown in table 12 below, with the options which are considered to be more compatible with modern classroom practice shaded. These are compared with responses at baseline and midterm. It is encouraging to note the degree of progress here, with more teachers at the final evaluation choosing the statements that are in accordance with current best practice (although the same caveats about the final evaluation teacher sample apply). The one area where the majority of respondents at end point still chose the “traditional” response was when asked to choose between the two affirmations “Young pupils learn best when reading is done from the blackboard” (chosen by 54% of respondents) and “Young pupils learn to read best when they are holding a book and can learn at their own pace” (chosen by 46% of respondents), showing that old habits and assumptions continue to prevail in this area at least. Answer A Final Midterm FFE + literacy Midterm FFE only Baseline % Answer B Final Midterm FFE + literacy Midterm FFE only Baseline % N/R at baseline% It is important to allow pupils to take their books home (baseline)/ It is important to allow pupils to use books regularly (midterm/final)26 97% 92% 92% 23% (77% of responses) Pupils should not take schoolbooks home (baseline)/ Books should be used occasionally so as to preserve them for the future (midterm/final). 3% 8% 8% 7% (23% of responses) 70% Pupils cannot practice reading at home because the majority of parents cannot read 5% 15% 14% 2% (6% of responses) Pupils should practice reading at home, even if their parents cannot read 95% 85% 86% 29% (94% of responses) 69% Grade one pupils are too young to be responsible for handing out books 34% 47% 43% 12% (46% of responses) Grade one pupils can learn to hand out books 66% 53% 57% 14% (54% of responses) 74% Pupils should be seated in rows facing the front so they can take part in the class 9% 26% 32% 7% (24% of responses) The way pupils are seated should be adapted to suit different activities 91% 74% 68% 22% (76% of responses) 71% 26 The formulation of this item (both A and B) was changed at midterm, at the request of the literacy team. 53 Preparing classes in advance is necessary for good classroom management 97% 97% 96% 27% (93% of responses) Preparing classes in advance does not help much with classroom management 3% 3% 4% 2% (7% of responses) 71% Young pupils learn best when reading is done from the blackboard 54% 56% 44% 12% (41% of responses) Young pupils learn to read best when they are holding a book and can learn at their own pace 46% 44% 56% 17% (59% of responses) 71% Independent practice is not useful for young pupils because they make mistakes 6% 25% 18% 3% (11% of responses) Being able to make mistakes during independent practice is an important part of learning 94% 75% 82% 25% (89% of responses) 72% Table 12: Familiarity with modern classroom practice and approaches to reading: teachers’ responses The teachers’ responses at the final evaluation are compared with those of EPF trainee teachers, who were asked to perform the same task, in figure 9 below. It is noteworthy that in several areas the teachers’ awareness of current “best practice” outstrips that of the trainees, an indication of the effectiveness of the project’s in￾service training of primary teachers. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 184-211, 292-313, 611-621. Figure 9: Final evaluation: teachers’ and EPF students’ awareness of modern classroom practice 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pupils use books regularly Pupils practice reading at home Grade one pupils hand out books Seating adapted to activities Preparing classes in advance Young pupils learn at own pace Independent practice encouraged Familiarity with Modern Classroom Practice Teachers EPF students 54 Literacy levels and lesson preparation Teachers were asked which languages they taught in: 79% reported that they teach in Portuguese, 32% teach in Xichangana, and 4% teach in Xirhonga.27 When teachers of Portuguese were asked how often they read books or other materials in this language to prepare their lessons, 94% of teachers replied “every day” and 4% responded “about once a week.” Only two respondents reported a lower frequency. Teachers of Xichangana reported a similar frequency: 91% said that they read books or other materials in this language “every day” and 9% “about once a week.” Of the few teachers who report teaching in Xirhonga, six of them reported reading in this language “every day” and one of them “about once a week.” These are compared in figure 10 below.28 Figure 10: Teachers’ reporting of reading for lesson preparation Asked how often they read for pleasure or general information, 67% of teachers reported that they do so every day, 33% “about once a week,” and only one respondent said that they never do. Around 90% of those who read regularly for pleasure do so in Portuguese, 22% in Xichangana, and 5% in Xirhonga. Five respondents (3%) also report reading in other languages. All teachers who responded to the final evaluation survey were asked to assess their own reading and comprehension skills in Portuguese. 54% said that they could read it fluently and understand everything, and 45% that they could read fluently but had difficulty understanding some words. Three teachers (2%, all in the 27 Some teachers reported teaching in more than one language. 28 When considering these results, and any others referencing lesson planning or teaching practice, it must be remembered that the final survey was conducted after schools had been closed for approximately nine months due to Covid-19. Responses therefore may reflect teachers’ memory, rather than current practice at the time of the final evaluation, and there may be some over-reporting, although it is of course possible that teachers have continued to read regularly in the language of instruction throughout the school closure. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Every day About once a week About once a month Never Frequency of Reading for Lesson Preparation Portuguese Xichangana Xirhonga 55 Portuguese-only group) said that they read Portuguese rarely or never, and had great difficulties in comprehension. When asked to assess their own reading and comprehension skills in Xichangana and Xirhonga, 23% of respondents said that they could read these languages fluently and understand everything and 49% said that they could read them fluently but had difficulty understanding some words. 22% said that they read them but had difficulties comprehending many of the words, and 7% reported that they rarely or never read in Xichangana or Xirhonga, and had great difficulties in comprehension. When asked about a variety of literacy instruction materials distributed by the project to teachers, the following responses were obtained:  Guide of Methodological Suggestions: 98% of teachers claim to use this; 81% claim to use it every day; 18% claim to use it around once a week; 1% said that they used it around once a month.  Letter- syllable- and word-cards: 92% of teachers claim to use these in their teaching; 66% of teachers claim to use them every day; 34% of teachers claim to use them at least once a week;  “Teacher read alouds” (stories for teachers to read aloud in class): 96% of teachers claim to use these in their teaching; 60% of teachers claim to do so every day; 40% claim to use them around once a week;  Reading books for pupils: 100% of teachers claim to use these in their teaching; 94% of teachers claim to use them every day; 6% of teachers claim to use them at least once a week. These responses appear in figure 11 below. This may be compared with the responses to the same question obtained at midterm and baseline in figures 12, 13 and 14 below, which show a strong progression from baseline, through midterm to end point (the previously stated caveats apply). Figure 11: Use of literacy materials provided by the project (final evaluation) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Guide of methodological suggestions Letter, syllable and word cards Teacher read-alouds Reading books for pupils Final: Use of Literacy Materials Provided by the Project Every day About once a week About once a month Never 56 Figure 12: Use of literacy materials provided by the project (FFE + literacy at midterm) Figure 13: Use of literacy materials provided by the project (FFE-only at midterm) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Guide of methodological suggestions Letter, syllable and word cards Teacher read-alouds Reading books for pupils Midterm FFE + Literacy: Use of Literacy Materials Provided by the Project Every day About 3 times a week About once a week About once a month Never 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Guide of methodological suggestions Letter, syllable and word cards Teacher read-alouds Reading books for pupils Midterm FFE only: Use of Literacy Materials Provided by the Project Every day About 3 times a week About once a week About once a month Never 57 Figure 14: Use of literacy materials provided by the project (FFE + literacy and FFE-only at baseline) For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 211-247, 259-279. Teachers’ assessment of students’ reading Teachers were asked how much time their students spent during the week on individual reading during class time: 41% reported that the students had around fifteen minutes per day, and 32% that the students had about five minutes per day. 23% said that the students had about fifteen minutes per week, and 4% said that their students had only around five minutes per week for individual reading. Figure 15 compares their responses with those obtained at midterm and baseline (the baseline survey had a relatively high percentage of non-responses to this question). It appears that, as of the final evaluation, more teachers than previously are making time for their students to read individually on a daily basis, or at least understanding this is a desirable response (although previously expressed caveats regarding comparisons apply, given the different sample of teachers surveyed at end point). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Guide of methodological suggestions Letter, syllable and word cards Teacher read-alouds Reading books for pupils Baseline: Use of Literacy Materials Provided by the Project Every day About 3 times a week About once a week About once a month Never No response 58 Figure 15: Time Allotted for Pupils’ Individual Reading (baseline to final evaluation) Teachers were asked how they monitor pupils’ progress in reading and how they record this, through a series of multiple-choice options; they were asked to choose all which applied. Their responses are presented in figures 16 and 17 respectively, along with those from midterm and baseline when, unfortunately, there was a high percentage of non-responses (previous caveats apply). For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 279-291. Figure 16: How teachers evaluate students’ reading progress, baseline through final Teachers’ responses at end point demonstrate a positive development towards best practice since baseline: by the final evaluation the majority of teachers claim to listen to individual students reading, both individually and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 5 minutes per day 15 minutes per day 5 minutes per week 15 minutes per week No response Time Pupils Spend Reading Individually Baseline Midterm (FFE + literacy) Midterm: FFE only Final 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Test at end of each trimester Listen to pupils read individually Pupils read one by one in class Only evaluate those who can read No response How Teachers Evaluate Pupils' Reading Progress Baseline Midterm: FFE + literacy Midterm: FFE only Final 59 one by one in class, rather than evaluating them by an end-of-trimester test. Even if teachers are providing what they consider to be the desirable response, rather than reporting on their actual practice, these are encouraging results which suggest teachers are more aware of the desirable or “best practice” response. Figure 17: How teachers record students’ reading progress, baseline through final Teachers’ responses at end point demonstrate a positive development towards continuous assessment and ongoing recording of students’ progress and away from end-of-trimester-testing since baseline. Once again, even if teachers are providing what they consider to be the desirable response, rather than reporting on their actual practice, these results suggest teachers are aware of “best practice,” as presented by the literacy coaches during their supervisions. Unfortunately, it was not possible to conduct observation of teaching for the final evaluation, as at the midterm evaluation; it is therefore not possible to assess progress in teachers’ performance since midterm on the basis of independently collected data. All data relating to teachers’ performance comes from surveys of teachers themselves, school directors and parents. Other types of teacher training and support visits Training of teachers was not restricted to literacy training. 89% of teachers reported that they had benefitted from some form of training within the scope of the project (85% at midterm). Of these, 42% said that they had received training related to school feeding, 30% had received training in storeroom management, 61% received 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Record the stages achieved in record book Give marks at end of trimester in record book Correct exercise books during classes Complete register at the end of year No response How Teachers Record Pupils' Reading Progress Baseline Midterm: FFE + literacy Midterm: FFE only Final 60 training in nutrition and health, and 58% received literacy training.29 A few (3%) reported receiving other kinds of training. The different types of training received were well evaluated by teachers. All of the teachers who received training related to school feeding considered it to be “good” or “excellent,” 98% of the teachers who received training in storeroom management considered it to be “good” or “excellent,” 97% rated the training in nutrition and health as “good” or “excellent,” and 98% of those who received literacy training considered it to be “good” or “excellent”. 91% of the teachers who responded to the final survey reported having received professional support visits from project staff (compared with 72% of teachers from FFE + literacy schools and 64% from FFE-only schools at midterm).30 Of these, 47% reported having received support related to running after-school learning clubs, 49% support to produce teaching and learning materials, 42% received pedagogical support (lesson planning, etc.), 41% received support to organize school feeding, 31% support with teaching in local languages, 22% received visits to support maintenance of infrastructure, and 51% received support with food health and hygiene rules. Between 94% and 97% of those who received support visits relating to clubs, to producing teaching and learning materials, pedagogical support (lesson planning, etc.), support to organizing school feeding, support with food health and hygiene rules or teaching in local languages rated this support as “good” or “excellent.” Teachers were more ambivalent about the visits to support maintenance of infrastructure: 86% thought these were “good” or “excellent,” 11% thought they were “sufficient” and one respondent felt that they were of little help. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 138-161. 29 A subsequent section of the teachers’ survey included a similar question, in which teachers were asked specifically whether they had benefitted from literacy training under the auspices of the school feeding project. 77% percent of teachers replied affirmatively, which seems to be at odds with the figure of 58% reported here. 30 At midterm, teachers’ responses to these and other questions were disaggregated according to whether respondents were from “FFE + Literacy schools” (project schools benefiting from the literacy intervention in addition to other project activities) or “FFE only” schools (project schools benefiting from other project activities but not from the literacy intervention). 61 Initial teacher education in teacher training colleges (EPFs) Indicator 6 (Output): Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified (EPFs) as a result of USDA assistance. Final target (including target for 2021): 5,355 Final results (September 2020): 9,222 Final target 172% achieved Percentage of a student-teachers who improve their Portuguese language literacy skills during pre￾service training. Final target: 80% Final results (September 2020): 75% Final target 94% achieved Number of teachers in training as a result of USDA assistance. Final target (includes target for 2021): 5,163 Final results (September 2020): 13,292 Final target 257% achieved The eleven teacher training colleges run by ADPP in partnership with the GoM make a significant contribution to the training of teachers in Mozambique, the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of which have been underlined in previous evaluations of the FFE project. At the time of the final evaluation, 9,222 teachers had graduated from the EPFs with USDA assistance, more than double the final target. Experiences of training The final evaluation included a survey of EPF students, gathering information about their experience of the training and levels of satisfaction. 157 trainee teachers currently studying at one of the 11 EPFs responded to the survey. All of the EPF trainees who were surveyed report that they enjoy studying in the EPF “very much,” and all consider the training they are receiving to be of very good quality. Asked whether the training they received in the EPF was good preparation for the reality of teaching in Mozambique, nearly all (99%) considered that it prepared them very well. The survey asked whether trainees felt that they were being well prepared to teach children with disabilities or special educational needs (SEN); 92% felt that they were being fairly well-prepared, 7% somewhat, and only one respondent felt that they were not. When trainees were asked whether the trainers had good knowledge of the subjects that they were teaching, 91% responded “yes, very much,” 9% responded “yes somewhat/yes most of them,” and only one trainee responded “no.” 96% considered that the trainers were very committed to their work and training; 4% replied that they were somewhat committed, or that most of them were. 91% described the trainers as very motivated, and 9% as somewhat motivated, or that most of them were. 62 When asked whether they were satisfied with the training methods used at the EPF, 96% said “yes, very,” and 4% “yes, somewhat.” 99% feel themselves to be “very” included in the classes, and only two of the respondents said that they did not feel included. The majority of responses from EPF students suggest that student-centred, active, enquiry-based learning methods tend to be used. Respondents to the EPF trainee survey were shown a series of statements and asked which best described the lessons conducted. Only two trainees considered that “the trainer speaks all the time and writes notes on the blackboard,” 94% reported that “the trainer introduces the theme of the lesson and allows the whole class to debate the subject,” and 5% said that “a trainee has prepared the subject and the class discusses it in groups then presents their conclusions to the whole class.” Trainees were asked whether the lessons included debates to allow the students to form their own conclusions, individually or collectively, about the subjects being presented. Around 71% reported that this happened “frequently” and 30% “sometimes.” Asked whether the lessons included group work, 31% said “always,” 65% “sometimes,” and 4% that they did not. Survey respondents were shown a series of statements and asked which best described learning at the EPF. Only two replied that “I only learn with my trainer,” and 4% said that “I learn with my classmates.” The majority, 95%, said that “the lessons are organized so that we learn both from our trainers and with the other students.” EPF trainees were asked whether they had any experience of “playing the role of presenter/teaching your classmates.” 74% said that this was a regular experience for themselves and other trainees, 25% that it happened, but not often, and only one trainee said that they had no such experience. Asked whether they were satisfied with life at the boarding house, 81% said they were very satisfied, 19% somewhat satisfied, and only one respondent replied that they were not satisfied. Trainees were asked whether there was anything that they would like to change about life in the EPF and the training received there: this was a fairly even split, with 45% reporting that there were changes they would like to make, and 55% that there were not. Where students reported they would like to see changes, many of these concerned the EPF environment and facilities or the meals served. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 562-578. Motivations and aspirations The survey of EPF student teachers revealed a high level of motivation amongst residents regarding the prospect of becoming a teacher. Asked why they had come to study at the EPF, all of the trainees said that they wanted to become teachers, and the EPF offered the best preparation for teaching. Only three respondents (2%) also stated that “I want to be a teacher and did not manage to get a place at an IFP (state-run teacher training 63 college),” and two that “I wanted to go to university but didn’t manage to get good enough results.” Around 6% stated that their parents had wanted them to train at the EPF. Survey respondents were asked which of a number of statements best described their choice to become teachers. 74% responded that they had always wanted to be teachers and that it was the profession they had always dreamed of. 17% said that they wanted to become teachers and possibly become school directors or education managers in the future. 8% said that, although they weren’t originally interested in becoming teachers, they had become more excited about teaching since joining the EPF. Just one respondent said that they didn’t want to be a teacher and intended to change career when able to. Figure 18 illustrates these responses. Figure 18: EPF students describe their choice to become teachers Asked how long they thought they would stay in teaching after graduating from the EPF, 44% responded they wanted to be teachers throughout their whole professional lives, and 40% that they wanted to be teachers or to work in some area of education throughout their whole professional lives. 4% said that they thought they would be teachers for many years, but maybe not for their whole professional lives, and 13% said that they intended to stay in teaching until they were able to improve their academic qualifications. Figure 19 shows these responses. EPF Students' Interest in Teaching Always wanted to be teachers Want to be a teacher, possibly a school director Weren't originally interested in teaching, but more excited since joining the EPF Don't want to be a teacher 64 Figure 19: How long EPF students intend to remain in teaching after graduation 97% said that they considered themselves “very” motivated students, with the remainder describing themselves as “somewhat” motivated. Asked whether they considered other students who had graduated from the EPFs to be motivated, 91% said “yes, very,” 5% “yes, somewhat,” and 4% said that they did not know any teachers who had graduated from the EPF. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 579-587. Views of the teaching role The survey responses revealed that most EPF trainees consider the teaching role to be linked to community development and service rather than narrowly focused on the education of children. EPF trainees were asked whether they considered that their studies at the EPF prepared them to undertake community development within the community where they would be based once they were working as a teacher: 85% said that they felt “very” prepared to undertake community development as a result of their studies, 14% “somewhat” prepared and one respondent said that they did not feel adequately prepared. Asked whether they felt that the EPF had a strong relationship with the local community, 80% said “yes, very much,” 17% “yes, to some extent,” and around 4% said that it did not. Respondents were given a series of phrases and asked which ones they felt best described the role of a teacher. 59% agreed with “educator of children,” 78% with “educator of the whole community,” 14% said that teachers were “agents of the government,” 31% that they were “agents of change,” 52% said teachers could be described as “agents of community development,” 44% as “a source of good advice for the community,” and 27% that EPF Students' Intention to Teach Intend to teach for their whole professional lives Intend to teach or work in education Intend to teach for many years Intend to teach until they improve their qualifications 65 they were “their pupils’ confidant.” Figure 20 presents these responses. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 588-591. Figure 20: EPF students describe the role of a teacher Literacy levels of EPF students 93% of the trainees surveyed reported that they had received special classes in Portuguese Language teaching methodology. Of these, 66% considered the classes to be excellent and 32% said that they were good, with three respondents (2%) reporting that they were of reasonable quality. When asked which language they had learned to teach in and asked to choose all which applied, 98% replied Portuguese; 13% of the students mentioned a different language. Asked to assess their own reading and comprehension skills in Portuguese, 50% said that they could read fluently and understand everything and 50% that they could read fluently but had difficulty understanding some words. Only one student replied that they rarely or never read in Portuguese. These are compared with the responses of primary school pupils’ parents and in-service teachers in figure 21.31 31 The survey for teachers & EPF students did not include an option for ‘unable to read in Portuguese’. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Educator of children Educator of whole community Agents of the government Agents of change Agents of community development Source of good advice for community Their pupils' confidant How EPF Students View the Role of the Teacher 66 Figure 21: Teachers, parents, and EPF students report their own reading ability in Portuguese Asked to assess their own reading and comprehension skills in the other languages, 39% said that they could read fluently and understand everything and 59% that they could read fluently but had difficulty understanding some words.32 Around 2% said that they had difficulty understanding many words, and one student reported that they rarely or never read in the other languages. These are compared with the responses of parents and teachers in figure 22.33 Although these are self-reported, and therefore subjective, assessments by respondents of their own reading ability, it is somewhat surprising that almost as many parents and EPF students as teachers consider themselves as able to “read fluently and understand everything” in Portuguese. The self-assessments of reading ability in other languages are even more surprising, and suggest social desirability bias may have conditioned some responses. 32 This question was intended to refer to the alternative languages of instruction (the languages in which students had learned to teach). However, it appears from the responses that these do not all apply to languages of instruction. 33 The survey for teachers & EPF students did not include an option for ‘unable to read in X language.’ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Read fluently & understand everything Read fluently & difficulty with some words Difficulty with many words Rarely/never read Unable to read in Portuguese Self-reported Reading Ability in Portuguese Teachers Parents EPF students 67 Figure 22: Teachers, parents, and EPF students report their own reading ability in other languages34 78% of students said that they had received extra support classes in spoken and written Portuguese during their studies at the EPF. 40% of the students rated these support classes as “excellent” and 52% said that they were “good,” with 8% describing them as “reasonable.” For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 601-610. Familiarity with modern teaching practice EPF students were shown a series of paired statements relating to primary education and asked which they agreed with, in order to test their familiarity with modern classroom practice and approaches to literacy education (this task was also included in the teacher survey).35 The responses demonstrate that, on the whole, EPF students are aware of modern best practices in early grade literacy: in 4 out of 7 cases they overwhelmingly choose the best practice response; in 3 out of 7 cases their responses are more evenly distributed. The results are shown in table 13 below, with the options that correspond to modern classroom practice shaded (for details, see Technical Appendix, pp 611-621): 34 Cambridge Education point out that the number of parents who report they are unable to read in Xichanga or Xirhonga is consistent with the very recent adaptation of these languages into written text. 35 For comparison of these with the responses of in-service teachers, see pages 52-53. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Read fluently & understand everything Read fluently & difficulty with some words Difficulty with many words Rarely/never read Unable to read in other languages Self-reported Reading Ability in Other Languages Teachers Parents EPF students 68 Answer A Responses Answer B Responses It is important to allow pupils to use books regularly 91% Books should be used occasionally so as to preserve them for the future 9% Pupils cannot practice reading at home because the majority of parents cannot read 12% Pupils should practice reading at home, even if their parents cannot read 88% Grade one pupils are too young to be responsible for handing out books 53% Grade one pupils can learn to hand out books 47% Pupils should be seated in rows facing the front so they can take part in the class 47% The way pupils are seated should be adapted to suit different activities 53% Preparing classes in advance is necessary for good classroom management 99% Preparing classes in advance does not help much with classroom management <1% Young pupils learn best when reading is done from the blackboard 54% Young pupils learn to read best when they are holding a book and can learn at their own pace 46% Independent practice is not useful for young pupils because they make mistakes 17% Being able to make mistakes during independent practice is an important part of learning 83% Table 13: Familiarity with modern classroom practice and approaches to reading: EPF trainees’ responses It should also be pointed out here that due to the Covid-19 school closures, the majority of EPF students taking part in the survey had only had two or three months of ordinary training in the EPF and around five months of online training. None of them had yet started teaching practice in primary schools. It is striking that the trainee teachers displayed overall good awareness of modern best practice even without the benefit of classroom experience. Remedial Portuguese Support Remedial Portuguese support is provided in all the EPFs to address the low level of Portuguese language skills of some trainee teachers on arrival. In line with the recommendation of previous evaluations, the efficacy of this remedial intervention has been monitored, with the EPFs gathering data on the added value provided by the EPF remedial Portuguese program, using a standardized diagnostic instrument in all EPFs as a pre- and post-test. The instrument was developed by Portuguese language trainers from several of the EPFs, with support from two experts in evaluation and Portuguese language assessment respectively. This information was collected at the beginning and end of the 2019 training year in seven of the eight EPFs which deliver the one-year teacher training program: EPF Gaza, Inhambane, Nhamatanda, Tete, Macuse, 69 Nametil and Nacala. EPF Niassa did not implement the post-test, for reasons which are unclear, and is therefore not included in this overview. Table 14 below summarizes the results of the pre-and post-tests in the seven EPFs for which 2019 data is available. The average marks on the pre-test and post-test for each EPF are compared in figure 23. EPF Average mark out of 144 - pre￾test Average mark out of 144 - post-test Difference between pre￾and post-test % average increase in score by EPF % of students whose scores increased more than 10% EPF Gaza 83.9 120.5 36.5 43.5% 100% EPF Inhambane 73.9 83.9 10.0 13.5% 60.9% EPF Nhamatanda 60.8 80.9 20.1 33.0% 70.4% EPF Tete 57.1 64.4 7.2 12.7% 66.7% EPF Macuse 66.7 70.0 3.3 5.0% 45.8% EPF Nametil 95.5 103.3 7.8 8.1% 50.0% EPF Nacala 83.8 85.1 1.4 1.6% 13.0% Average 74.5 86.9 12.3 16.5% 58.1% Table 14: Results of Portuguese language pre- and post-tests in 7 EPFs 2019 Figure 23: Comparison of the Portuguese language pre- and post-test scores in seven EPFs, 2019 All seven of the EPFs for which data is available show an improvement in the post-test scores when compared with the pre-tests. 75% of students overall showed some degree of improvement. In five of the seven EPFs, at least half of the students were able to improve their scores by more than 10%. EPFs Gaza and Nhamatanda showed the greatest overall improvement, with scores improving by an average of 44% and 33% respectively following the remedial Portuguese training. 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 Comparison of Portuguese Pre- and Post-test Scores, 2019 Pre-test: average mark Post-test: average mark 70 Figures 24 and 25 below compare the increase in post-test scores between 2018 and 2019.36 Figure 24: Average improvement in Portuguese language post-tests by EPF, 2018 and 2019 Figure 25: Improvement in Portuguese language test scores by more than 10%, 2018 and 2019 36 2018 data was reported in the FFE2 midterm evaluation report. 2018 data is not available for EPF Macuse and so it is not included in this comparison. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Gaza Inhambane Nhamatanda Tete Nametil Nacala % Average Increase in Score 2018 2019 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gaza Inhambane Nhamatanda Tete Nametil Nacala % of Students Whose Scores Increased by More than 10% 2018 2019 71 Comparison of these shows that:  Across these six EPFs, in 2019, 60% of students’ scores improved by more than 10% between the beginning and the end of the academic year. In 2018 this was the case for 70% of students;  On average, the scores of trainee teachers improved by 19% between the pre- and post-tests in 2019 (23% in 2018);  Despite the overall upward trend between pre-test and post-test scores, there is considerable variation across EPFs, with Gaza showing a marked improvement in 2019 and Nacala and Nametil achieving lower improvement rates than previously. Although continuing to make progress between pre- and post-test (between joining the EPF and graduating), students showed slightly less progress overall between pre- and post-test in 2019 than the previous year, particularly in Nhamatanda, Nametil and Nacala. In 2019, around 12% of the students had scores which actually decreased by more than 10% from the pre-test to the post-test. 2019 was a year of significant upheaval in Mozambique, with two cyclones, including Cyclone Idai which devastated Nhamatanda, leading to the evacuation of the EPF, Cyclone Kenneth, which hit Pemba, and civil unrest in the north of the country. EPF Nametil also reported staffing issues: one of the two trainers teaching Portuguese retired and was replaced with a less experienced trainer, while the second had a prolonged period of sick leave. This context may have contributed to the dip in improvement compared with the previous year. In spite of this, three of the six EPFs compared above show greater improvement in 2019 compared with 2018, and the overall trend shows significant improvement in the post-tests. Overall, these results demonstrate that the EPF teacher training consistently provides significant added value in Portuguese language competence. EPF Gaza is particularly noteworthy in that all students increased their scores by more than 10% in 2019, and this EPF also demonstrated the highest average increase in scores in this year (44%). It is strongly recommended that M&E of the Portuguese language training continues in all EPFs with use of the diagnostic tests, or, if preferred, a comparable rigorously devised test. Although this presentation focusses on added value provided by the year’s remedial Portuguese teaching, there are considerable differences between EPFs in terms of both pre- and post-test results, with EPF Tete and EPF Macuse achieving average scores of 50% or lower at post-test after a year’s remedial teaching (although both progressed from low pre-test values). An assessment of the practices and approaches employed by the high-performing EPFs would also enable good practice to be shared across all 11 teacher education colleges. Profiles of EPF trainers The baseline and midterm reports presented information on the overall profiles of EPF trainers and on supply and demand for specialized trainers, which the EPFs had identified as useful for their planning and operations. For the purposes of the final evaluation, the EPF directors were asked to complete the same questionnaires to 72 provide updated information based on the same indicators. This information is presented below. Data from EPF Cabo Delgado was not available at midterm due to the evacuation following Hurricane Kenneth; therefore, comparisons between midterm and final evaluation data disregard the figures from that EPF. The eleven EPFs have between 11 and 27 trainers, with a mean of 18. The ratio of female to male trainers is 22% (see figure 26 below). There has been little change in this area since baseline; given the relatively low turnover in teacher trainers, and the gender characteristics of the pool of available trainers, this is unsurprising. Going forward, efforts should be made to recruit more suitably qualified female trainers, and a target date set to achieve gender parity. Figure 26: Ratio of Female to Male Trainers by EPF As of the final evaluation, data provided by the EPFs show that 92% of EPF trainers hold a Licenciatura as their highest qualification and 5% hold a Master’s degree. Only 3% of trainers now have a lower qualification than the Licenciatura; of these, four hold a Bacharelato and two the “Medium” level. This suggests that attempts to ensure all trainers upgrade their level of qualification to at least Licenciatura are slowly making headway (see figure 27 below).37 37 As explained in previous evaluation reports, the Licenciatura is the equivalent of a European or US Bachelor’s Honours degree; a Bacharelato is approximately equivalent to an Associate Degree, following two or three years of higher education, and has been phased out in recent years in favour of the four-year Licenciatura in alignment with other countries. “Medium level” is the teacher training qualification earned after graduating from 12th grade of secondary school; “Basic level” is the teacher training qualification earned after graduating from 10th grade of secondary school. In principle, in order to train teachers in Mozambique, trainers are now generally required to possess at minimum the level of Licenciatura, although this requirement has not always been consistently applied. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Final: Ratio of Female to Male Trainers Number of male trainers Number of female trainers 73 Figure 27: Highest Qualification Held by Teacher Trainers38 According to the data provided by the EPFs, 29% of the trainers have a qualification in Education, Science of Education or School Management; 30% in the areas of the arts, languages or humanities and 38% in the areas of science, social sciences, mathematics or physical education. 26% are graduates of One World University (ISET/OWU), 46% were trained at the Pedagogical University, and 24% at another university, generally either Universidade Eduardo Mondlane or the Catholic University. The number of less qualified trainers, whose highest qualification was earned at institutions such as the state-run teacher training colleges or the EPFs, is only 2%. All except one of the trainers have received psycho-pedagogical training. 28% of the EPF trainers have had two or fewer years’ experience teaching at primary level; 15% have had between 3 and 5 years; 24% between 6 and 10 years, and 32% have had more than 10 years. In terms of the trainers’ experience of training student teachers within an EPF setting, 15% have had two or fewer years’ experience training student teachers, 15% between 3 and 5 years, 41% between 6 and 10 years, and 28% more than 10 years (see figures 28 and 29). 38 Data from EPF Cabo Delgado was not available at midterm and so figures from baseline and final evaluation for this EPF have not been included in the totals. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 "Basic" level "Medio" level Bacharelato Licenciatura Masters Trainers' Highest Qualification Baseline Midterm Final 74 Figure 28 and 29: Experience of EPF Teacher Trainers at Final Evaluation At the midterm evaluation it was noted that there had been considerable progress with regard to the administrative categories of the EPF trainers; happily, the final evaluation shows that this upward trend has continued. The percentage classified (and therefore paid) appropriately as teacher trainers (Instructor Técnico Pedagógico - ITP) has risen to 48% (compared with 35% at midterm and only 15% at baseline). 46% are now classified in the category ITP-N1; three trainers are in the category ITP-N2 and one in the category ITP-N3. This is a welcome development, although there is still considerable progress to be made. 46% of teacher trainers are still classed in category DN1, the highest category of “docente” (teacher) (compared with 57% at midterm and 66% at baseline). The percentage of trainers classified in the lower DN categories of DN2, DN3, and DN4 is now 5%, compared with 8% at midterm and 19% at baseline. Figure 30 below compares the progress from baseline to final evaluation.39 39 As data from EPF Cabo Delgado was not available at the midterm evaluation, the number of trainers in each category has been presented as a percentage of the total responding at each time point, rather than as raw numbers. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10+ years Experience of Teaching at Primary Level 0 20 40 60 80 100 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10+ years Experience of Training Student Teachers 75 Figure 30: Administrative categories of EPF trainers Specialized subjects: trainer supply and demand A comparison of the needs for specialized teacher trainers and the numbers of trainers employed per subject reveals a situation not greatly changed since baseline. Although the majority of positions are filled in many subjects, such as Psycho-pedagogy (23/25 posts filled), Portuguese language teaching methods (17/19 posts filled), Expression Techniques and Language (8/10 posts filled), School management and Organization (11/12 posts filled), Social Sciences teaching methods (16/17 posts filled) and Bantu languages and bilingual education (12/13 posts filled), there are considerable numbers of vacant posts in certain other subjects.40 There are a large number of unfilled posts in Research methods/ICTs (2/13 posts filled), Visual education teaching methods (5/11 posts filled), Building, Maintenance and School Production (3/8 posts filled), Crafts teaching methods (2/8 posts filled), Music teaching methods (5/11 posts filled) and Moral and Civic Education (2/9 posts filled) (see figure 31 below). As stated in previous reports, although the evaluation does not reveal why there should be such a gap between supply and demand in these subject areas, the situation is similar in other countries and sectors where labor market forces have led to a shortage of specialized teachers.41 40 Literacy education takes place within the Portuguese language and Bantu language teaching methodology modules. 41 Three of the EPFs (Maputo, Chimoio, and Cabo Delgado) run a three- year programme which does not include four of these specialised subject areas: Building, Maintenance and School Production; Expression Techniques and Language; Moral and Civic Education; and Crafts Teaching Methods. These have therefore not been included in the totals. The three-year programme does include the subject ‘Visual Education and Crafts Teaching Methods’; this has been counted under the subject heading of Visual Education Teaching Methods above. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% DN1 DN2 DN3 DN4 ITP-N1 ITP-N2 ITP-N3 Administrative Category Baseline Midterm Final 76 Figure 31: Specialized subjects: EPF trainer supply and demand at final evaluation Finally, the percentage of EPF trainers with at least five years’ experience of primary teaching is 64% (see figure 32 below). This remains unchanged from midterm. There is marked variation between the EPFs in this regard, with EPFs Maputo, Nacala, Nametil and Cabo Delgado having the best ratios.42 42 This is significant in terms of conformity with the MINEDH requirement for teacher trainers in government teacher training institutions. As detailed in previous evaluations, Article 53 of the regulation regarding the required profile of teacher trainers, introduced in 2007 by the then Ministry of Education and Culture, states that the following people can apply for posts of instructor in one of the state-run teacher training colleges: a) Instructors and teachers who have a higher education qualification in the disciplinary areas required to teach the curriculum and who have a minimum experience of 5 years of basic level primary teaching; b) Professionals with a “medium” level qualification, who have undergone specific training and have the recognised professional competence and relevant professional experience of 7 years minimum. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Final: Specialised Trainers/Target Supply Demand (unmet) 77 Figure 32: EPF Trainers’ Experience in Primary Teaching at Final Evaluation EPF directors’ and trainers’ view of the EPF system Whereas during previous evaluations, the external evaluator had visited several EPFs, observed teaching, observed trainees conducting teaching practice in schools and interacted with a wide range of EPF leaders, trainers and students, this was not possible at end point for the reasons discussed. For the final evaluation, in addition to the survey of EPF students, distance interviews were conducted with a sample of four EPF directors and one focus group was conducted with trainers from EPF Maputo.43 These qualitative data gathering activities revealed a high level of belief in and commitment to the EPF teacher training model. EPF directors believe that their students learn how to become good teachers and how to work in rural areas. They learn how to integrate in the communities they work in through, for example, organizing sporting activities, farming and nutrition education activities: 43 It was therefore not possible to follow up on all the recommendations made at midterm. However, the evaluators were pleased to note indications that a number of these are being followed: the students survey revealed widespread use of active, student-centred teaching methods; pre- and post-testing of students in knowledge and use of Portuguese language has continued to be implemented in the majority of EPFs; there is evidence in both the students survey and the qualitative data of strong links between theory and practice in nutrition education, with students and staff reporting a high level of involvement in food planning, production and preparation processes and awareness of nutrition education issues both within the EPF and the wider community. It is hoped that the midterm recommendations regarding the need to upgrade infrastructure and equipment, including the accommodation for teaching staff at EPF Gaza and the need for trainers to have access to additional IT equipment and to regular, good quality CPD will also be followed when resources permit. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 EPF Trainers' Experience in Primary Teaching Trainers WITHOUT 5 years experience in primary teaching Trainers WITH 5 years experience in primary teaching 78 They are trained to be aware that they will not only be teaching in the big cities or district headquarters, but will work in rural areas and therefore must also learn how to be a good teacher in a rural setting. EPF directors reported that students learn to contribute to the social and cultural aspects of community activities, receiving hands-on training within the local communities, through events such as theatrical performances, festivals of games, and open days. All directors interviewed reported that the reinforced graduate network allows the EPFs to stay in touch with their graduates and benefit from continuous professional development. Significant challenges have been encountered by several EPFs over the past two years. EPF Bilibiza has had to be relocated due to the armed conflict in Cabo Delgado. EPF Nhamatanda had to be evacuated in 2019 due to Cyclone Idai (for more information see the midterm evaluation report). Recent conflicts in Manhiça province have not affected EPF Chimoio, which is quite far from the city center, except in so far as EPF students and staff need to go through the conflict area when traveling to and from the EPF; the leadership and trainers warn them to be extremely cautious. When asked about other challenges encountered since the midterm evaluation, respondents listed a number of areas. Most of these concern choices which have had to be made regarding the use of limited resources:  Additional vehicles would be useful, since transport can be a challenge when the only car breaks down;  EPF gardens would benefit from having better water systems; this would also allow their expansion;  More inclusive materials are needed, for example for students with visual or auditory impairment, including braille and sign language materials and sign language dictionaries;  A better library is needed, along with access to more resources;  Trainers reported the need for more laptops and information technology (IT) equipment for use by trainers, particularly now that distance learning is used more frequently due to Covid-19. Respondents considered it would have been beneficial to have more contact between the FFE project and the EPFs, with more visits and joint activities. Summarizing the impact of the FFE project on the EPFs, one director explained: One of the most important lessons had to do with bilingual teaching, literacy and nutrition education. Indeed, in addition to benefiting us as a school, it has started to benefit our families, and that is very good and healthy. One trainer welcomed the project: 79 particularly the literacy component, because we have learned a lot and it is very good for the students. We would like this to continue because we have a lot of issues with reading and writing here in Mozambique. Nutrition education within the EPFs Each EPF has a Nutrition Education focal point, trained to transmit knowledge of nutrition to the students, both as part of their teacher education curriculum and within the practical activities within the EPF. The expectation is that EPF graduates are able to include nutrition education in their teaching once they begin teaching in primary schools. Since the EPFs began participating in the nutrition education program, EPFs have created or extended their vegetable gardens; the EPF community has improved their knowledge of food production, including how to use a school garden to improve diet, making the most of the seasonal climatic cycle to produce food, and animal husbandry (production of chickens and ducks); and the EPF menu has improved (for example, through the consumption of chicken and eggs). EPF students apply the knowledge learned by taking part in preparing the menu for the whole college and growing crops in the EPF garden. EPF directors report that the students’ diet has improved as a result, including preparing food using less fat and salt, which has resulted in improvements in their overall health. The improved knowledge of nutrition has extended to the surrounding community, with EPF students supporting the creation of small vegetable gardens in the community. EPF directors reported that the EPF nutrition education was much more detailed and in-depth than the corresponding program in state-run Teacher Training Colleges (TTCs), where nutrition is studied more superficially. With regard to nutrition education there is a high level of collaboration between the EPF and the local government members, who always participate in nutrition education training. One EPF director reported that, as part of the school management and school nutrition curriculum, EPF students conduct research in the community on nutrition practices and participate in taking care of kitchens and farms. The program brought us added value because we trained the primary school teachers in schools where our students did their teaching practice. We also trained our own trainers and students. We have a vegetable garden, which produces different types of produce, with the fundamental aim of creating varied meals - a rainbow of different colors on a plate. The final survey asked EPF trainees which tasks they participated in within the EPF boarding house in relation to food and nutrition. 36% said that they participated in menu planning, 17% in the purchase of food for the EPF community, 63% participated in food preparation, 76% reported participating in gardening to produce food for the EPF community, and 32% said that they helped raise livestock (for example chickens) for consumption. Asked whether they considered the meals served at the EPF to be balanced and nutritious, 73% responded “yes, very,” 22% responded “yes, somewhat,” and 5% said that they did not. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 598- 600. 80 Covid-19 in EPFs For details of how Covid-19 affected the EPFs and of the EPF response to Covid-19, please see page 138. Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators (1.1.5) Indicator 3 (Outcome): Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 210 Final results (September 2020): 222 Final target 106% achieved Indicator 4 (Output): Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 264 Final results (September 2020): 426 Final target 161% achieved Analysis of project records shows that the final target for training school administrators and officials in management and administration of the school feeding program has been surpassed by a wide margin. The midterm school survey included inspection visits of the infrastructure to verify its state of maintenance and cleanliness; results of these inspections were used to calculate the number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques and tools, considering clean kitchens and storerooms as a proxy indicator demonstrating leadership and application of the techniques and tools acquired during training. In order to estimate a final result, in the absence of data from actual observation, the proportion of school directors who reported that the storeroom was cleaned daily (73%) and the proportion of school directors who reported that the kitchen was cleaned daily (91%) at the time of the final evaluation were averaged to establish an estimation that 82% of school directors demonstrate application of the techniques and tools taught during training. When applied to the total of 271 school directors leading project schools, this gives an estimated figure of 222. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 344-349. 81 Attentiveness (1.2) (Outcome): Percentage of teachers who report increased attentiveness of students in the classroom. (Special study indicator). Final target: N/A Final results (September 2020): -6%44 (Outcome): Percentage of students45 in project schools who report increased attentiveness in the classroom. (Special study indicator). Final target: N/A Final results (September 2020): 11% The project’s ToC considers attentiveness in the classroom as an important link in the causal chain whereby reducing short-term hunger is assumed to lead to increased attentiveness in the classroom, leading to fewer problems in learning. Although they do not appear in the project’s contractual indicators, since the beginning of the FFE program evaluations have collected data on these indicators as part of a “special study,” given the importance of this link in the causal chain as described by the project’s ToC. As in previous evaluations, KII and FGD respondents reported that students were more attentive in class since the onset of school feeding. Students were asked at baseline and midterm whether they had problems paying attention in the classroom: at baseline, 38% of pupils in project schools said that they did. A similar number (42%) reported attention problems at midterm. Although it was not possible to collect survey responses from pupils at the final evaluation, parents were asked whether their children had attention problems in the classroom. 73% of parents reported that their children “never” had problems paying attention, 18% that they “sometimes” had problems, and only 3% that they “frequently” had attention problems. 6% of parents said that they didn’t know. Asked whether the children ever had difficulties in learning, 69% of parents reported that this was “never” the case, 25% that they “sometimes” had difficulties, and 2% that they “often” had difficulties in learning. 4% of parents who responded said that they didn’t know. It is unfortunate that it was not possible to gather the students’ own assessment of their level of attentiveness at end point, since their parents’ assessments provide only a very approximate proxy for these. 44 At baseline, 88% of teachers had reported their pupils had attention problems “often” or “sometimes”; this rose to 94% at end point. It should be noted these were not the same teachers. Furthermore, teachers surveyed at the final evaluation have a greater level of awareness of the project’s ambition to reduce concentration problems and associated learning difficulties caused by short-term hunger than at baseline, due to in-service training received as part of the project, and their later responses may reflect this awareness. See discussion in the text, page 84. 45 Parents’ reporting is used here as it was not possible to interview students at end point. 38% of students reported having attention problems at baseline. This estimation is based on the difference between 62% of students not reporting attention problems at baseline and 73% of parents reporting their children never experience attention problems in the classroom at end point. There are considerable problems with comparing students’ and parents’ responses in this way and this estimated result should be treated with caution. 82 When parents were asked whether they had noticed any differences in their children’s behavior after the introduction of the school feeding project, in terms of concentration on learning and school attendance, 73% reported that they had noticed some differences, including finding their children more eager to go to school, more alert and better able to learn. 25% had not, and the remainder were unable to comment as their children were not in school before the introduction of the project. Teachers were also asked about students’ attentiveness in the classroom. When asked whether their pupils ever had problems paying attention during class, 4% of teachers responded “often,” 90% said “sometimes,” and 6% said that this was “never” the case. At baseline, 88% of teachers had reported their pupils had attention problems “often” or “sometimes.” The final evaluation responses are compared with responses at baseline and midterm in figure 33 below. Figure 33: Teachers report whether their students ever have attention problems When teachers were asked whether their students had difficulties learning, 6% of teachers said “frequently,” 86% responded “sometimes,” and 9% said that their students “never” had difficulties in learning. These are compared with responses at baseline and midterm in figure 34 below. At end point, slightly fewer teachers report students “often” have problems learning than at midterm, more “sometimes” and fewer “never.” Once again, it should be borne in mind that the teachers surveyed at end point were not those who had responded at baseline and midterm, and that they were responding after almost an entire school year without teaching. It is therefore impossible to draw any firm conclusions on the basis of this data. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Often Sometimes Never No response Teachers' Reporting of Pupils' Attention Problems Baseline Midterm Final 83 Figure 34: Teachers report whether their students ever have difficulty learning Asked whether they had observed differences in student behaviour in terms of concentration on learning since the introduction of the school feeding project, 75% of teachers reported that they had observed differences and 3% said that they had not. Differences cited included improved punctuality, improved attendance, improved physical appearance, improved learning, increased concentration and better motivation. Around 22% of teachers were unable to answer, as they had not been present in schools prior to the introduction of the project. These are compared with the parents’ responses to the same question in figure 35. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 163-167, 462-465. Figure 35: Parents and teachers report whether they have observed differences in pupils’ behavior since the introduction of school feeding 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Often Sometimes Never No response Teachers' Report of Pupils with Difficulty in Learning Baseline Midterm Final 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Observed differences No difference Unable to comment Changes in Pupils' Behavior Since Introduction of School Feeding Parents Teachers 84 These responses, where parents and teachers are asked to look back and assess changes over the period of the project, offer a rather more optimistic picture of positive change than the comparison of the previous responses over three time points. It is unfortunate that it was not possible to collect data from the pupils themselves at the final evaluation, as was done at baseline and midterm; the parents’ responses are informative in their own right but do not provide adequate grounds for comparison with the earlier time points. Likewise, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions from the teachers’ responses. Although these were gathered at all three time points, they cannot be considered strictly comparable as the survey reflects responses from different groups of teachers between the baseline and final evaluations. Teachers surveyed at the final evaluation have a greater level of awareness of the project’s ambition to reduce concentration problems and associated learning difficulties caused by short-term hunger than at baseline, due to in-service training received as part of the project, and their later responses may reflect this awareness. It is also worth pointing out that it is not only in Mozambique that teachers of primary school students experience their students having difficulties paying attention at times; primary teachers in countries where few children come to school hungry also encounter similar challenges. Furthermore, the final survey was conducted approximately nine months after Covid-related school closures, hence the teachers were reporting impressions based on memory of pupils in the classroom rather than on present experience. The data presented here, therefore, must be viewed as an attempt to capture a complex indicator with many contributing variables and interpreted with caution and in association with other data sources such as the qualitative information gathered from multiple respondents and, indeed, the EGRA data. Short-term hunger (1.2.1) (Outcome): Percentage of teachers who report reduced short-term hunger of students in the classroom. Final target: N/A Final results (September 2020): -11%46 (Outcome): Percentage of students in project schools who report reduced short-term hunger in the classroom. Final target: N/A Final results (September 2020): 49%47 46 87% of teachers reported their students “sometimes” or “often” appeared hungry at school at end point, compared with 76% at baseline. This result should be treated with caution, not least because project training means that teachers at end point are more aware of the signs of short-term hunger in pupils. Furthermore, this was contradicted by the parents’ responses. See discussion on page 86. 47 11% of parents reported their children “sometimes” or “often” appeared hungry during the school day at end point, compared with 60% of students who reported “sometimes” feeling hungry at school at baseline. Prudence is required since these data sources are not strictly comparable. 85 During one of the rare focus group discussions with volunteer cooks, the relationship between short-term hunger and learning was clearly expressed by one participant: When they arrive here at school hungry, without having eaten anything, they don’t understand, they don’t grasp the contents of the lesson the teacher is teaching and explaining. At baseline and midterm evaluations, students were asked whether they sometimes felt hungry in the classroom. At baseline, 60% of pupils in intervention schools said that this was the case. By midterm this had dropped to 42%. Unfortunately, it was not possible to survey the students at the final evaluation, however parents were asked whether their children appeared to be hungry during the school day. 89% of parents reported that their children “never” appeared to be hungry, with 9% saying that they “sometimes” appeared hungry and around 2% “frequently.” These results are summarized in figure 36 below. They appear to show a dramatic drop in student hunger in the intervention group between baseline and final evaluations, although previously expressed caveats should be noted. Figure 36: Reports (by students and parents) of students feeling hungry during the school day At the final evaluation, teachers were also asked whether their students ever appeared to be hungry during the school day. Their responses were very different from those of the parents. 17% of teachers said that this was “frequently” the case, 70% “sometimes,” and 14% reported that their students “never” appeared to be hungry. Teachers reported that signs of hunger amongst their pupils include looking tired or sleeping, dilated pupils, appearing demotivated, lacking energy, lacking concentration and poor participation in the class. Figure 37 compares these with responses at baseline and midterm. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 162-163, 461. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Baseline Midterm Final Pupils Sometimes Hungry at School 86 Figure 37: Teachers report whether pupils ever appear hungry at school As with the information on attentiveness, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the information from teachers presented here. Although a high percentage of teachers at the final evaluation report that their pupils “sometimes” appear to be hungry during the school day, exposure to project training means that teachers are likely to be far more aware of short-term hunger and its effects than previously. Also, the question does not make clear whether it refers to students appearing hungry before or after receiving food at school (it is conceivable that a question making the distinction between how students appeared before eating and after eating would have received different responses). Furthermore, as mentioned above, the lengthy period of Covid￾related school closure means that teachers had to respond from memory rather than current experience. For all these reasons, this data needs to be considered together with the other sources of information (parents’ survey responses, KII and FGD data) which appear to show overall a considerable decrease in students’ hunger during the school day. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Often Sometimes Never No response Pupils Appear to be Hungry at School Baseline Midterm Final 87 Access to food (school feeding) (1.2.1.1) Indicator 15 (Output): Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school￾age children as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 48,100,000 Final results (September 2020): 43,524,76548 Final target 90% achieved49 Indicator 16 (Output): Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 74,000; (new: 2,000; continuing: 72,000; female: 26,260; male: 37,740) Final results (September 2020): 90,278 (new: 2,178; continuing: 88,100; female: 44,159; male: 46,119) Target 122% achieved (new: 109%; continuing: 122%; female: 168%; male: 122%) Indicator 17 (Output): Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance Final target: 74,000; (new: 2,000; continuing: 72,000; female: 26,260; male: 37,740) Final results (September 2020): 90,278 (new: 2,178; continuing: 88,100; female: 44,159; male: 46,119) Target 122% achieved (new: 109%; continuing: 122%; female: 168%; male: 122%) Quantity of take home rations provided (in metric tons) as a result of USDA assistance Final target: 588.35 Final results (September 2020): 588.35 Final target 100% achieved Number of school-age children receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance Final target: 89,921 (female: 44,061; male: 45,860) Final results (September 2020): 89,921 (female: 44,061; male: 45,860) Final target 100% achieved (female: 100%; male: 100%) We feel very happy and the children too because …/…when they come to school they know that, as well as studying and learning, they will also eat and go home without feeling hungry, and well fed (volunteer cook). Analysis of project records showed the number of meals provided by the project to be very close to the target (97% as of September 2020). Since schools had been closed for most of 2020 and Corn Soy Blend-Plus (CSB+) distributed in the form of take-home rations for much of that period, this is an achievement (it is also helped by the fact that the numbers of children benefiting from school feeding are slightly above the target). 48 This figure is the last number reported of meals provided in schools prior to closure. 49 Results are reported against final targets. The target for September 2020 had been 97% achieved as of the end of September. It was not possible to meet 100% of this indicator target due to Covid-19 school closures and the cessation of school feeding. However, please see the indicators for CSB+ distributed as take-home rations. 88 The final evaluation survey for parents of students in project schools included questions about the school meals provided by the project. 94% of the parents responding to the survey said that they thought the project’s organization of school lunches had been “excellent” or “good.” Teachers also had positive opinions about the organization of the school lunches: 55% reported that it was “excellent” and 45% that it was “good.” Around 62%, however, thought that there were aspects that could be improved. A wide variety of examples was cited, many referring to provision of incentives for participating teachers and cooks, the motivation and competence of the volunteer cooks and the equipment provided. 57% of the parents reported that the family’s diet at home had changed after the introduction of the school lunch. A greater number (82%) reported that the number of meals served to children at home had changed after the introduction of the school lunch, with 98% saying that children ate less at home than previously. All schools received a complete set of utensils needed for school feeding, however when the school survey, completed by a relatively small proportion of the school directors approached, was conducted, the following results were reported. 64% of schools responded that the existing school utensils were sufficient for preparing and distributing the food. 36% replied that there were insufficient utensils. Of the schools that mentioned a lack of utensils, 30% reported a lack of pans, 55% insufficient number of bowls, 65% a lack of spoons, 65% a lack of cups, 45% a lack of basins, 70% insufficient buckets, 45% insufficient jars, and 15% a lack of scales. 20% reported a lack of other implements. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 124-126, 368-370, 452-454, 479-482. Student attendance (1.3) Indicator 1 (Outcome): Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools. Final target: 59,200 (female: 29,008; male: 30,192)50 Final results (September 2020): 87,453 (female: 44,165; male: 43,288) [if 80% used: 69,962 (female: 35,332; male: 34,630)] Final target 148% achieved (female: 152%; male: 143%) [if 80% used: 118% achieved (female: 122%; male: 115%)] Analysis of project monitoring data demonstrates that final targets for school attendance have been surpassed. At the time of the final evaluation, schools had been closed for nine months; these figures are based on the 50The targets for this indicator as set out in the contractual Attachment E in Amendment #5 are based on 80% of the target for students benefiting from school feeding; however, results are reported by the project based on 100% of the results of students benefiting from school feeding, which makes the target appear to have been surpassed by more than is actually the case. It was recommended in the midterm evaluation report that the targets and measurement of this indicator should be amended from 80% of students attending school to the numbers of student who achieve 80% school attendance, to allow the project to report on this indicator as intended. 89 project’s own reporting system which uses the biannual report reporting the highest number of meals distributed (in this case report 8, in September 2019). There are two points to be borne in mind here, already pointed out in previous evaluation reports: i) Although the indicator of 80% attendance is taken by the project to mean 80% of the numbers of students receiving food, the intention of the MGD indicator refers to the number of students who attend school at least 80% of the time. For this reason, calculations based on 80% of the project numbers are included in square brackets in the box above. ii) Previous evaluations have not been able to establish attendance data and have had to use the proxy indicator of school feeding data used by the project, due in part to the reluctance of teachers to fill in an extra register (as discussed in previous evaluations). It is still the case that it is not possible to verify independently the claims by project stakeholders that school attendance has improved since the introduction of school feeding, however qualitative data collected for the final evaluation provides support for claims that the project has had a positive impact on student attendance: The children are lively, knowing that when they get to school they will receive food: they’re much more willing to come and never think of missing school, never think of staying away (district education official). Number of after-school learning clubs active in project schools. Final target: 600 Final results (September 2020): 802 Final target 134% achieved Number of school children participating in clubs. Final target: 11,300 Final results (September 2020): 13,201 Final target 117% achieved Support to extra-curricular learning clubs is intended to promote increased school attendance and student attainment. After-school clubs are led by teachers and volunteers. Of the schools that responded to the final evaluation survey, 54 (all but one) reported having one or more learning clubs. Although a relatively small number of school directors responded to this survey, compared with the response at midterm, the high percentage of schools with learning clubs is corroborated by the teachers, of whom 93% reported that one or more extracurricular learning clubs had been created at their schools. Of the schools with clubs, the most frequently reported number was three clubs (41% of the schools). 22% reported having one or two clubs, and 37% said that they had more than three learning clubs. Of those schools which report having clubs, all reported having reading clubs, 96% reported having mathematics clubs, 37% have school garden clubs, and 39% have social science clubs. 90 28% of the teachers reported that all of their students participated regularly in the club(s), 39% said that most students participated regularly, 27% that some of their students participated regularly, and only 4% that participation was “irregular.” Around 3% of teachers said that they didn’t know. A large majority (98%) thought that student participation in the clubs improved their classroom performance. Improvements cited included being more active, participating better in class and being more interested in learning, in addition to clubs helping with individual areas of learning, such as reading or mathematics. One school head reported: We speak about learning clubs in numeracy or literacy, where the pupil learns in the school garden and in some other lessons. Children can learn a lot of things in that moment. We also have opportunities for children to learn to read and write in Portuguese outside of normal lessons, in the extra time we organize. All but one of the schools with learning clubs surveyed report seeing “some differences” in the children who participate in the clubs. 49% report that they are more active in regular classes, 87% report improved student performance, and 55% report improvements in the pupils’ communication and expression. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 126-129, 394-397, 420. KIIs with project staff, school leaders and government officials reveal that after-school clubs have helped students’ learning. It was necessary to make teachers, as well as students, aware of the benefits of school clubs. Once they understood the rationale for after-school learning clubs, they were more supportive. The project tried to take account of teachers’ feedback in improving how school clubs functioned. Project staff reported that school clubs had benefited from advice and collaboration from the provincial monitoring team and from the district education services. Likewise, they report some level of ownership of the clubs, including students taking part in school club activities, with the eldest or the brightest students assuming leadership. The project organized quarterly meetings for volunteer club monitors to voice their concerns and complaints and to seek for common solutions to these. Project staff emphasized the integrated approach to education promoted by after-school learning clubs: Learning isn’t limited to the classroom … we need to cultivate the spirit of learning in every area of our lives because that’s what life is about. Project staff said that they were in the process of implementing the recommendations from the midterm evaluation report, including more rigorous reporting systems to gather evidence of club membership and activities, when the Covid-19 pandemic began. Due to the closure of schools, many project activities were unable to take place, and a program of revitalizing after-school clubs with new registration procedures had to be cut short. 91 School infrastructure (1.3.3) Indicator 7 (Output): Number of kitchens, storerooms and firewood-saving stoves maintained as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 792 (kitchens: 264; storerooms: 264; firewood-saving stoves: 264) Final results (September 2020): 1,852 maintenance activities (kitchens: 516; storerooms: 825; firewood-saving stoves: 511)51 Final target 234% achieved (kitchens: 195%; storerooms: 313%; firewood-saving stoves: 194%) Analysis of project records at the final evaluation reveals that the targets for maintaining the school infrastructure provided by the project (in terms of the number of interventions to maintain kitchens, storerooms and firewood-saving stoves) have been surpassed, with more than twice the final target met as of September 2020. It should be borne in mind that these numbers refer to maintenance interventions performed (for example door and stove repairs and maintenance of ventilation systems), not to the number of installations maintained (the project has a total of 270 kitchens, 268 storerooms and 271 firewood-saving stoves). The evaluation also sought to understand how infrastructure was being maintained at school level. The midterm school survey included inspection visits of the infrastructure to verify its state of maintenance and cleanliness. It was not possible to conduct these visits as part of the final evaluation; however, questions about maintenance and cleanliness routines were asked of the school directors as part of the remote survey. In these final evaluation surveys, 73% of schools reported that the storeroom was cleaned daily, 24% weekly, and 4% twice a week. The storeroom is cleaned by volunteer cooks in 42% of schools, by pupils in 25% of schools, by the teacher who is the storeroom supervisor in 76% of schools and school council members in 7% of schools. 5% reported that other people clean the storeroom (it was possible to give several responses). Final evaluation surveys recorded 91% of schools reporting that the kitchen was cleaned daily, 5% weekly, and 4% twice a week. In 80% of schools, volunteer cooks are amongst those who clean the kitchens; in 35% of schools, pupils contribute to cleaning the kitchen, the teacher who is storeroom supervisor contributes in 27% of schools and a member of the school council in 11% of schools. 7% of schools report that other people contribute to cleaning the kitchen. 38% of schools report having a maintenance plan at the time of the final evaluation. Of these, 78% say their maintenance plan is followed. In schools which have a maintenance plan, the plan is known to school council members in 87% of schools, to school leaders in 9%, to project staff not linked to the school in 13%, to the 51 These numbers refer to maintenance interventions performed. 92 director in 17%, the pedagogical director in 13% and other people in 9%, demonstrating the key role played by school councils in maintaining the school feeding infrastructure. The midterm evaluation had recommended more widespread use of maintenance plans in schools. Given the relatively low response to the final survey, it is difficult to ascertain whether they were more widely adopted between midterm and end point. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 344-353. Enrolment (1.3.4) Indicator 8 (Outcome): Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance. Final target: 74,000 (female: 36,260; male: 37,740) Final results (September 2020): 90,278 (female: 44,159; male: 46,119) Final target 122% achieved (female: 122% achieved; male: 122% achieved) The project ToC considers enrolment in project schools as a prerequisite to attendance and, therefore, to improved learning. Analysis of records provided by the project, based on data from SDEJT and DPEDH, reveals that the targets for enrolment of students have been surpassed. As in previous evaluations, interview and focus group informants overwhelmingly claimed that enrolment had increased, and dropouts decreased as a result of the projects’ activities, particularly school feeding. As one informant explained: School feeding is very important because it means the child stays in school…/… it motivates the pupil. When the pupil knows that at 9.30 there will be food, they are not going to miss school. During the final evaluation, as in previous evaluations, enrollment and dropout data gathered by the DPEDH was analyzed to establish whether this provided independent support for these claims. Figures 38 and 39 below show the primary school dropout rates in the four project districts based on the DPEDH data from 2012 to 2019 (over the course of the FFE project). These appear to show an overall decline in the dropout rates in the project districts of Manhiça, Magude, Matutuíne and Moamba, particularly in EP2. In EP1, the percentages of dropouts across project districts fell from 9.1% in 2012, the year before the project commenced, to 5.1% in 2019, the last year for which data were available. In EP2, the percentage for these districts fell from 11.8% in 2012 to 5.1% in 2019. DPEDH data establishes dropout rates in terms of the difference between numbers of students enrolled at the beginning of the school year and those still present in schools at the year end. Unfortunately, as at the midterm evaluation, some uncertainty remains as to the quality of the information provided by the DPEDH; however an overall trend of reduction in dropouts is clearly visible.52 52 Although the DPEDH did make the requested information available to the evaluation team, a number of discrepancies were observed in the data; most notably, several dropout rates appearing as negative percentages, with a higher number of students recorded at year’s end than at enrolment. When this was raised 93 Figure 38 and 39: Primary school dropout rates in project districts recorded by the DPEDH, 2012 to 2019 The percentage of dropout rates in the non-project districts of Maputo Province, Matola, Boane and Namaacha,53 on the other hand, remained relatively stable over the same timespan: in EP1, this was recorded with DPEDH they explained that this was due to students transferring to teacher training or technical vocational schools after 3 March, when they reviewed rates of enrolment and dropout. The fact that these transfer students were not disaggregated means that a comparison of the enrolment numbers at enrolment and at the end of the year would not reveal an accurate dropout rate. Furthermore, this does not seem a plausible explanation for the few negative figures that were recorded for the primary school totals. 53 The data for Marracuene showed several negative dropout rates; it was therefore considered discrepant and is not included in this analysis. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP1 Average Dropout Rates across Project Districts, 2012-2019 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP2 Average Dropout Rates across Project Districts, 2012-2019 94 as 5.1% in 2012 and in 2019, and in EP2 the dropout rate fell from 4.4% in 2012 to 3.7% in 2019. See figures 40 and 41 below. Figure 40 and 41: Primary school dropout rates recorded by the DPEDH in non-project districts, 2012 to 2019 Figures 42 through 45 below compare the dropout rates recorded in project districts, disaggregated by district, with those recorded in other districts of Maputo province. Compared with the other districts, the project districts show an overall downward trend in Matutuine, Manhiça and Moamba (EP1) and in all project districts for EP2 whereas the rates for EP1 actually rise over the period in question in Magude. Despite annual variation, the overall pattern in all three non-project districts does not evolve over the same timeframe. Bearing in mind the caveats previously stated, this provides support for the claim that the project has led to a reduction in dropouts. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP1 Average Dropout Rate across Other Districts, 2012- 2019 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP2 Average Dropout Rate across Other Districts, 2012- 2019 95 Figure 42: EP1 dropout rates by district (project schools), 2012 to 2019 Figure 43: EP2 dropout rates by district (project schools), 2012 to 2019 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP1 Dropout Rates in Project Districts, 2012-2019 Magude Manhiça Matutuíne Moamba 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP2 Dropout Rates in Project Districts, 2012-2019 Magude Manhiça Matutuíne Moamba 96 Figure 44: EP1 dropout rates by district (non-project schools), 2012 to 2019 Figure 45: EP2 dropout rates by district (non-project schools), 2012 to 2019 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP1 Dropout Rates in Other Districts, 2012-2019 Boane Matola Namaacha 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EP2 Dropout Rates in Other Districts, 2012-2019 Boane Matola Namaacha 97 Capacity of government institutions (1.4.1) This indicator appears with different MGD numbers under both SO1 and SO2. For discussion of capacity of government institutions, please refer to the section Capacity of government institutions (2.7.1) on page 122 below. Government support (1.4.3) Indicator 11 (Outcome): Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: $80,000 Final results (September 2020): $401,292.00 Final target 502% achieved At the time of the final evaluation, the project reports two investments leveraged through public-private partnerships, $69,292 through CCS-Help code and $332,000 through ONGAWA (see details in the following section). Engagement of Local Organizations and Community output (1.4.4) Indicator 9 (Output): Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 264 Final results (September 2020): 271 Final target 103% achieved Indicator 10 (Output): Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 2 Final results (September 2020): 2 Final target 100% achieved This indicator appears with different MGD numbers under both SO1 and SO2. Section 2.7.4 of this report on page 123 addresses other aspects of engagement of local organizations and community output under SO2. All schools have a school feeding committee (SFC) responsible for the administration of the project at school level. Previous evaluation reports have examined the level of implication of these SFCs and concluded they are overall extremely engaged in and have a high level of ownership of the project at school level. The final evaluation of the project interviewed two SFCs, observing Covid-19-safe practices, and included a survey of parents that sought, in part, to gather their opinions about the project, shedding light on their attitudes as well as ownership and engagement of the project. 98 When asked whether they thought that students’ families should participate in the preparation of school lunches, 28% said that they felt families should help in the collection of firewood, in exchange for incentives; 52% said that they should help collect firewood without any incentives. 24% said that they felt families should assist in the provision of water for the school lunches, in exchange for incentives; 37% said they should do so without any incentives. 34% said that families should participate in making the soy porridge in exchange for incentives; 45% that they should do this without receiving incentives. 25% said that families should participate in the school gardens in exchange for incentives, while 33% said that families should help in the school gardens without incentives. Fewer than 2% parents said that families should not participate at all. This shows a willingness on the part of many parents to participate in the preparation of school lunches without incentives. However, it reveals a persistent belief amongst a significant minority of parents that incentives are needed to compensate families for the loss of time or income involved in contributing to school feeding activities. This is the first time a quantitative survey of parents has been conducted within the scope of a project evaluation. These findings echo the qualitative findings of previous reports. The results are shown in figure 46 below. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 456-459. Figure 46: Percentage of parents who think parents/families should participate in preparation of school lunches Since the midterm evaluation, the project formed two public-private partnerships with USDA assistance, one with CCS-Help Code in Moamba and another with ONGAWA in Manhiça. At Ngolhosa primary school in Moamba, CCS-Help Code constructed and equipped four classrooms; in Manhiça ONGAWA constructed blocks of latrines in 33 schools, following the UNICEF ratio of 40 girls per latrine and 50 boys per latrine, and also constructed and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Collection of Firewood Provision of Water Preparing Soya Porridge Help in the School Gardens Assistance in Preparation of School Lunches In Exchange for Incentives Without Incentives 99 rehabilitated water systems. These constitute public-private partnerships, as the SDEJT assisted the project to identify organizations which could leverage the USDA investment. Use of Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices (SO2) The project’s second large strategic objective (SO2) concerns the use of health, nutrition and dietary practices. In addition to being an important objective in its own right, within the change pathway envisaged by the project ToC, SO2 feeds directly into SO1, since improved health, nutrition and diet are expected to contribute to improved student attendance and therefore, ultimately, improved literacy of school-aged children. Strategic Objective 2: Notable Achievements The project delivered training in good hygiene practice, including training nearly 13,000 volunteer cooks in health and hygiene. 85% of students demonstrate acceptable knowledge of health and hygiene practices; food preparers at target schools have been trained in hand washing, safe food preparation and storage practices. In total, over 25,000 individuals have been trained in child health and nutrition. Parents, students, teachers, and trainee teachers report having received training from the project in a variety of topics related to nutrition and hygiene, and claim to have shared the information widely within the community. Survey respondents overwhelmingly felt that the nutrition training had created positive changes in their lives. The impact of the program is reflected by an increased focus on nutrition and school feeding by the MINEDH, including the creation of the Department of Nutrition and School Health, and by the fact that primary teachers in project schools are incorporating nutrition content into their lessons. School gardens have been encouraged and supported since the inception of the project, with 60 school gardens developed and maintained to the benefit of around 20,000 school children. Eight large-scale Home Grown School Feeding Gardens (HGSFGs) provide more diversified food to students and their families and have become particularly significant during the Covid-19 pandemic. Project agricultural technicians report that the HGSFGs provide the surrounding communities with a healthier diet and the potential to create jobs and increased cash flow. They report that communities have learned significantly since the midterm evaluation, applying newly-learned farming techniques and environmentally sustainable approaches to their own small-scale agricultural production. Project records reveal that all of the project schools are using an improved water source, resulting in almost 90,000 school children benefitting from clean water sources. This has had a transformative effect on communities. School water committees are responsible for management and regular maintenance and cleaning of the water infrastructure, an important step towards autonomy and sustainability after the project’s end. 100 Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practice (2.1) (Outcome): Percentage of students that demonstrate acceptable knowledge of health and hygiene practices. Final target: 50% Final results (September 2020): 85% Final target 170% achieved Number of volunteer cooks receiving health and hygiene training. Final target: 8,468 Final results (September 2020): 12,977 Final target 153% achieved Number of people trained in good hygiene practices. Final target: 8,400 Final results (September 2020): 23,141 Final target 275% achieved Analysis of the project records demonstrates that the targets for training in good hygiene practice, including training volunteer cooks in health and hygiene, have been surpassed. Likewise, 93% of project schools that responded to the final evaluation survey reported that the volunteer cooks responsible for school feeding within that school had received training in good hygiene practices and nutrition from project staff during the previous year. Sanitation facilities have been constructed and maintained, leading to more than 88,000 school children benefitting from access to latrines and hand washing facilities. Students have received deworming medications, with door-to-door distribution of the medication at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic: as one informant explained, ‘School closures posed a challenge but, as a matter of public health, we had to reinvent ourselves.’ Distribution of laundry and dish soap to volunteers continued, with soap being distributed to over 8,000 volunteers as of the final evaluation. This relatively small incentive provided significant returns in volunteer motivation and commitment. 369 government officials received training in nutrition and close to 2,500 local leaders and school council members attended school feeding project management training. This was widely held to be useful by those receiving it, and it is hoped that such training will enable the continuing of certain project activities after the project’s closure. 101 During two rare focus group with volunteer cooks, conducted using Covid-19 safe methods, they explained that they had learned that kitchens should be clean when cooking, that they should also be clean and should wear a headscarf and long sleeves. They had been taught how to wash their hands and the plates and reported having observed children being taught how to wash their hands. They reported a certain discrepancy between this training and the facilities available and that a covered area to prepare the food and to wash dishes would be better, since the simple tin roof and cement floor of the kitchen area meant that the volunteer cooks were exposed to the elements and dust frequently got into the food. Likewise, during a unique focus group with a SFC, also conducted using Covid-19 safe methods, the committee members reported having been taught to wash their hands with water and soap, and how to cook and eat a variety of foods (the hygiene and nutrition training was combined). They reported that all members of the committee had been trained, with 36 individuals in their school community receiving training: We were taught how to wash our hands with soap, we put water in a bucket and got the children to also wash their hands, but not in the same place, before they received their dish of soy. At baseline and midterm evaluations, pupils were asked a series of questions to assess their knowledge of good health and hygiene practices. Since at the final evaluation it was not possible to interview pupils, parents and teachers were asked at the final survey whether they had observed any differences in the hygiene practices of their children since the introduction of the project, for example an increase in hand-washing after going to the bathroom and before eating. 79% of parents said that they had observed some differences. 20% said that they had not, and a small number were unable to comment as their children had not been in school before the introduction of the project. Around 31% reported that they also noticed other differences in their children after the introduction of the project. A large majority (98%) of parents reported that their children applied their learning about health and hygiene at home. Of the teachers surveyed, 75% reported that they had noticed changes in the students’ hygiene practices since the project’s introduction, 4% had not, and 21% were unable to comment as they had not been present in schools prior to the introduction of the project. Differences noted included students washing hands before eating and after using the latrine, having better general hygiene and overall presentation, including cleaner school uniforms, and students participating in cleaning the school. Figure 47 compares these figures with the percentage of parents who observed differences in the students’ hygiene practices. 102 Figure 47: Parents and teachers report changes in pupils’ hygiene practices after introduction of school feeding 63% of teachers said that they had also noticed other differences since the introduction of the project, 15% had not noticed other differences, and 22% were unable to comment as they had not been present in schools prior to the introduction of the project. Teachers cited improved punctuality, motivation and participation, amongst other differences noted. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 168-170, 389, 465-467, 477-478. Knowledge of Safe Food Preparation and Storage Practices (2.2) Indicator 20 (Output): Number of food preparers at target schools trained in hand washing, safe food preparation and storage practices. Final target: 10,560 (female: 10,032; male: 528)54 Final results (September 2020): 13,008 (female: 12,732; male: 245) Final target 123% achieved (female 127%; male: 46%) Analysis of the project records demonstrate that the targets for training volunteer cooks in handwashing and safe preparation and storage of food have been surpassed. 93% of respondents to the school survey also reported that the volunteer cooks responsible for school feeding within that school had received training in 54 Despite the formulation of the indicator, the numbers reported here refer to individual training activities, as opposed to individuals trained: in reality, several individuals received training and follow-up training on a number of occasions. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Observed differences No difference Unable to comment Changes in Pupils' Hygiene Practices Since the Start of the Project Parents Teachers 103 handwashing and safe food preparation and storage from project staff during the previous year (compared with 89% at baseline and 82% at midterm). For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 389. During a rare focus group discussion, a volunteer cook explained that she had appreciated the training in food preparation and serving: it was good because that was how we learned how to do it, to cook the soy and look after the children. Knowledge of Nutrition (2.3) Indicator 19 (Outcome): Number of people trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 10,300 (female: 7,519; male: 2,781) Final results (September 2020): 25,451 (female: 18,544; male: 6,907) Final target 247% achieved (female 247%; male: 248%) The nutrition education program was implemented by a dedicated team, managed and supported by WISHH and based in the project headquarters, from the onset of the project until 2019. The nutrition education component was progressively phased out in 2019, with the project team supporting the nutrition education activities during 2020, as part of the plan to promote sustainability. Beneficiaries and dissemination of nutrition training Analysis of project records reveals that FFE2 targets for training individuals in child health and nutrition have been greatly surpassed. 93% of project schools that responded to the final evaluation survey reported that the volunteer cooks responsible for school feeding within that school had received training in nutrition from project staff during the previous year. Around 41% of the parents surveyed at the final evaluation also claimed to have received training in nutrition and hygiene from the project. Of the parents who received the training, 92% of parents reported receiving training in hygiene, 38% in food groups, 57% in food hygiene and storage, 74% in handwashing, and 39% in a balanced diet. Parents were asked with whom they had shared the information learned during this training. 60% reported having shared it with their children, 67% with other family members, and 46% with members of the community. Only around 4% said that they had not shared the information with anyone. 78% of the parents who received the training felt that it had created changes in their lives. Although it was not possible to interview students at end point, around 76% of the parents surveyed reported that their children had received training in nutrition and hygiene from the project at school. 93% of these received training in hygiene, 33% in food groups, 37% in food hygiene and storage, 75% in handwashing, and 104 28% in a balanced diet. Parents were asked with whom their children had shared the information. 19% reported that their children had shared this information with their siblings, 58% had shared it with their parents, 10% with other members of their family, and 9% with members of the community. Only 3% said that their children had not shared the information with anyone. 77% of the parents whose children received the nutrition training felt that it had created changes in their children’s lives. EPF students were asked a similar series of questions pertaining to nutrition and hygiene at the final evaluation. 89% of the EPF students said that they received specific training in nutrition and hygiene from the EPF. 81% said that this included training in hygiene, 65% received training in food groups, 83% in food hygiene and storage, 70% in handwashing, and 67% in a balanced diet. Asked with whom they had shared or intended to share this information, 72% reported that they would share it with their students (once they began to teach), 56% with parents and guardians, 57% shared it with their families, 43% with the School Council (once they began to teach), and 58% with the community. 11% reported having shared the information with other people not mentioned on the survey. 94% said that they felt the nutrition training had created changes in their lives. 77% of the teachers who responded to the survey of primary school teachers said that they had received nutrition training as part of the project (compared with 71% at midterm and 81% at baseline). 78% of those who received the training said that this included training in hygiene, 90% received training in food groups, 79% in food hygiene and storage, 78% in handwashing, and 69% in a balanced diet. These are compared to the figures at midterm and baseline in figure 48 below. All reveal relatively high levels of training received (or recalled), although the focus between evaluations varied to some extent. Figure 48: Teachers Reporting Types of Nutrition Training Received as Part of the Project 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Hygiene Food groups Food hygiene & storage Handwashing Balanced diet Teachers Receiving Nutrition Training Baseline Midterm Final 105 Asked with whom they had shared the information learned during nutrition training, 96% of the teachers reported that they had shared it with students, 68% with parents and guardians, 67% shared it with their families, 45% with the school council, and 48% with the community. 6% reported having shared the information with other people not mentioned on the survey. These figures suggest progress in sharing the information received more widely (or at least the aspiration to do so!). These are compared to the same figures at midterm and baseline below in figure 49. Figure 49: Teachers’ Reporting of Sharing Nutrition Education When asked how the teachers who received training in nutrition disseminated the information, 98% of school directors surveyed reported that teachers in their school shared the information directly with other teachers, 98% that they organized meetings between teachers to include nutrition materials in their lesson plans, 100% said that they included the subject of nutrition in their students’ classes, 96% distributed nutrition information at students’ graduation ceremonies, and 100% said that they had organized a session of health awareness and cleaning in the school. All but one of the school directors responding to the final school survey reported having received nutrition materials from the project: 89% reported receiving nutrition posters; 76% of schools received pamphlets; 78% said they had received school feeding manuals. In the school survey all of the schools that received nutrition materials reported that these were being used: 94% reported teachers using them in the classroom; 91% that they were displayed on the wall of the kitchen, storeroom or teachers’ room; and 44% reported distributing them to pupils. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 170-171, 173-176, 387-393, 467-479, 592-597. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pupils Parents & guardians Own families School council Community With Whom Teachers Shared Nutrition Information Baseline Midterm Final 106 Impact of nutrition training In responding to the survey of teachers, all but one of the teachers said that they felt the nutrition training had created changes in their lives. When asked to give more details of these changes, 86% of the teachers chose the option: “The way I cook/prepare meals is healthier now that I understand the principles of a balanced diet,” 76% that since the training “I know how to keep food safely,” 62% that their diet had improved, 62% that their family’s diet had improved, 43% said that their health had improved, and 47% that the health of their family members had improved. Similarly, all but one of the teachers who responded also said that they felt the nutrition training had created changes in the lives of their students. 86% said that their students’ personal hygiene had improved, 34% that the students’ diet had improved, 54% reported that their students were able to explain the principles of nutrition, and 60% said that their students looked healthier. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 176-181. Teachers and EPF students who responded to the surveys were asked to name two examples of each of the four main food groups which had been taught within the nutrition education program: base foods, protein-rich foods, foods rich in vitamins/minerals and energy/calorie-rich foods. Teachers performed better on this task than EPF students. The majority of teachers were able to correctly name two examples of each food group, with between 85% and 90% able to name two examples of base foods and foods rich in vitamins/minerals (see figure 51 below). The majority of EPF students were able to name two examples of protein-rich foods and foods rich in vitamins/minerals; they did less well with base foods and energy/calorie-rich foods (see figure 50 below). Overall, the teachers demonstrated more familiarity with the food groups as taught within the nutrition education program. Figure 50: Percent of EPF students able to provide 0, 1, or 2 examples from each food group 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Base foods Protein-rich foods Vitamin- and mineral￾rich foods Energy/calorie-rich foods EPF Students Provide Examples of Different Food Groups 2 examples 1 example No examples 107 Figure 51: Percent of teachers able to provide 0, 1, or 2 examples from each food group Although the nutrition education program ended in 2019, members of the nutrition education team were interviewed for the purposes of the final evaluation. Asked to look back and assess the impact of the program’s almost 7 years, a year after its closure, they considered that the program had contributed to placing nutrition on the agenda, with institutional and individual stakeholders from senior government to rural communities all aware of the importance of nutrition. This is reflected by the creation of the department of Nutrition and School Health in the MINEDH, on the one hand, and by the fact that primary teachers in project schools are incorporating nutrition content into their lessons, on the other. The former nutrition education team believe that community members now know how to eat a balanced diet using what is available. Lessons learned from the program include the importance of involving national and provincial government from the beginning in the development of nutrition education materials, so as to promote ownership of these materials. The final evaluation revealed that, in the time between the midterm evaluation and the closure of the nutrition education program, the nutrition education team had implemented the recommendations of the midterm evaluation, conducting exit workshops in EPFs and for project schools to ensure the training undertaken and materials produced would be well used after the close of the program. Responsibility for nutrition education was transferred to the core FFE team, with a number of professionals specializing in the area and overall nutrition education leadership undertaken by the staff member responsible for after-school clubs, who was trained for this task, with the intention that nutrition education should be incorporated into after-school activities. Government officials at national, provincial and district level were sensitized and trained in nutrition education. A large number of the communications materials which had been positively reviewed by the midterm evaluation were distributed to schools and EPFs, so that they should have a supply of these, at least for the 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Base foods Protein-rich foods Vitamin- and mineral￾rich foods Energy/calorie-rich foods Teachers Provide Examples of Different Food Groups 2 examples 1 example No examples 108 immediate future. The midterm evaluation had also recommended that nutrition education should be made more practical, using very concrete real-life examples, and less theoretical. Unfortunately, during the remote final evaluation data gathering it was not possible to assess through observation or other direct methods to what extent this recommendation was implemented. During a rare focus group with volunteer cooks, conducted using Covid-19 safe methods, including social distancing, the volunteers reported that they had learned that a healthy diet must include different types of food, including starch, protein and fruit. They reported feeding xima, mapata, manioc and pumpkin leaves to their children, all locally available forms of nutritious plant-based foods. When asked, they affirmed that all children (boys and girls of all age groups) are served the same amount of food. A group of volunteer cooks in a different district also declared that they had learned about better nutrition and the need for a balanced diet from the project, and that they should eat foods such as beans, peas, fish and flours. They stated that since food is often in short supply, there is no concept of “unhealthy foods.” The same group of volunteer cooks explained that they planted manioc, corn, sweet potato, cabbage, tomato and onion at home to feed their families. They also stated that they did not always have food available at home to feed their family. When they were taking part in preparing the CSB+ for the school feeding they received a small incentive which they used to feed their own families; since the Covid-19 crisis, this source of revenue has dried up and there is not always enough to feed everyone. Percentage of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet. Final target: 39% (female: 39%; male: 39%) Final results (September 2020): 95% (female: 95%; male: 95%)55 Final target 244% achieved (female 244%; male: 244%) It was not possible to collect data directly from students during the final evaluation. For this reason, the midterm finding that 95% of students were receiving an acceptable diet is considered here. This had been calculated at midterm based on students’ own reporting of what they had eaten the day before, which was coded according to the number of food groups represented. This method is likely to have led to over-reporting of the percentage of students receiving an acceptable diet at midterm. It had been hoped to modify the methods used and the questions asked of students at end point. In the event this was not possible. It was not felt to be feasible to obtain this information from the survey of parents. However, parents were asked about changes to their family’s nutrition since the onset of the pandemic, which revealed a significant minority of families experiencing real deprivation (see page 135 for more information). 55 Since it was not possible to interview students at end point, this result is taken from the midterm evaluation. 109 School Gardens Number of school gardens further developed and maintained. Final target: 60 Final results (September 2020): 60 Final target 100% achieved Number of school children benefiting from school gardens. Final target: 20,000 Final results (September 2020): 19,998 Final target 100% achieved Local production of food is both part of the plan for sustainability of school feeding and an important element of students’ education. As such, since the beginning of the project, school gardens have been encouraged and supported. In addition to the 60 school gardens officially supported by the project plan, other project schools have school gardens. These should not be confused with the eight Home Grown School Feeding Gardens (HGSFGs or machambas grandes) implemented by the project in phase two, which function on a much larger scale (see below, page 113). Food production and water sources Of the schools that reported having either a school garden or a HGSFG, 58% report growing food once a year, 29% twice a year, 8% all year around, and 4% report only growing food during the rainy season. The productive area varies: 8% of schools reported having between 1 and 2 hectares, 38% have between 0.25 and one hectare and 50% have less than 0.25 hectares. One school reported having a garden of more than 5 hectares. The school survey included questions about the types and quantities of food grown. The responses are summarized in table 15 below. Eleven of the schools with gardens report growing legumes, nineteen report growing vegetables, seventeen report tubers and root crops, two report growing oil seeds, six report growing cereals and nine report fruit trees, with two reporting that other crops are grown. The quantities of food produced are noteworthy, with a handful of schools reporting yields of over 100 kilograms in several of these categories. Schools report growing (%) Mean quantity (kg) Schools producing 1-50 kg (%) Schools producing 51-100 kg (%) Schools producing over 100 kg (%) Legumes 46% 117 kg 64% 9% 27% Vegetables 79% 140 kg 58% 16% 26% Tubers / roots 71% 358 kg 41% 12% 47% Oil seeds 8% 42 kg 50% 50% 0% Cereals 25% 598 kg 33% 17% 50% Fruit trees 38% 103 kg 67% 11% 22% Table 15: Food produced by school gardens at final evaluation 110 Produce grown in some of the gardens regularly contributes to school feeding. 46% of schools reported being able to show evidence of how the food produced was consumed; 54% report they have no evidence. Where evidence exists, it may be in the form of a school record book (18%), a document provided by the SDEJT (36%), or it may be registered in the CSB+ distribution report (18%). Seven schools (64%) report using another form of record-keeping. Only two of the twenty-four schools with gardens report having obtained a DUAT, the administrative document authorizing them to cultivate the land. 8% of the gardens are irrigated using river water, 13% using rainwater, 58% using water from a water fountain and 21% from another type of water source, such as a manual pump or tap water (see figure 52). Many of these water sources were provided by the project. Figure 52: Schools with gardens report on water sources In 17 schools (71% of cases) this water source is available all year round, in the other seven it is seasonal. Of the schools where water is only available in some seasons, 4 manage to grow food all year round, while 3 only cultivate food while water is available. 46% of the school gardens are fenced. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 371-385. Community involvement and perception of school gardens Most of the schools reported at least some community involvement in the school gardens: according to the survey of school directors, in 8% of cases the community helps regularly (at least once weekly) with preparation of the ground and production of food, and in 75% of cases the community helps several times per year when there are large-scale activities. One school reported no community involvement, and three schools said that the Irrigation Sources for School Gardens River water Rainwater Fountain Other source 111 community had a different level of involvement. In comparison, the survey of parents asked whether families participated in the activities of the HGSFGs and school gardens: 43% responded that they participated “a lot,” 37% “a little” and 20% not at all. These are shown in figures 53 and 54 below. Although a smaller number of responses were received from the school survey, it is nevertheless evident that both groups have quite different opinions about the level of community engagement in the school gardens. Figure 53: School directors report the level of community involvement in school gardens Figure 54: Parents report their level of involvement in school gardens When parents were asked whether the school garden or HGSFG was of benefit for their children, 66% responded “yes, a lot,” and 20% “yes, a little.” 14% of parents felt that the gardens offered no particular benefit to their children. These responses are illustrated in figure 55. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 386, 483-486. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Community helps regularly Community helps several times per year Other No community involvement Schools Report on Community Assistance in School Gardens 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% A lot A little Not at all Parents Report Participation in School Gardens 112 Figure 55: Parents report the benefit of school gardens to their children Challenges in maintaining ordinary school gardens have included parents and other community members harvesting crops in school gardens without permission, and insufficient water levels to sustain school gardens. Home-Grown School Feeding Gardens Number of Home-Grown School Feeding Gardens established. Final target: 8 Final results (September 2020): 8 Final target 100% achieved Number of school children benefitting from Home-Grown School Feeding Gardens. Final target: 6,600 Final results (September 2020): 5,280 Final target 80% achieved The eight HGSFGs are supporting the communities in which they are located, providing more diversified food to students and their families. This has become particularly significant during the Covid-19 pandemic. The communities have learned significantly from the agricultural technicians based at each HGSFG, gaining knowledge and understanding of innovative and more efficient agricultural practices, how to select more appropriate or hardy crops to grow, how to plan production to take account of growing periods and drought periods, etc. HGSFGs were equipped by the project with greenhouses and with solar panels and solar electro pumps to ensure a continuous supply of electricity and water. All four agricultural technicians were interviewed for the purposes of the evaluation. They report that, since the introduction of the HGSFGs, the surrounding communities now have a healthier diet and the gardens have brought the potential to create jobs and increased cash flow within their communities. Several species are providing very acceptable yields (including tomatoes, cabbage, onion, beetroot and bananas). The technicians Benefit to Children A lot A little No special benefit 113 report the communities where they work have learned significantly since the midterm evaluation, and are also applying the farming techniques acquired to their own small-scale agricultural production. These include learning how to create seedbeds, plant and transplant seedlings, fertilization, spraying and use of organic matter. The technicians have transmitted more environmentally sustainable approaches, including conservation farming and agroecology, and explained that some of the techniques traditionally used by the communities, such as stubble burning, have negative environmental impact and should not be used. One technician reported having shown the community how to use a polyculture approach, using different irrigation systems, including irrigation by gravity, and that, in such contexts, a tomato plant can grow several meters tall. He reported that now inhabitants of other localities have heard of the quality of their produce and come to buy it directly from the HGSFG: The harvest is benefitting the surrounding community: even those from Salamanga and Belavista come to buy here because they heard the production is good. For me this means the project has brought a great improvement. Since increasing their skills levels, the communities where HGSFGs are located are able to produce far more food more efficiently than at the beginning of the project. Likewise, the HGSFG leadership committees, which have been established in each HGSFG to manage and support each garden, have had to learn to plan production according to a seasonal calendar, to market and sell crops, manage the allocation of produce between school feeding, other local consumption and sale outside the community, and engage in transparent financial management of the funds provided by the project and generated by sales of produce. The technicians reported that, at first, they encountered a lack of cooperation from school directors, teachers and community members who saw them as “only” technicians and therefore of low social status, because they worked alongside the community on the land. 56 With time, these individuals came to recognize and value the skill and commitment of the technicians and to respect them and respond to their advice and mobilization: The communities are afraid or think they can’t do what others have done, but when someone introduces themselves and explains what is actually happening, in the end they bring more people in who weren’t doing anything before. One of the most significant challenges was to mobilize parents and community members to work in the HGSFGs and to instill a culture of teamwork. Here, the experience of the different HGSFGs has been quite varied, with examples of excellent coordination and teamwork, including creating a calendar to plan and coordinate parents’ 56 This attitude reflects a hierarchical social structure and attitudes to social class often encountered in Mozambique; during previous evaluations, FFE staff informants have commented that their “working shoulder￾to-shoulder with the poor” approach to community development takes time to be understood and recognized, due to the lack of respect for manual work within the culture. Once these individuals are taken seriously, their impact and credibility are all the more important. 114 input. Cooperation between the DPEDH, SDEJT, local Economic Activities Services (SDAE), school directors and teachers at the schools, the community and the project staff is reported to be functional and effective in these cases. In other cases, the evaluation revealed conflicts of interest between local leaders (régulos) and other officials and a lack of support from SDAE technicians. In some cases, there is tension between the HGSFG committee and the School Council over management of the HGSFG and distribution of the food produced. In some HGSFGs, a real culture of ownership has developed amongst parents, who have taken responsibility for what they have come to see as a community asset and worked hard to ensure the HGSFG continues to produce food for their children and the wider community. This culture has been reinforced since seeing the results of the improved agricultural methods and the quality and quantity of food produced, and further since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the interruption of school feeding, which is focusing parents’ minds on the opportunity provided by the HGSFGs. In other cases, the technicians report parents have resisted calls to become involved, pleading limited time and energy and other demands on them and the need to grow their own subsistence crops to feed their families. It was reported that there had been some friction amongst volunteers in the schools with HGSFGs, due to a lack of clarity about how crops were used or sold, leading to some parents withdrawing their labor and discontinuing their work within the HGSFG. Other challenges encountered include stealing of gas and crops from the greenhouses. When this occurred, informants report a positive collaboration between the school, the police, the community, and project leaders to resolve such incidents. In some cases, it was challenging to ensure a continuous water supply to some HGSFGs, particularly when the weather was cloudy and there was insufficient sun to power the solar electro pumps. Some of the HGSFGs have suffered from insufficient water supplies at various times of year since their inception. Before choosing the locations of HGSFGs, water flow tests were performed to determine the viability. Despite this precaution, it was necessary to relocate one HGSFG from the school initially chosen to host it, due to the loss of a viable water supply there. The garden was reestablished in a different location, and became viable, despite the delay caused by this late start. The HGSFGs were considered to be an important contribution to the sustainability of school feeding after the close of the project, particularly where adequate water supplies and greenhouses are available. It is clear that ownership and support from local government officials, particularly SDAE technicians, will be critical to sustainability. The technicians have trained a local HGSFG supervisor to take their place once the project ends. The HGSFG technicians point out that the more environmentally-friendly and ecologically sustainable methods used and taught are also critical to sustainability of another kind, as they are vital to keeping the soil and environment healthy and able to continue to feed the community in the long term. Another key to sustainability is clearly having functional transparent governance mechanisms, with effective leadership and clear rules about 115 who contributes to and benefits from the production. The HGSFG committee, which should include the HGSFG supervisor, is perceived to be key in this respect. Overall, at present, the HGSFGs are evidently making a significant contribution to the diversification and sustainability of school feeding, at least in the school where they are based and which they support. Once the support from the project finishes, they will need to be self-sustaining. This will be a considerable challenge, one which is certainly not impossible to meet, but which will require considerable leadership and good management in order to succeed. Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services (2.4) This section presents activities of the water component, then reports on sanitation activities. Water activities are addressed by a dedicated water team, consisting of a coordinator and four water technicians, one based in each project district. Sanitation activities come under the responsibility of the construction component. Access to Clean Water Indicator 22 (Output): Number of schools using an improved water source. Final target: 264 Final results (September 2020): 270 Final target 102% achieved Number of school children benefitting from clean water sources. Final target: 54,000 Final results (September 2020): 89,954 Final target 167% achieved Number of water tanks secured. Final target: 330 Final results (September 2020): 330 Final target 100% achieved Recognizing that water is a critical resource and input for school feeding, as well as for the health, hygiene and wellbeing of students, teachers and the community, the project has endeavored to provide a source of clean safe water in each school. At the close of the project, the manager of the water component affirms that all project schools now have access to clean water. He stresses the benefits to communities brought by having access to safe water and that many areas have flourished since achieving water access, with “deserts transformed into cities.” 116 Functioning of water systems As indicated in previous evaluations, due to the method of reporting water activities, the fact that the project targets have been surpassed does not mean that all schools have a functioning water system at all times. Of the school directors that responded to the final evaluation school survey, 73% report having have some sort of system to supply water: piped mains water, electric water pumps, manual water pumps and/or rainwater harvesting; 27% do not. This finding stands in contrast to the project data and the water component manager’s report that all schools now had a functioning water system.57 Of those that reported having a water system, 65% reported the system functioned “every day this year,” 8% that it functioned “most of the time,” 5% that it functions “from time to time,” and 13% that it “doesn’t work.” See figure 56 below. Figure 56: Schools report on the function of their water systems 68% of these schools reported having a plan for the routine maintenance and cleaning of their water system (57% at midterm and 58% at baseline, although caution must be used in comparing these due to the smaller sample size at final evaluation). This plan was known variously to the school council (81%), school leaders (11%), project staff not connected to the school (22%), the school director (30%), the pedagogical director (15%) and/or other people (15%). 57 This may be explained (in part) by the process for reporting against the water indicator, which counts interventions to provide improved water sources, whereas the indicator is formulated in terms of “number of schools using an improved water source”. Previous evaluations have pointed out this discrepancy. It is also clear that some systems are seasonal (rainwater harvesting) and some were not functioning at the time of the survey. Function of School Water Supply Systems Every day Most of the time From time to time Doesn't work Other 117 Those who actually performed the maintenance included: school council members (39%), members of the neighboring community through the school council (64%), school leaders (7%), project staff not connected with the school (18%), pupils from the school (14%), and/or others (7%). When asked how often the water system was cleaned, all of the schools that responded to the final evaluation survey answered: “from time to time.” At baseline and midterm, a significant number of schools had claimed to clean the system daily or weekly. These responses suggest that cleaning the water system has become a less regular activity over time: it is hoped it will continue to be performed regularly, since this is a key to maintaining a clean water source and therefore to sustainability. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 354-359, 362-364. Access to safe water is able to transform a school or community, allowing access to drinking water, to water for cooking (including preparing soy porridge), and for maintaining personal hygiene and washing clothes and utensils. The undoubted achievement of transforming so many communities in this way needs to be set against the reports revealed by the final evaluation that several schools continue not to have a source of safe water, or to only have water during the rainy season, thanks to rainwater harvesting. The formulation of the indicator is likely to hide this fact. The evaluation team recommends the FAS consider revising the guidance on reporting on the relevant MGD indicator to reflect this. This is not to detract from the enormous efforts made by the project to bring water to schools using an array of different methods, or the transformative effect of these water sources on communities. Water committees The creation of a water committee attached to each school or community supported by the project is an important step towards autonomy and sustainability. The water committee is responsible for liaising with the project water team for management and regular maintenance and cleaning of the water infrastructure and facilitating repairs or non-routine maintenance as needed. 96% of schools reported having a water committee or designated people responsible for looking after the water system. This represents a marked increase from baseline and midterm (69% and 68% respectively) and a positive evolution towards sustainability. The composition of the water committee included the teacher in charge of school feeding (38%), all the teachers from the school (31%), the school director (36%), the pedagogical director (7%) and/or other people (14%). For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 359-361. A single focus group with a water committee, conducted using Covid-19 safe methods, for the purposes of the final evaluation, revealed that the water committee is responsible for protecting the water fountains, ensuring people do not play on them and closing them at night to avoid vandalism. They teach children and other community members about the project, especially the water program. They periodically charge 10 meticais ($0.13 US) per family for use of the water fountain, which goes towards a maintenance fund. The committee is chosen during a community meeting and includes both men and women and representatives of all social levels 118 within the community. Meetings are held regularly to discuss their task and accountability and ways to improve their functioning of the water committee. The committee reported a good collaboration and communication between the water committee, the school and the wider community. They report working hard to maintain and repair the water fountains provided by the project because, in the past, water was scarce in the community and individuals had to walk a long way to fetch water. The committee received training from the project on how to maintain the water infrastructure (in this case, water fountains), and that the water fountains do not belong to the adults but have been provided for the benefit of the children. The committee members teach volunteers how to keep the area around the fountains clean and not to let small children use them (so as to avoid breaking the handles). The water committee members reported having received three training sessions, the most recent one in 2019. Challenges mentioned included the fact that sometimes it is not possible to repair a water fountain, that funds are not always sufficient to repair the infrastructure, and should be correctly managed. As far as sustainability is concerned, the water committee members report that they are confident they will be able to ensure water is still available to their community after the end of the project, although they fear school feeding will not be sustainable. Access to Sanitation Services Indicator 23 (Output): Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities. Final target: 264 Final results (September 2020): 268 Final target 102% achieved Number of hand washing facilities rehabilitated. Final target: 171 Final results (September 2020): 185 Final target 108% achieved Number of latrines and hand washing facilities constructed. Final target: 94 Final results (September 2020): 145 Final target 154% achieved Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance. Final target: 833 (kitchens 264; storerooms 264; latrines 305 [94 constructed + 211 renovated]) Final results (September 2020): 1,264 (kitchens 293; storerooms 586; latrines 385 [145 constructed + 240 renovated]) Final target 152% achieved (kitchens: 111% achieved; storerooms: 222% achieved; latrines: 126% achieved) 119 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (latrines). Final target (includes target for 2021): latrines 94 constructed + 211 renovated = 305 Final results (September 2020): 385 [145 constructed and 240 renovated] Target 126% achieved Number of school children benefiting from latrines and hand washing facilities. Final target: 48,000 Final results (September 2020): 88,587 Final target 185% achieved Analysis of project records reveals that the targets for rehabilitation and construction of handwashing facilities and of latrines have both been surpassed. The midterm evaluation highlighted the need to identify latrines likely to become full imminently and work with schools to either empty them where possible or to cover them over and replace them, working with school councils to ensure they are capable of continuing to plan and conduct this maintenance after the close of the project. Interviews with project staff indicate that this recommendation has been followed. We took advantage of this period when the children were not in class to … /… empty the latrine pits, some of which were half full, some full and …/… make sure the latrines were in good condition for when lessons begin again. And we also used the time to maintain the handwashing systems: we had had several requests to move taps and maintain the systems. (Building component manager) Access to preventative health interventions (2.5) Indicator 24 (Output): Number of students receiving deworming medication(s). Final target: 74,000 Final results (September 2020): 148,237 Final target 200% achieved Number of cooks tested for TB. Final target: 5,280 Final results (September 2020): 8,402 Final target 159% achieved Since its inception, the project has provided logistical support to the local health services to provide de-worming tablets to all pupils once annually, as this is considered a key part of SO2, within the ToC. The project provided logistical support to local health services to provide de-worming tablets to all pupils once annually, in the form of a contribution to the fuel used by the distribution teams. Analysis of project records at the final evaluation shows that the number of students receiving the medication was actually double the final target. This was partly due to the fact that the Covid-19 situation necessitated door-to-door distribution of the 120 medication at the time of the most recent report. The number of children receiving the medication is therefore particularly high, as it includes year 5 children; SDSMAS (district health services) records did not separate these out. One SDSMAS official explained: School closures posed a challenge but, as a matter of public health, we had to reinvent ourselves. We had to do mini-door-to-door campaigns. An SDSMAS official from another district welcomed the support to deworming provided by the project: this partner always supported school-aged activities. With their help, we were always able to implement the envisaged activities. Local health services and project coordinators are to be congratulated on their ongoing efforts to safeguard pupils’ health, particularly during the difficult circumstances of the pandemic. The testing of volunteer cooks for TB was introduced during the second phase of the project in order to protect students from transmission of the disease. The final target for this activity has been exceeded. Access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment (2.6) Number of community volunteers receiving laundry soap. Final target: 5,280 Final results (September 2020): 8,183 Final target 155% achieved Number of schools receiving dish washing soap. Final target: 264 Final results (September 2020): 271 Final target 103% achieved Distribution of laundry soap to volunteers was introduced in FFE2, following a recommendation made by evaluations of FFE1, as volunteers requested soap to help them keep their uniforms clean and saw this as a mark of dignity and professionalism. Likewise, dish soap was distributed during FFE2, after volunteer cooks requested dish washing soap to improve cleanliness and hygiene processes, in line with the training they were receiving. Analysis of project records shows that the targets for both activities have been surpassed. The distribution of laundry soap, in particular, has continued apace since midterm, with soap being distributed to a further nearly 3,000 volunteers by the final evaluation. The midterm report noted that this relatively small incentive was seen by volunteer cooks as a recognition of their status and contribution to the important task of school feeding, and 121 provided great returns in motivation and commitment; this observation is confirmed by qualitative data collected at end point. Capacity of government institutions (2.7.1) Number of government officials trained in nutrition. Final target: 100 Final results (September 2020): 369 Final target 369% achieved Number of participants in school feeding conferences (district, provincial and national). Final target (includes target for 2021): 220 Final results (September 2020): 1,469 Final target 668% achieved Number of seminars and meetings conducted at the local, regional and national level. Final target (includes target for 2021): 5 Final results (September 2020): 20 Final target 400% achieved Capacity building of government officials at national, provincial and district levels to continue to provide school feeding after the project’s closure has been an ongoing objective over the life of the project. Analysis of project records reveal the targets associated with this objective have been significantly surpassed. KIIs with government officials during the final evaluations reveal positive assessment of the training received. The ongoing training of managers in the administration and management of school feeding at school level is helping significantly. There is a series of packages in the context of the implementation of this program, which provide the managers at different levels with the technical capacity to meet the various requirements. I mean there are basic principles which all the managers retain, about how to manage the different components of a school feeding program. (MinEDH official) Although the project has also held a large number of meetings and conferences to allow actors involved in school feeding in Mozambique to meet and exchange experiences, there had in recent times been a regular platform for organizations supporting the PRONAE or otherwise involved in school feeding to meet, exchange information and collaborate: this gap was regretted by several of the organizations concerned. During the final evaluation data collection, a multi-sectoral, multi-agency meeting of the main organizations involved in school feeding in Mozambique, including the MinEDH, was held at the instigation of FFE, with the intention that this should become a permanent regular coalition to promote more cooperation within the sector. 122 Engagement of Local Organizations and Community output (2.7.4) Number of local leaders and school council members attending school feeding project management training. Final target: 2,000 (female: 500; male: 1,500) Final results (September 2020): 2,498 (female: 753; male: 1,523) Final target 125% achieved (female: 151% achieved; male: 102% achieved) Training of community leaders, school council members and SFC members is a key to ownership and sustainability of school feeding and other activities after the close of the project. Analysis of project records shows the target for training these groups has been surpassed. KIIs and FGDs confirmed wide-ranging training of school feeding committee members and other community members had taken place and been found by participants to be useful. Crosscutting themes Previous evaluations have reported on several crosscutting themes relating to the overall operations, strategy and vision of the project: human resources, capacity, collaboration and ownership; transport; administrative and financial systems and procedures; monitoring and evaluation; and sustainability and relevance to the local and national school feeding policy and program environment. These are briefly reviewed in the following section, to ascertain the situation at the end of the project and to what extent recommendations of previous evaluations have been implemented. Human resources, capacity, collaboration and ownership The final evaluation revealed that many of the improvements identified at midterm have been sustained: staff have continued to be promoted to positions of more responsibility and given opportunities for professional development within these. For example, the team of four district coordinators has been renewed since midterm, with former “professionals” (FFE field officers) being appointed to these positions. In as far as it was possible to judge from the remote evaluation, these individuals appeared competent, well-informed and able to meet their responsibilities within the project. Most of the team of “professionals” has been working on the project since its inception, denoting a high level of continuity and retention, although at end point the team was smaller and individuals had specialized in particular areas. They expressed feeling more recognized and appreciated by the project leadership than at midterm and reported having learnt a wide range of professional skills through working on the project: 123 When I first came to the project, there was a lot I did not know. For example, scanning a document, using a computer or dealing with the community. Because of the series of trainings the project offered me, I am able to do something, and this will be useful for me in the future. (FFE professional) Since the reduction of the team of “professionals,” the remaining team members appeared committed and motivated; they continued to express the difficulty of making their salaries stretch to meet their needs, but showed an understanding of the difficult circumstances and considered that, in the context of the pandemic, they were much more fortunate than many of those they worked with. They expressed appreciation that their working conditions and access to work equipment had improved. There has been low turnover of project staff since the midterm evaluation, so gender ratios are unchanged; the leadership expressed an awareness of the need to address this issue in future projects. The data gathered from volunteers and from parents indicates strong commitment to the project and to the concept of volunteering without necessarily receiving payment of incentives, although this remains a culturally engrained expectation. A FAS representative stated: “The community is totally engaged,” in addition to reporting a high level of government commitment and coordination between agencies. Volunteer cooks reported that they had volunteered for the role and were chosen by the school to be part of a team. They reported that it is still challenging to get cooks to participate: on some days, there were only two cooks to prepare the CSB+. They explained that when someone cannot go in to prepare the CSB+ they send warning. They claimed to be happy with the role and to be motivated, given that their children were benefiting and the system was well coordinated so they knew what needed to be done: We were happy because the children weren’t suffering; they were loved by us. We all came here from Monday to Friday and each group knew what they had to do; they wouldn’t wait for anyone to tell them what to do. There was a group in the morning and another during the afternoon. Every day the children would go back home well fed and happy. One group of volunteer cooks, all of whom had also applied for the role and been chosen by the school, had received a small financial incentive (10mt per month), contributed by the community, to perform the task of preparing the CSB+.58 They reported being happy to perform the role, to cook for their children and earn a small amount of money in return. They reported good coordination between the SFC, the volunteers and other parents and the project staff, explaining that everyone worked well together, and any “hiccups” were dealt with promptly in a meeting. 58 It is not the project’s policy to pay volunteer cooks, however communities are free to do so where they wish. 124 A number of informants, when asked what could have been done better with hindsight, cited the issue of definition of roles and responsibilities within the FFE team and said that, at least at the beginning, these could have been more clearly assigned, using job descriptions and clear areas of responsibility for specific activities and outcomes. They described a certain amount of “making it up as they went along” but that this situation improved as the project became embedded and the team became better integrated and structured and more mature. Respondents were unanimous in praising the quality of communication, cooperation and coordination between the project leadership and staff with partners at all levels of government, communities, other organizations and education sector employees. Overall, many of the midterm recommendations had either been implemented (such as providing more professional support and development opportunities for staff and restructuring the team of “professionals” to allow a smaller team to receive slightly improved salaries in exchange for more specialized responsibility) or considered (such as improving gender equity). The final evaluation revealed a mature project team whose members have worked together and with their collaborators (beneficiaries and government) for several years, and have found their place and developed profound collaborations and relationships of mutual trust and respect. There has undoubtedly been significant capacity development amongst the project team, government partners and community partners. Transport The final evaluation suggested that at least some of the problems revealed at midterm had been resolved or reduced, based on KIIs and FGDs with project leadership and staff. The team reported having acquired additional vehicles and having introduced a regular maintenance program for motorbikes. Project staff reported fewer difficulties in accessing transport when this was needed. Due to the remote nature of the final evaluation, the evaluation team did not have contact with project drivers, so did not follow up with them. Administrative and financial systems and procedures The final evaluation revealed that systems and procedures had continued to improve since midterm, thanks to a stable, competent administrative and financial team. Project informants described systems – including, for example, the types of evidence necessary to apply for funds – which, while they had taken some time to be developed and understood by the entire staff, were now used systematically. The move towards decentralization of administrative and financial systems has continued since midterm, with more procedures being processed at the district level. The project is regularly audited by a well-known firm of auditors. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, it has been harder to travel between the districts, so some flexibility has had to be used with regards to, for example, the need to produce evidence in support of requests for funds, where the paper evidence cannot easily be produced. 125 Representatives of FAS declared that the semi-annual reports received from the project showed that they met or exceeded all their targets and their assessment of the project’s performance and rigor was “spectacular.” They had “not one negative” to report in terms of compliance with US government regulations. They reported that their Compliance Office reviews all the financial reports and the Program Management Administration Branch examines semi-annual financial reports, and they have “never found anything unusual or egregious.” They explained it is quite unusual to have such clean compliance reports within such projects. They stated that Planet Aid had been very responsive over a case where some of the commodity had been damaged during transit so the matter was dealt with easily. Another FAS representative described the project as competent and able to function without external support: “They don’t just call me. They…./… can work on [their] own.” Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Previous reports have highlighted the instability of the M&E function within the project, due to high turnover of M&E management and staff and a lack of institutional memory, overall vision and continuity in M&E processes and procedures. The situation encountered at the time of the final evaluation is greatly improved, with a highly competent and committed M&E Coordinator leading a significantly larger team of better-trained staff, both at central and district levels. Systems and procedures have also improved: there is less reliance on paper evidence and more use of electronic systems, including an integrated database. M&E staff, both at the project HQ and in each district, have received training in monitoring and use of monitoring software and databases, and are clearer about their roles; these improvements have built on the move, reported and welcomed in the midterm evaluation, to decentralize many M&E activities to the district level. Rigorous systems for checking and recording evidence mean there is less confusion as to project results, with numbers only being reported once the evidence has been reviewed and approved. This improved clarity of systems has percolated down to the different components who now have dedicated M&E procedures and tools and are now clearer about their own responsibilities as far as reporting and providing monitoring information in a timely manner is concerned, and about the benefits to their components of having up-to-date, accurate information to work from. M&E is now seen as an integrated function, rather than an add-on, with leadership and staff making efforts to ensure the smooth and timely transmission of data and expecting to be able to learn from this to improve systems and the implementation of activities. The M&E Coordinator pointed out that having an M&E manual from the outset of the project, setting out how to report data, who reports to whom and which evidence should be attached in what format, would have greatly improved these systems and processes. It is clear, however, that a considerable and positive learning process has taken place and that the M&E capacity of both the project and of the M&E staff has been significantly improved: this is all sustainable learning which will continue to benefit Mozambique for years to come. 126 Even more encouraging, there are signs that, rather than data being collected merely for reasons of accountability and governance, the regular collection, collation and analysis of monitoring data has been able to feed into ongoing improvements in project activities. In relation to the ongoing monitoring of the literacy intervention by conducting regular EGRAs, the evaluators learned: After the EGRA results are collected and analyzed [the literacy M&E officer] drafts a report and presents it to the literacy team and the monitoring team and, with these reports, she recommends what should be done to enhance the reading, writing and dictation of children. The literacy team takes on these recommendations and starts working with the children. M&E staff in the district offices reported that, although at first it could be difficult to convince school leaders and teachers to provide monitoring information (the question of school attendance records is still mentioned as a bone of contention between the project and teachers) and there are still frequent delays in schools submitting monitoring information to the district M&E officers, over time those with different roles within the system have understood the need to submit the necessary information to the project M&E team. District M&E staff report being motivated and coming to work at weekends where necessary to finish work. They report having grown professionally within the role and having learned new skills and work methods, including systematically noting what data have been received and from whom and being able to follow up to request additional data as necessary; they have, for example, worked with the HGSFG staff on how to collect, record and transmit monitoring information. Some of the district M&E data clerks suggested that it would be helpful if they could spend more time in the field observing how activities are being implemented, rather than merely collating quantitative information about the numbers of activities achieved. Their interviews make it clear they are aware of the wider picture of program activities and their impact, citing, for example, the benefits of school children learning in school gardens knowledge which they then take home to apply in their family’s machamba and a shift in the culture amongst both project staff and district education staff who have learned more of the value of education through the literacy program. This “bigger picture” view of M&E within the project was summed up thus by one member of the M&E team: In the monitoring team, we look at all of the activities, but what is most important is the response to indicators. However, the activities themselves produce other items…/… so much is done to achieve what we want, which is our indicator. The other points might not be part of the report, but they are the path we take to get to where we are now. 127 The evaluation revealed that the recommendations of the midterm report with regard to M&E systems have been addressed with some success.59 Sustainability and relevance to the local and national school feeding policy and program environment Sustainability had been a major theme of the midterm evaluation. The project has made a point of trying to use and model sustainable solutions through its work, whether in the use of organic agricultural methods or the careful use of resources: one informant gave the example of painting posters on walls for communication purposes, rather than printing flyers. The theme of sustainability is, of course, even more critical at end point. The Covid-19 pandemic has created a major disruption of the project’s withdrawal plan, within which the final nine months were intended to ensure a well-structured handover to government and community actors. The FFE leadership team expressed the view that, with hindsight, planning for this handover should have begun during the first phase of the project, with FFE1 used to engage government on a strategic sustainability plan from the outset: Of course, the lesson learned was that we should have made the most out of FFK1, when it ended. When FFK2 came along in 2016, we should by then have had a Project-Government joint implementation plan, backed by a sustainability plan. In the face of the GoM’s struggle to mobilize the funds and commitment to extend the PRONAE to become a national school feeding program, the FFE position has been to lobby for the PRONAE to become law in the form of a national Law on School Feeding, with a dedicated budget line for school feeding, and to mobilize the other organizations working in school feeding, including the MinEDH, to create a permanent coalition of the different agencies working in the sector (see page 122 above). The current financial and political crisis in Mozambique does not offer a promising context for a government-funded school feeding program. A FAS representative told the evaluators that, in terms of sustainability, “Planet Aid and ADPP have done a lot to ensure a transition to School Feeding Committees and the Government. However, the government will need money to continue.” 59 The midterm report recommended: - All data collected and digitized should be used in some way; the project should stop collecting and processing information which is not being used. - Review indicators and how these are measured to ensure they accurately capture the information intended. - As a priority, ensure the new database is up and running as quickly as possible. - Ensure M&E staff have a vision and understanding of the whole M&E process (why information is being collected, what it will be used for and how); component managers and staff have a wider vision of the M&E of their activities (where they are in relation to project indicators and targets) and can use this information to plan and prioritize their operational tasks; project leadership team have an overall vision of the project’s real-time situation in relation to indicators and targets. 128 At the level of project beneficiaries, parents were asked which activities they think will be able to continue once the project finishes and its support is withdrawn. 61% said that cultivation of vegetables in the school gardens and HGSFGs will be able to continue. 60% thought that the daily preparation of school lunches will be able to continue. 36% said that participation in the water committees will continue, and 45% that maintenance of the water systems will continue. Finally, around 59% said that maintenance of the school infrastructure (kitchens, storerooms, latrines and hand-washing systems) will be able to continue after the project ends. Creating school garden associations and water committees has been central to planning for sustainability. It is clear, however, that although significant capacity has been created and lasting resources developed, leading to a significant long-term impact within the literacy and nutrition education programs and the EPFs, and the HGSFGs, school gardens and the provision of water systems within schools will make major contributions to future school feeding efforts, they are not in themselves sufficient to allow school feeding to continue without the financial resources and the commodity provided by the project. Some respondents estimated that certain schools could perhaps produce enough food to allow feeding two or three days a week. However, this is not sufficient to sustain the dynamic started by the project. Volunteer cooks and SFC informants expressed real anxiety about the project coming to an end and how this would impact on their children’s education and the whole family’s nutritional status. They explained that receiving food at school was one of the main motivations for attending and expressed the anxiety that their children would drop out once food was no longer served there, fearing that if they were hungry in school they wouldn’t be able to learn and would likely stop attending. They were pessimistic about school feeding continuing without external support, explaining that the parents do not have enough money to pay for school meals. They explained that children do not eat at home before going to school, since they know that they will receive food there: even if offered food, they refuse it, saying that they will eat the soy porridge at school: We’re not worried when they leave the house without eating, because we know they will eat at school. Even when we do want to make some food for them, they say they don’t want it and say they will eat soy at school. 129 Impact of Covid-19 on FFE2 project and assessment of the project’s response to Covid-19 Since the beginning of the State of Emergency in March, when schools were closed, the project has made considerable efforts to continue its activities in support of children and local communities. These efforts include preparing broadcast lessons for TV and radio (of which more below), distributing CSB+ to children in the form of take-home rations, distribution of vegetables from HGSFGs and some smaller school gardens to ensure that families living in extreme poverty had access to food during the pandemic, and the transition of EPF training to a distance-learning format where possible (also discussed in detail below). These were carefully conducted so as to be in line with Covid-19 safety measures; for example, with support from the project HGSFG committees introduced measures to prevent transmission of Covid-19. During school closures, children and families were asked not to come to the HGSFGs, and strict protocols were put in place to avoid transmission between volunteers working there (creation of smaller working teams, who observe a distance of 2 meters when working; wearing of masks and only speaking to others when wearing a mask; washing hands regularly and before and after working, using buckets of water and soap made available for the purpose). Megaphones and wall murals were also used to spread information about Covid-19 and raise awareness within communities. The timing of the final survey provided an excellent opportunity to gather information pertaining to the pandemic and its effects, and so all of the final evaluation surveys included a series of questions about Covid￾19. These sought to assess the impact of the pandemic, gather information on emergency response measures and their effectiveness in maintaining continuity across the project’s areas of oversight and support, and also to assess the level of awareness of the different respondent groups in respect of preventative measures, symptoms, and so on. This information is outside the scope of the project indicators. It is presented as context for the above report, as well as providing a unique window into the experiences of project beneficiaries and the adapting of project work during the emergency period. The questions pertaining to the pandemic were formulated by the project itself to aid in the collection of information that might prove useful to government and other organizations working in the region. Impact of school closures on children’s education The final survey asked respondents how the school closures had affected children’s education, using a list of multiple-choice options. 91% of parents reported that their children’s education had been interrupted. 19% said that the children no longer received food at school. 26% reported other social consequences as a result of not attending school. 29% said that the children suffered from a lack of contact with the teachers, and 15% that they suffered from a lack of contact with their peers. 9% mentioned the school closures having an effect in other ways. School directors responding to the school survey and teachers responding to the teacher survey were asked the same questions. The responses of all three groups are compared in figure 57. 130 Figure 57: Effects of Covid-19 School Closures on Children’s Education When asked what measures were taken to combat these challenges, survey respondents reported a range of measures. Asked whether schools were able to maintain contact with children during the emergency period, 77% of parents replied that schools had maintained contact with all of the children, 9% that they had maintained contact with some of the children, and 14% that they had not maintained contact. The teachers who responded to the final survey reported different figures: 14% reported that they had been able to maintain contact with all of their students during the Covid-19 emergency period. 61% said that they had been able to maintain contact with some students, and 25% said that they were not able to maintain contact. These are compared in figure 58. It is possible that some of the discrepancy here can be accounted for by parents referring to the FFE broadcast lessons over radio and TV, on which there is more information below. It also reflects the fact that parents who participated in the survey were those who had stayed in contact with the schools.60 60 This reflects a regrettable but unavoidable methodological weakness in the sampling of parents: those parents with whom it was possible to establish contact in order for them to complete the survey were disproportionately those who had remained in contact with the school community during the closure due to Covid-19. For more discussion see the presentation of the surveys in the methodology section (page 24-25). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Education was interrupted No longer received food at school Lack of contact with teachers Lack of contact with peers Other social consequences Other effects Effect of School Closures on Children's Education Parents School directors Teachers 131 Figure 58: Parents and teachers report whether schools maintained contact with children during closure Of the schools that maintained contact with at least some of the children, 34% of parents and 25% of teachers said that teachers made phone calls to students’ parents and guardians to help them with certain teaching subjects. 87% of parents and 95% of teachers said that teachers had produced and distributed worksheets. Likewise, 20% of the school directors said that teachers had contact with students over the telephone, 80% reported sending work home to students, and 29% reported taking other steps, such as contacting parents and guardians, making contact through the district secretary, or making home visits. These are shown in figure 59. Figure 59: Survey respondents report how schools maintained contact with pupils during school closure 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% All of the children Some of the children None of the children Schools Maintained Contact During Covid-19 Closure Parents Teachers 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Teachers contacted students via telephone Teachers sent work home Other means How Schools Maintained Contact with Children Parents Teachers School directors 132 When asked what means of communication the teacher or school had used to continue interacting with the children, 41% of parents (38% of teachers) reported that they had used telephone or WhatsApp, 53% of parents (85% of teachers) reported meetings at school or in the community, and 10% of parents (3% of teachers) mentioned home visits. 17% of parents reported that other methods had been used. Asked what improvements could be made in the measures taken to combat Covid-19 and improve the continuity of classes, 75% of school directors cited creating sanitary conditions and 69% said that reducing the number of students per class would help. 29% reported other measures that could be taken. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 313-317, 338-339, 398-399, 403-404, 509-513, 545-546. Broadcast lessons When schools were closed in March 2020 by the Covid-19 pandemic, the literacy program produced a series of classes in local languages to be broadcast by radio and television, and asked parents to spend 20 to 30 minutes daily helping their children to study. During this time, the usual activities, such as support provided to teachers by the reading coaches and monitoring by provincial monitoring teams could not take place. In order to try to ascertain how well the broadcast lessons were being received and how well they were functioning, the literacy team made daily phone calls to contacts in the communities with schools supported by the literacy program. The final survey for parents and teachers asked a range of questions about these broadcast lessons to assess their reach and perceived usefulness. 52% of parents surveyed said that they have a radio at home, and 43% have a television. 54% of the parents and 76% of the teachers said that they were aware of the broadcast lessons produced by the FFE project. Of those that were aware of the broadcasts, 62% of parents reported that their children’s teacher or school had recommended that they listen to these lessons, whereas 91% of the teachers said that they had encouraged their students to follow the broadcasts. 62% of teachers reported that they had provided support to their students in following these lessons, however only 30% of parents said that the teacher or school had provided such support to the students.61 57% of parents said that someone at home had been able to support the children to understand the lesson material in the radio or TV broadcasts, and 42% that no one had been able to. During a focus group discussion, ccommunity members explained that, since the pandemic began and they and their children have been house￾bound, the extra work provided by the school has not been helpful since there is nobody to correct it. 32% of the teachers thought that their students had access at home to the necessary support to understand the material 61 The apparent discrepancies in responses between parents and teachers to this and other questions may be due to the sampling of parents and teachers; the sample of parents was much larger and came from a larger number of schools than the sample of teachers. It is also not possible to know for certain whether parents were referring to only the FFE broadcasts, or those by the government or other agencies. 133 in the broadcast lessons, 43% thought their students did not have such support at home, and 25% said they didn’t know. Figure 60 shows these responses. Figure 60: Parents and teachers report whether children had support at home to follow the broadcast lessons Parents and teachers had different opinions about how closely the children had followed the broadcast lessons. 47% of the parents (6% of the teachers) said that the children had always listened to the lessons, and 20% of parents (60% of teachers) said that the children had listened to some of them. 32% of parents (15% of teachers) reported that the children had not listened to any. Only one of the parents, and 19% of teachers, said that they didn’t know. These are compared in figure 61. Figure 61: Parents & teachers’ reporting of whether children followed the TV and radio lessons at home 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Support at home No support at home Don't know Support for Children to Understand Broadcast Lessons Parents Teachers 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% All of them Some of them None Don't know Children Followed the Broadcast Lessons Parents Teachers 134 When asked their opinion as to the quality of these radio and TV lessons, 27% of parents said that they were excellent, 46% that they were good, 24% that they were of reasonable quality, and around 4% said that they were of poor quality. 10% of teachers said they were excellent, 52% that they were good, 37% thought them to be of reasonable quality, and two respondents thought that they were poor. Figure 62 compares these responses. Figure 62: Parents and teachers’ opinions of the FFE broadcast lessons For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 317-323, 514-521. Impact of Covid-19 on hunger and food supply The survey for parents included a series of questions designed to assess the impact of Covid-19 school closures on hunger and food supply (as explained above, this information is beyond the scope of the project). Asked whether their children had ever had to go without food all day during the school closures, although the majority of parents said they had not, 17% of parents (91 of the respondents) reported that they had. During a FGD, community members reported eating only twice a day since the pandemic began and have had to resort to begging and looking for firewood and leaves to make food. Parents were presented with a series of statements related to hunger and asked whether someone in their family had done any of these things in the past seven days. The results are presented in figures 63 through 66 below; the vertical axis represents the number of parents who replied affirmatively. As can be seen in these figures, although the majority of parents reported not having had to take these steps (their responses are not included in the tables), a concerning number of parents were forced to resort to a variety of measures to deal with food shortages and limited access to food as a result of Covid-19. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Excellent Good Reasonable Poor Quality of the Broadcast Lessons Parents Teachers 135 Figure 63: Number of days within the previous week that parents restricted adults’ consumption of food Figure 64: Number of days within the last week that parents reduced the number of meals consumed 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days Number of parents reporting Restrict adults’ consumption of food so small childen can eat 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days Number of parents reporting Reduce the number of meals consumed 136 Figure 65: Number of days within the last week that parents had to borrow food or accept help Figure 66: Number of days within the last week that parents had to limit the amount of food served The survey also asked parents and teachers how movement restrictions put in place due to Covid-19 had affected their livelihood. 27% of the parents (20% of the teachers) reported that it had impact on their ability to grow food, 26% of parents (34% of teachers) that it had impact on their ability to sell produce, 4% of parents (10% of teachers) that it had impact on their ability to look after livestock/practice animal husbandry, and 29% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days Number of parents reporting Borrow food or accept help from friends, family members or other members of the community 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days Number of parents reporting Limit the amount of food served at mealtimes 137 of parents (74% of teachers) that it had impact on their daily salaried employment. 47% of parents and 10% of teachers reported that the restrictions had an effect in other ways. These are shown in figure 67 below.62 Figure 67: Parents and teachers report the effects of Covid-19 movement restrictions on livelihood For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 336-337, 522-529, 542-544. EPF students’ experience of measures put in place during EPF closures EPF directors reported that, since reopening, Covid-19 continues to have a significant impact on the ability to function as usual. Sanitary precautions are in place: students’ temperatures are taken before entering the EPF; cars are sprayed, facemasks are mandatory; there are stations with soap and sanitizer for students and staff to disinfect their hands and feet; meals are eaten respecting social distancing, with each student having their own cutlery and crockery; sleeping arrangements have also been modified. One EPF director reported that, after reopening, 8 students tested positive, which led to the closure of the school. The students were put into self￾isolation, and given reading activities to pursue; the school was deep cleaned. In response to the Covid-19 crisis, the teaching training program was modified and the school year extended, with an adjustment to the schedule for payment of fees, which was spread over a longer timeframe. WhatsApp and Google classroom were used to continue teaching online; EPF directors reported that those students who 62 Whereas it is not surprising that more teachers report impact on their salaried employment than parents (most of whom are subsistence farmers), it is noteworthy that the teachers also report disruption to food production and sales, suggesting they also engage in food production to supplement their salaries. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Ability to grow food Ability to sell produce Ability to look after livestock Daily salaried employment Other impacts Effect of Covid-19 Movement Restrictions on Livelihood Parents Teachers 138 did not have direct internet access received the information later; some students stopped studying during the closure. Distance learning does not allow such dynamic teaching as face-to face. Since the EPFs reopened, it is still not possible to undertake teaching practice in schools, since these are still closed; instead micro-teaching is organized between groups of students to simulate classroom practice. One positive aspect of the response to Covid-19 has been the individual and institutional learning regarding how to conduct distance education: this has involved a steep learning curve, in order to transfer teacher training online so quickly. EPF students surveyed were asked about the impact of Covid-19 on their training and how the EPF administration managed the crisis. Most of the trainees (96%) reported returning to their parents’ home while the EPFs were closed due to Covid-19; two said that they stayed with other family members, one remained at the EPF, and three individuals went to other places. Asked whether they had managed to keep in contact with their trainers, 76% responded ‘yes, all of them,’ 14% ‘yes, with some,’ and 10% said that they did not keep in contact. Of those whose trainers did manage to maintain contact, 47% said that their trainers had called them by telephone or via WhatsApp, 41% that they had received messages by SMS or WhatsApp, 34% said that they had been sent work via email, and 82% reported that their trainers had organised classes using digital platforms. Figures 68 and 69 below detail this. Figure 68 and 69: EPF students report whether and how their trainers kept in contact during Covid-19 closure Where the respondent indicated that their trainer had been in touch using one of these methods, they were asked how frequently this contact took place. The percentage of EPF students who indicated each method are presented in figures 70 through 73 below. EPF Students in Contact with Trainers Yes, with all Yes, with some No, did not maintain contact 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Call on telephone or WhatsApp SMS or WhatsApp messages Sent work via email Organized digital classes Other How EPF Trainers Kept in Contact 139 Figure 70: Frequency of EPF trainer contact during COVID-19: SMS or WhatsApp calls Figure 71: Frequency of EPF trainer contact during COVID-19: SMS or WhatsApp messages 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Every weekday 3-4 days per week 1-2 days per week Less than once per week Trainers called via telephone or WhatsApp 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Every weekday 3-4 days per week1-2 days per week Less than once per week Trainers sent messages via SMS or WhatsApp 140 Figure 72: Frequency of EPF trainer contact during COVID-19: Email Figure 73: Frequency of EPF trainer contact during COVID-19: Online classes As can be seen in the above tables, the majority of EPF trainers who maintained contact during the Covid-19 closures did so every weekday, testifying to the efficacy of the EPF response to Covid-19 overall, dedication of the EPF directors and trainers and their commitment to continue their students’ training in the face of logistical difficulty. 92% of the trainees reported that they had had lessons through distance learning with a trainer and their classmates. Around 42% said that they had individual distance contact with their EPF trainers. 47% of the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Every weekday 3-4 days per week1-2 days per week Less than once per week Trainers sent work to students via email 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Every weekday 3-4 days per week1-2 days per week Less than once per week Trainers organised classes via digital platforms 141 trainees reported that the distance learning was “very” beneficial for them, and a further 50% said that it was “a little” beneficial. Only 3% felt that it was not at all beneficial. Asked for their opinion about the quality of the distance learning, 19% said that it was excellent and 31% that it was good. 48% considered it to be of reasonable quality, and three respondents (2% of the total) thought that it was poor. Around 60% of the EPF students reported having received learning materials to support their distance learning. 46% of these thought the materials to be of excellent quality, and 43% thought they were good. 10% rated them to be reasonable, and only one respondent thought the materials were of poor quality. EPF students reported using different methods to access the distance learning. The majority, around 68%, used smartphones. 19% reported using a cell phone that was not a smartphone. 9% said that they used their own laptops or tablets, and two respondents (1%) said that they used someone else’s laptop or tablet. Another two respondents said that they used other methods. 47% reported using cellular signal to access the distance learning and 48% used internet or WiFi. 5% accessed it using other methods. The trainees were asked whether they had any problems connecting to the distance learning platforms: 46% said that they were able to get online whenever they wanted to, 44% that they were able to get online most of the time, and 31% that they could often get online. One student said that they were never able to get online. 11% reported that they had to move to another place to be able to get online. Regarding the quality of the connection, 16% said that the connection was of excellent quality, 32% that the connection was usually good, 4% that the connection was often very poor, and three students (2%) said that the connection was never good enough. At the time of the survey, all but one of the trainees reported that they had already returned to the EPF. All who returned reported that they felt safe there, and all felt that sufficient measures had been taken to limit the transmission of Covid-19 within the EPF. Asked what the impact of Covid-19 had been on their teacher training, most of the students felt that their teacher training had been compromised: 42% thought that it had been significantly compromised and 44% that it had been somewhat compromised. 9% thought that it had had minimal impact on their teacher training, and just 6% that it did not affect their teacher training. EPF students were shown a series of statements and asked which of them they agreed with, in order to gauge their feelings about leaving the EPF during Covid-19 closures. The responses are shown in table 16 below. How trainees felt about having to leave the EPF during the state of emergency Agreed Disagreed I was sorry to leave the EPF during Covid-19 because of the loss of contact with my trainer and other students 46% 54% I was sorry to leave the EPF during Covid-19 because I did not have access to the same resources, such as books, learning materials, computers, etc 42% 58% 142 It was inconvenient to have to leave the EPF but I managed to make up some of the lost time by studying on my own 35% 66% It was inconvenient to have to leave the EPF but I managed to make up some of the lost time thanks to the distance education provided by the EPF 47% 53% I was happy to leave the EPF and spend time at home/somewhere else 1% 99% Table 16: EPF trainees report how they felt about leaving the EPF during the Covid-19 emergency When asked whether they were satisfied with the measures taken to support the trainees during the EPF closures, 55% declared themselves “very” satisfied and 17% said that they were “fairly satisfied.” 16% said that they felt neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. 11% said that they were “fairly dissatisfied” and two respondents (1%) said that they felt very dissatisfied. The trainees were also asked about their satisfaction level with regard to the financial arrangements implemented by the EPFs after closure (delays in payment dates for fees): 42% said that they were “very” satisfied and 27% that they were “fairly satisfied.” 22% said that they felt neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. 6% said that they were “fairly dissatisfied” and 3% said that they felt very dissatisfied. For details, see Technical Appendix, pp 622-660. Covid-19 awareness All of the final surveys included a series of questions designed to measure general awareness of Covid-19, including its symptoms and preventative measures. All of the respondents to the parents’ survey had heard about the pandemic. When asked about their source of information, 29% said that they had heard about it from a family member, 62% from a member of the community, 17% from a member of the project team, and 65% from mass media such as TV or radio. 11% of the parents reported having been made aware from other sources. Similarly, all of the teachers surveyed confirmed that they were aware of the Covid-19 pandemic. 39% said that they had been made aware by a family member, 41% by a member of their community, 23% by a member of the project team, and 98% had heard about it through mass communication such as radio or TV. Around 5% also reported having been made aware through other means. Figure 74 below compares these. 143 Figure 74: Parents and teachers report where they learned about Covid-19 Parents were asked what they knew about the Covid-19 pandemic: 74% reported that they were aware of how to keep safe/avoid becoming infected, 59% reported awareness of the symptoms, 52% said they were aware of how the disease is transmitted, 46% were aware of how to practice self-care, and 10% reported being aware of government action around the pandemic. When EPF students were asked the same question, 81% said they were aware of how to keep safe, 78% reported awareness of the symptoms, 76% said they were aware of how the disease is transmitted, 53% were aware of how to practice self-care, and 22% reported being aware of government action around the pandemic. Of the teachers, 87% were aware of how to keep safe, 89% reported awareness of the symptoms, 89% said they were aware of how the disease is transmitted, 63% were aware of how to practice self-care, and 43% reported being aware of government action around the pandemic. Figure 75 compares these across the three groups, of which teachers appear to be the best-informed, at least as far as these self-declared responses are concerned (respondents were asked whether they knew this information, not to demonstrate knowledge of the information, so may have overstated their level of knowledge). It is possible that teachers overestimated their own levels of awareness, given the cultural expectation that teachers should possess knowledge and understanding. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Family member Member of the community Member of the project team Mass media (radio, TV) Other Sources of Information about Covid-19 Parents Teachers 144 Figure 75: Awareness of Covid-19 In order to ascertain respondents’ awareness of Covid-19 symptoms, parents, teachers and EPF students were asked to state which of a list of symptoms could occur with Covid-19. Given that all the symptoms listed are associate with some cases of Covid-19, choosing more symptoms indicates greater awareness. Teachers appear most informed followed by EPF students, then parents. Figure 76 compares these responses across the three groups. Figure 76: Awareness of Covid-19 Symptoms 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% How to keep safe Symptoms Means of transmission Self-care Government action Covid-19 Awareness Parents EPF students Teachers 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fever Coughing Shortness of breath Difficulty breathing Sore muscles Headache Diarrhea Awareness of Covid-19 Symptoms Parents EPF students Teachers 145 Survey respondents were asked which preventative measures they were using to protect against Covid-19. The results are shown in table 17. In general, both EPF students and teachers report higher use of preventative measures (96% to 100% than do parents, although parents also report a relatively high level of observance (between 75% and 98%). Preventative Measures Parents EPF students Teachers Wash hands regularly using soap and water for at least 20 seconds 98% 96% 98% Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with your hands 85% 100% 99% Cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing and then wash your hands 95% 100% 99% Avoid close contact with any sick person, especially with the flu or a cold (fever, coughing, sneezing) 89% 99% 99% Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces 81% 99% 100% Stay home if you are sick, except to seek medical help 87% 94% 97% Avoid shaking hands with others 98% 99% 100% Avoid large meetings (church meetings, community meetings, etc.) 75% 99% 100% Other methods 49% 81% N/A Table 17: Groups report their use of preventative measures against Covid-19 All groups were asked if there was anything further that they wanted to know about the pandemic out of a number of options. Figure 77 shows these responses. Figure 77: What survey respondents want to know about Covid-19 Finally, all groups were asked whether they thought people in Mozambique knew enough about the Covid-19 pandemic: 79% of parents felt that they did, 11% that they did not, and 10% said that they were unsure. 75% of 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% How to protect themselves Symptoms Means of transmission What to do if they have symptoms High risk groups Details of treatment Other questions What People Want to Know About Covid-19 Parents EPF students Teachers 146 EPF students thought that they did, and 25% that they did not. Teachers were the most pessimistic group in this respect: 47% thought that the people of Mozambique had sufficient knowledge of the pandemic, and 53% that they did not. See figure 78 below. For details of all responses, see Technical Appendix, pp 324-335, 529-542, 661-669. Figure 78: Groups report whether they think people in Mozambique are sufficiently well-informed The project has undoubtedly been responsive and proactive in responding to the pandemic, with distribution of take-home rations, use of the HGSFGs to feed the surrounding communities, production and broadcasting of distance classes for primary students, not to mention the large-scale and impressive provision of online teacher training by the EPFs. Over and above the interruption of most education, school feeding and other activities caused by school closures, perhaps the most pernicious effect of the pandemic has been its delaying of the withdrawal plan, intended to progressively prepare communities and government to take over management and implementation of the various activities after the formal closure of the project. The closure of schools in March, at exactly the moment when, with nine months left to run, this handover plan needed to be implemented is a regrettable blow to the ambitions to achieve a progressive withdrawal and handover, in as sustainable a manner as possible. This observation is not to detract from recognizing and saluting the dynamic and practical response to the pandemic identified by the evaluation. Remote Evaluation: challenges, delays and lessons learned This section considers some of the challenges and lessons learned from the use of novel methodologies to conduct the evaluation in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The remote data gathering methods used are 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Yes No Unsure Do People in Mozambique Know Enough About Covid-19? Parents EPF students Teachers 147 innovative and have not been used extensively in Mozambique. It is anticipated that the Covid-19 pandemic will change the way much international research and evaluation work is conducted. For this reason, some lessons learned from the data gathering process are presented here in the hope that they may assist other teams. These include a summary prepared by Apolowil of advice to other organizations gathering data remotely in Mozambique. From the time the consortium was informed we had won the bid on 5 May 2020 and throughout the entire period of conducting the evaluation, the evaluation process has known challenges and delays due to Covid-19. The consortium members were only able to begin formal interaction with the FFE2 project and data gathering activities after contracts were signed during the second half of July. Initially, while it was not clear whether schools would reopen and whether it would be possible to conduct conventional fieldwork the team was planning for two alternative scenarios, keeping the options open as long as possible: one a traditional data gathering which would have completed the cohort study begun at baseline; the second a mainly remote evaluation. The decision was taken on 3 August to pursue the remote evaluation (for more details of the factors behind this decision, please see the evaluation Inception Report, dated 31 July 2020). Throughout the entire period, all members of the UK team and Planet Aid have been working from home, some juggling work with other responsibilities resulting from the Covid-19 situation. They have communicated remotely (using WhatsApp, Skype and Zoom) with the evaluation team in Mozambique and Zimbabwe and the FFE project team in Mozambique. Calibio Matine, the national evaluation coordinator, often played the role of mediating communications between Simone Doctors, the FFE team on the ground and the team from Apolowil. With schools closed and the FFE staff working using Covid-19 safe methods, it took far longer than usual to receive information from the decentralised project locations. This was particularly challenging when compiling the lists of survey participants and contact details from them; the FFE team went to great efforts to assemble contact details for the teachers, head teachers and parents requested by the evaluation team, despite the fact that, with schools closed, this was a delicate task. Contact details for the EPF students were compiled through ADPP’s network of EPFs, with considerable assistance from ADPP’s EPF focal point; this was a far easier process, thanks to the access to technologies and functional communications processes within the EPF network. However all these activities took far longer than they would normally have. When it came to conducting remote surveys, challenges were caused by poor network connectivity; repeated power outages- which meant that some respondents were not able to charge their mobile phones; and a lack of familiarity with digital platforms amongst respondents. None of these challenges came as surprises to the team who have all worked extensively in Mozambique over many years. Perhaps the main drawback of remote data collection is that it was not able to reach the most remote and often the most disadvantaged project stakeholders, situated in areas where connectivity and access to digital technologies are most problematic. This should be borne in mind in assessing the evaluation results. The main action the evaluation team was able to 148 take to counter this was to administer the parents/community survey using research assistants, so that participants who had mobile phones, but not smart phones, could participate in Changana or Xirhonga rather than Portuguese; however, this still did not allow inclusion of the most remote participants, likely to be the most excluded and disadvantaged. Both the evaluation team and the project leadership and staff have worked extremely hard at each stage of the evaluation, to overcome the challenges, but delays have been caused by not being able to communicate in the usual ways. The fact that it has been possible to conduct the evaluation at all is a testimony to the exemplary commitment and hard work of all those concerned. One significant learning point from the experience of remote data gathering was the relatively low response rate amongst participants, and the resulting need to significantly over-sample. Due to the evaluation plan, which followed on from the baseline and midterm evaluations, with the end point considered as the final follow up, there was no scope to expand on the school/school director sample, which resulted in a low level of response, apparently due to a combination of connectivity challenges, limited access to smart phones and limited technological competency63. Given this reality, over-sampling is necessary in order to obtain a given number of responses. On the basis of the experience of conducting the remote surveys, Apolowil has compiled advice to other organisations undertaking remote data gathering using ODK or similar platforms in Mozambique or other countries with similar communications infrastructure and levels of mobile penetration and technological awareness (see Box 1 below). 63 Observing the relatively low response rate amongst school directors, Apolowil called each director several times to ascertain why they had not responded. Some explained they did not have sufficient network to upload the survey. Others claimed to have uploaded it, although the survey was not received by Apolowil. In order to investigate further, at the request of the international evaluation coordinator, representatives of Apolowil arranged to go to three schools in Manhiça district to meet with school directors who had not been able to upload the survey, to try and ascertain the nature of the obstacle. Observing Covid-19 safety precautions, they met the individuals and examined the survey on their phones. They observed that the survey had not actually been uploaded, although the individuals concerned were convinced they had uploaded it. This suggests that a significant proportion of the non-responses may be attributable to lack of technological competence on the part of the respondents. 149 Box 1: Advice regarding remote data collection during COVID using a platform such as ODK 1. Piloting survey instruments allows challenges to be anticipated and possible solutions adopted before data collection is carried out. Sufficient time is needed to reflect on and incorporate the feedback from pre-testing before conducting the actual survey. 2. Working in two different languages requires thorough coordination among survey stakeholders. Coordination helps to smoothen communication and ensure all questions are understood during and after scripting. 3. Remote facilitation of interviews across different survey areas presents communication challenges. Proper and timely communication with respondents is necessary when using interviewee-administered questionnaires. Assuming that all respondents have the same level of understanding of data collection tools and questions can give misleading results. 4. Timely mobilization of respondents plays a key role in remote data collection, as does ensuring that all respondents get the same message. Some school directors refused to take part in the survey because they had not received communication from the project. Building trust when interacting with respondents is of paramount importance. Research assistants need to be patient and polite in explaining the purpose of the survey to the respondents, to improve uptake. 5. The role of incentives is crucial when conducting remote interviews in Mozambique, where many respondents have modest incomes. Incentives are a key factor in many respondents deciding to undertake interviews. During the data collection period incentives (in the form of mobile phone credit) were paid after the respondent uploaded the interview. This presented challenges as some respondents claimed to have uploaded their interview, but this was never received. Delivering incentives before the interview can also be problematic if the respondents are not trustworthy. 6. Interviewer-administered interviews are the best option when dealing with respondents in remote areas. Sufficient time is required to train the research assistants to understand the data collection tools. Using local languages understood by the respondents helps to produce quality data. Assuming that all respondents understand and can converse in Portuguese can pose serious problems in collecting relevant data. 7. Keeping records of all contacts is key to obtaining results. The best option is to have a database of all respondents which can be tracked, to see respondents who have been reached and completed the interviews as well as those requiring follow ups. This requires a competent team of research assistants and a coordinator whose job is to update the database and communicate with the team, to avoid duplication of efforts. 8. Telephone interviews require constant supervision and monitoring of research assistants. In this process we encountered a case where one research assistant faked interviews but with the help of the CAPI programmer it was easy to track the time of the interviews. It is necessary for a coordinator to make follow up calls to ensure that interviews can be confirmed a having taken place. The interview team should work together at a central venue, in a COvid-19 safe environment, with some level of control on the data collection process. Working together at a central venue ensures the tram receives enough supervision and support. 9. For remote data collection to be successful there is need for respondents to be mobilized on time, using accurate phone numbers. This helps to design the sampling framework and test the telephone numbers before the actual survey. Respondents can also be sensitized about the survey using phone calls, ensuring that all targeted respondents will be available for the interviews. 10. In conclusion in the context of Mozambique, interviewer administered surveys yield better results for remote data collection. This works best in areas with good network connectivity and requires time for mobilization. Source: Apolowil 150 Conclusion This is the final of a series of evaluations conducted by several members of the evaluation team over the course of the eight years of the FFE project. The team has had the opportunity to watch the project grow in stature and the staff evolve individually and as a team, over this time, from tentative beginnings where everything was to be created, to the efficient, professional operation it presented at end point. This has been a remarkable journey of working with government, communities and schools to create the infrastructure, systems and capacity to provide school food to 90,000 pupils, including a significant local food production component, in association with the development and rollout of two innovative programs: one to promote literacy in local languages, the other to deliver nutrition education. This would be a significant achievement in any context; in the challenging environment of Mozambique, it is all the more remarkable. In the judgement of the evaluation team, it is thanks to Planet Aid and ADPP’s community development approach, which builds community capacity on the ground through “working shoulder to shoulder with the poor” that these achievements have been possible. Over the course of several evaluations, the evaluation team have observed the FFE project staff and leadership in the schools and communities where the project is based interacting and working with individuals there. Numerous informants commented on the fact that FFE staff spend time on the ground rather than in their offices and considered this to be a key to the project’s ability to engage schools and communities in project activities. This, combined with energetic leadership, a determination to get things done, and progressive development of effective systems and procedures led to one USDA/FAS representative telling the evaluation team: “The FFK project is one of the best, if not the best, I’ve ever seen in twenty years.” Most of the project’s planned activities have been implemented as intended, even in the face of considerable obstacles, including but not limited to the current pandemic. The project’s energetic, proactive approach can be seen, for example, in its response to the pandemic, with distribution of take-home rations, use of the HGSFGs to feed the surrounding communities, production and broadcasting of distance lessons for primary students, and the provision of online teacher training by the EPFs. The vast majority of final targets have been comfortably exceeded; in the few cases where final targets have not been met, they have been very nearly achieved. Indeed, a number of final targets had already been achieved at midterm, which no doubt partly accounts for the high performance of the project on many indicators even during Covid-19 school closures. The exception is in the area of attentiveness and reduced short-term hunger in the classroom, where more teachers at final reported pupils having attention problems and showing signs of short-term hunger than at baseline; a variety of factors are likely to be at play here, from increased awareness on the part of teachers to the impossibility of obtaining data from the students themselves at the final evaluation. The evaluators believe that these rare negative results, which diverge so strongly from the positive picture told by the findings overall, are likely to be an aberration: an artefact of probably unreliable data gathered at baseline, compounded by the disruptions to the evaluation methodology caused by the pandemic. 151 Despite Covid-19 restrictions on data collection rendering it difficult to compare outcomes between midterm and final in many instances, the final report clearly shows the difference made by project interventions: students are reading better; trainee teachers show improved literacy levels in Portuguese; in-service teachers are more informed of active, student-centered learning approaches; community volunteers in the HGSFGs are able to produce large amounts of food to the benefit of schools and communities; school water committees are confident in their ability to maintain existing water systems. It remains to be seen whether these positive changes can be sustained. One of the most unfortunate effects of the pandemic has been its interruption of the project’s withdrawal plan, intended to progressively prepare communities and government to take over management and implementation of the various activities after the formal closure of the project. As the FFE project run so successfully by Planet Aid closes, it is vital that the next implementers of McGovern-Dole in Maputo Province should continue to work towards the goal of sustainability. FFE2 made significant progress towards sustainability, in terms of building human capital, knowledge and systems. Advocacy and collaboration with other agencies have led to school feeding finding a place on the GoM’s agenda, with progress made towards a law introducing school feeding as a statutory right for Mozambican children. However there remains a significant missing piece in the quest for sustainability, which is the question of resources to fund the base food, whether through purchasing on the open market, local production or a combination of these. It is vital for the GoM to be able to mobilize the necessary resources to deliver school feeding for Mozambican children throughout the nation. The evaluation team ends this report with a call to the GoM to use the next period of McGovern-Dole funding to ensure that, at the end of the next funding period, Mozambique has put in place the material and human resources to ensure Mozambican primary school children are eating food grown by Mozambican farmers. It is also our hope that the practice of teaching literacy in local languages will grow from strength to strength and become a key to Mozambican students achieving the meaningful learning they need to become successful adults and citizens. The evaluation team congratulates the FFE project on its achievements and wishes the GoM every success in pursuing and building on these. 152 References Doctors, S. et al. “PLANET AID/USDA Food for Education phase 2, Baseline Study Report”. 2018. Doctors, S. et al. "Food For Education Project Phase 2, Midterm Evaluation Report". 2019. Kioko, Angelina N. et al. "Mother Tongue and Education In Africa: Publicising The Reality". Multilingual Education, vol 4, no. 1, 2014. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, doi:10.1186/s13616-014-0018-x. "Literacy Rate, Adult Total (% Of People Ages 15 And Above) - Mozambique | Data". Data.Worldbank.Org, 2020, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.ZS?locations=MZ. Accessed 26 Jan 2021. Lupton, D. (ed) "DOING FIELDWORK IN A PANDEMIC". Google Docs, 2020, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1clGjGABB2h2qbduTgfqribHmog9B6P0NvMgVuiHZCl8/edit?ts=5e88ae0 a# . Accessed 26 Jan 2021. 153 Annexes Annex 1: Results Framework of the Food for Education Project in Mozambique, capturing the ToC upon which the project is based 154 Annex 2: McGovern-Dole Results Frameworks 155 Annex 3: EGRA Subtask Findings Phonological awareness Pupils were presented with a series of ten rows of three photos of everyday objects. For each row, they responded to a stimulus word pronounced by the enumerator by indicating the object whose name begins with the same initial consonant sound. a) Year 1: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 8 out of 10. The lowest score was 3 (2.5% of the students) and the highest was 10 (30.2% of the students). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a slightly higher mean score (8.3; range 4 to 10) compared to those tested in Portuguese (7.7; range 3 to 10). Students tested in local languages were more likely to achieve a perfect score (32% compared with 28.1% of the students tested in Portuguese). b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 8 (range 3 to 10); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 7.9 (range 3 to 10). Students tested in their home language were more likely to achieve a perfect score (30.9% compared with 27.7% of those tested in a language different to that spoken at home). b) Year 2: All students: The mean score for all year two students was 9.2 out of 10. The lowest score was 6 (2.5% of the students) and the highest was 10 (55.3% of the students). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean score for the students tested in Portuguese was 9.1 (range 6 to 10); for the students tested in local languages it was 9.2 (range 6 to 10). Of the students tested in local languages, 58.3% achieved a perfect score compared with 52.1% of those tested in Portuguese. b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 9.2 (range 6 to 10); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 9 (range 6 to 10). Students tested in their home language were more likely to achieve a perfect score (57.1% compared with 50% of those tested in a language different to that spoken at home). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 1-6, 38-44. 156 Concepts of print Within this subtask, pupils were asked to perform ten activities as evidence of their familiarity with printed materials. c) Year 1: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 8.3 out of 10. The lowest score was 5 (4.2% of the students) and the highest was 10 (23.2% of the students). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a slightly higher mean score (8.5; range 5 to 10) compared to those tested in Portuguese (8.1; range 5 to 10). Students tested in local languages were more likely to achieve a perfect score (27.1% compared with 19.1% of the students tested in Portuguese). b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 8.4 (range 5 to 10); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 8 (range 5 to 10). Students tested in their home language were around twice as likely to achieve a perfect score (26.2% compared with 13.3% of those tested in a language different to that spoken at home). d) Year 2: All students: The mean score for all year two students was 9 out of 10. The lowest score was 6 (5.3% of the students) and the highest was 10 (44% of the students). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean score for both groups of students was 9 (range 6 to 10). b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 9.1 (range 6 to 10); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 8.7 (range 6 to 10). Students tested in their home language were much more likely to achieve a perfect score (49% compared with 29.6% of those tested in a language different to that spoken at home). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 6-11, 44-50. Letter sound recognition Pupils were asked to produce sounds of 100 upper- or lower-case letters, presented in ten rows of ten, producing as many as possible within 60 seconds. a) Year 1: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 16.2 out of 100 (range 0 to 42). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in Portuguese achieved a slightly higher mean score (17; range 0 to 42) compared to those tested in local languages (15.4; range 0 to 42). 157 b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 16.8 (range 0 to 42); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 14.2 (range 0 to 37). b) Year 2: All students: The mean score for all year two students was 20.2 (range 0 to 53). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean score for the students tested in Portuguese was 22.3 (range 0 to 53); for the students tested in local languages it was 18.3 (range 0 to 51). b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 20.3 (range 0 to 53); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 19.7 (range 0 to 52). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 12-14, 50-53. Reading syllables Pupils were asked to read 50 syllables constituting plausible vowel-consonant combinations of the languages of testing, reading as many as possible within 60 seconds. a) Year 1: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 9.8 syllables out of 50 (range 0 to 38). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a slightly higher mean score (11; range 0 to 38) compared to those tested in Portuguese (8.5; range 0 to 38). b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean number of syllables read for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 10.6 (range 0 to 38). For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 7.2 (range 0 to 32). b) Year 2: All students: The mean score for all year two students was 15.7 syllables per minute (range 0 to 52. a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in Portuguese achieved a slightly higher mean score (17.2; range 0 to 50) compared to those tested in local languages (14.4; range 0 to 52). b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean number of syllables read for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 16.1 (range from 0 to 52). For students 158 whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 14.5 (range between 0 and 50). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 15-17, 53-56. Reading words Pupils were asked to read a series of 30 progressively more difficult words aloud within a one-minute time limit64 . a) Year 1: All students: The mean number of words per minute (WPM) for all year one students was 5 out of 30 (range 0 to 22). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a higher mean number of words (6.3; range 0 to 22) compared to those tested in Portuguese (3.7; range 0 to 22). b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean number of words read per minute for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 5.4 (range from 0 to 22). For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 3.7 (range between 0 and 19). b) Year 2: All students: The mean number of WPM for all year two students was 9.2 (range from 0 to 33). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean number of words read for the students tested in Portuguese was 9.1 (range 0 to 33); for the students tested in local languages it was 9.2 (range 0 to 28). b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean number of words for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 9.7 (range 0 to 33); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 7.5 (range 0 to 33). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 18-20, 56-59. Reading fluency (WPM) Pupils were asked to read a short text (the length of the local language texts is equivalent to the Portuguese text but has fewer words due to the morphological structure of those languages). The task was timed and the number of words read correctly within one minute recorded to give a fluency rating. The results below relate to reading fluency (WPM). a) Year 1: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 6 WPM (range 0 to 24 WPM). 64 This subtask was not timed at midterm but was on this occasion. 159 a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean number of words read for the students tested in Portuguese was 6.4 (range between 0 and 23); for the students tested in local languages it was 5.6 (range from 0 to 24). b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean number of words read per minute for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 6.2 (range from 0 to 24); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 5.4 (range between 0 and 23). b) Year 2: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 15.9 WPM (range 0 to 58 WPM. a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean number of words read per minute for the students tested in Portuguese was 18.3 (range between 0 and 58); for the students tested in local languages it was 13.9 (range 0 to 49). b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean number of words read per minute for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 16.6 (range between 0 and 54); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 14 (range 0 to 58). c) Year 3: All students: The mean number of words read per minute for all year three students was 35.3 (range 0 to 93). a. Year 3, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in Portuguese read an average of 40 WPM (range 0 to 93), compared to those tested in local languages (29.5; range 1 to 70). b. Year 3, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: Students whose home language was the same as the language of testing read an average of 34.2 WPM (range from 1 to 88). For students whose home language was different from the language of testing the mean was 37.1% WPM (range 0 to 93). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 21-23, 59-62, 77-79. Comparative reading fluency In order to compare the performance of students tested in Xichangana and Xirhonga with those tested in Portuguese, overall fluency scores were divided by the number of words in the text. 160 a) Year 1: All students: The mean percentage of the text read in one minute for all year one students was 32.4% (range 0% to 140%65). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a higher reading fluency score (36%; range 0 to 140%) compared to those tested in Portuguese (28.8%; range 0 to 104%). b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: Students whose home language was the same as the language of testing had a mean reading fluency score of 34.5% (range from 0 to 133%). For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 25.5% (range from 0 to 140%). b) Year 2: All students: The mean percentage of the text read in one minute for all year two students was 33.9% (range 0% to 124%). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a slightly higher reading fluency score (35.1%; range 0 to 124%) compared to those tested in Portuguese (32.6%; range 0 to 117%). b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: Students whose home language was the same as the language of testing had a mean reading fluency score of 37.2% (range 0 to 124%). For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 24.2% (range 0 to 101%). c) Year 3: All students: The mean percentage of the text read in one minute for all year three students was 46.8% (range 0% to 127%. a. Year 3, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a higher reading fluency score (53.2%; range 1% to 127%) compared to those tested in Portuguese (41.6%; range 0 to 97%). b. Year 3, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: Students whose home language was the same as the language of testing had a mean reading fluency score of 51.3% (range from 1% to 127%). For students whose home language was different from the language of testing the mean was 38.9% (range 0 to 97%). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 24-26, 62-65, 80-82. 65 Because the subtask was timed, the scores for “mean percentage of the text read in one minute” exceed 100% where the students were recorded as completing the task in less than one minute. The evaluation team was informed that some enumerators had to enter the results after the fact, in the absence of the learners, due to technical difficulties. This may explain some of these surprisingly high percentages (since the times entered may have been estimates). 161 Comprehension of reading To assess whether pupils understood what they had read, they were asked several comprehension questions corresponding to the point in the text they had reached when reading. Year 1 students were asked up to 3 comprehension questions, year 2 students were asked up to 4 questions, and year 3 students were asked up to 5 questions. a) Year 1: All students: The mean score for all year one students was 1, with scores overall ranging between 0 (31.1% of the students) and 3 (8.9% of the students). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a mean score of 1 (range 0 to 3); those tested in Portuguese, 1.1 (range 0 to 3). It is noteworthy that the students tested in local languages were more likely to be able to answer at least one of the comprehension questions: of these students, 78.8% were able to answer between 1 and 3 questions while 21.2% were unable to answer any questions. Of the students tested in Portuguese, 59.4% were able to answer between 1 and 3 questions, while 40.6% could not answer any comprehension questions. b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for both groups of students was 1 (range 0 to 3 for both groups). Of the students who were tested in the language they spoke at home, 70.9% were able to answer between 1 and 3 questions and 29.1% could not answer any questions. Of the students tested in a language other than the one they spoke at home, 62.5% were able to answer between 1 and 3 questions and 37.5% were not able to answer any of the comprehension questions. b) Year 2: All students: The mean score for all year two students was 1.4, with scores overall ranging between 0 (30.5% of the students) and 4 (4% of the students). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean score for both groups of students was 1.4 (range 0 to 4 for both groups). Again, the students tested in local languages were more likely to be able to answer at least one of the comprehension questions: of these students, 78.3% were able to answer between 1 and 4 questions while just 21.7% were unable to answer any questions. Of the students tested in Portuguese, 59.8% were able to answer between 1 and 4 questions, while 40.2% could not answer any comprehension questions. b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students tested in the language they spoke at home was 1.5 (range 0 to 4); for students tested in a different language it was 1 (range 0 to 4). Of the students tested in the language they spoke at home, 75.2% were able to answer between 1 and 4 questions and 24.8% could not answer any questions. Of the students tested 162 in a language other than the one they spoke at home, 51.2% were able to answer between 1 and 4 questions and 48.8% were not able to answer any of the questions. c) Year 3: All students: The mean score for all year three students was 2.5, with scores overall ranging between 1 (17.9% of the students) and 4 (17.9% of the students). a. Year 3, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: The mean score for students tested in Portuguese was 2.5 (range 1 to 4); for students tested in local languages, 2.4 (range 1 to 4). b. Year 3, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students tested in the language they spoke at home was 2.5 (range 1 to 4); for students tested in a different language it was 2.4 (range 1 to 4). The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 27-30, 65-69, 82-86. All pupils were asked to perform a series of short writing tasks: writing their first name, writing their family name, and writing five discrete words as a dictation exercise. Writing first name correctly a) Year 1: All students: 59% of all year one students were able to write their first name correctly. a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: 61% of the students tested in Portuguese were able to write their first name correctly compared with 57% of the students tested in local languages. b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: 58.9% of the students whose home language was the same as the language of testing were able to write their first name correctly. For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 59.2%. b) Year 2: All students: 80.2% of all year two students were able to write their first name correctly. a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: 73.7% of the students tested in Portuguese were able to write their first name correctly compared with 86.1% of the students tested in local languages. b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: 86.4% of the students whose home language was the same as the language of testing were able to write their first name correctly. For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 62.3%. c) Year 3: All students: 85.9% of all year three students were able to write their first name correctly. 163 a. Year 3, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: 83.3% of the students tested in Portuguese were able to write their first name correctly compared with 89% of the students tested in local languages. b. Year 3, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: 87% of the students whose home language was the same as the language of testing were able to write their first name correctly. For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 83.8%. The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 31-33, 70-72, 87-89. Writing family name correctly a) Year 1: All students: 24.5% of all year one students were able to write their family name correctly. a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: 24% of the students tested in Portuguese were able to write their family name correctly, compared with 25% of the students tested in local languages. b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: 25.8% of the students whose home language was the same as the language of testing were able to write their family name correctly. For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 20.4%. b) Year 2: All students: 55.1% of all year two students were able to write their family name correctly. a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: 54.5% of the students tested in Portuguese were able to write their family name correctly compared with 55.6% of the students tested in local languages. b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: 59.7% of the students whose home language was the same as the language of testing were able to write their family name correctly. For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 41.5%. c) Year 3: All students: 73.7% of all year three students were able to write their family name correctly. a. Year 3, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: 68.4% of the students tested in Portuguese were able to write their family name correctly compared with 80.2% of the students tested in local languages. b. Year 3, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: 79.4% of the students whose home language was the same as the language of testing were able to write their family name correctly. For students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 63.5%. The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 31-33, 70-72, 87-89. 164 Writing dictation: individual words Pupils were asked to write five individual words as a dictation exercise and assigned a score based on the number of words written correctly. a) Year 1: All students: The mean number of words written correctly for all year one students was 1.8 out of 5. The lowest score was 0 (52% of the students) and the highest was 5 (17% of the students). a. Year 1, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a slightly higher mean score (2.0; range 0 to 5) compared to those tested in Portuguese (1.5; range 0 to 5). Students tested in local languages were more likely to be able to write at least one of the words dictated: of this group, 55% were able to write between 1 and 5 words correctly and 45% were unable to write any words. Of students tested in Portuguese, 41% were able to write between 1 and 5 words, and 59% were unable to write any. b. Year 1, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 1.9 (range 0 to 5); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 1.4 (range 0 to 5). Students tested in their home language were more likely to be able to write at least one of the words dictated: of this group, 51% were able to write between 1 and 5 words correctly and 49% were unable to write any words. Of students tested in a language other than that spoken at home, 38.8% were able to write between 1 and 5 words, and 61.2% were unable to write any. b) Year 2: All students: The mean number of words written correctly for all year two students was 2.4 out of 5. The lowest score was 0 (38.2% of the students) and the highest was 5 (25.6% of the students). a. Year 2, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a slightly higher mean score (2.6; range 0 to 5) compared to those tested in Portuguese (2.1; range 0 to 5). Students tested in local languages were more likely to be able to write at least one of the words dictated: of this group, 65.7% were able to write between 1 and 5 words correctly and 34.3% were unable to write any words. Of students tested in Portuguese, 57.6% were able to write between 1 and 5 words, and 42.4% were unable to write any. b. Year 2, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 2.6 (range 0 to 5); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 1.6 (range 0 to 5). Students tested in their home language were more likely to be able to write at least one of the words dictated: of this group, 67.5% were able to write between 1 and 5 words correctly and 32.5% were unable to write any 165 words. Of students tested in a language other than that spoken at home, 45.3% were able to write between 1 and 5 words, and 54.7% were unable to write any. c) Year 3: All students: The mean number of words written correctly for all year three students was 3.2 out of 5 (range 0 to 5). a. Year 3, contrast 1: Portuguese as language of testing vs Bilingual language of testing: Students tested in local languages achieved a higher mean score (3.6; range 0 to 5) compared to those tested in Portuguese (2.9; range 0 to 5). Students tested in local languages were more likely to be able to write at least one of the words dictated: of this group, 91.2% were able to write between 1 and 5 words correctly and 8.8% were unable to write any words. Of students tested in Portuguese, 74.5% were able to write between 1 and 5 words, and 25.5% were unable to write any. b. Year 3, contrast 2: Home language same as language of testing vs different home language and language of testing: The mean score for students whose home language was the same as the language of testing was 3.5 (range 0 to 5); for students whose home language was different from the language of testing it was 2.7 (range 0 to 5). Students tested in their home language were more likely to be able to write at least one of the words dictated: of this group, 88.5% were able to write between 1 and 5 words correctly and 11.5% were unable to write any words. Of students tested in a language other than that spoken at home, 70.3% were able to write between 1 and 5 words, and 29.7% were unable to write any. The complete results are presented in the Technical Appendix, pp 34-37, 73-76, 90-93. 166 Annex 4: Detailed presentation of EGRA benchmarks In order to be able to compare the results of the 3a classe full-EGRA and the mini-EGRA in terms of reading￾fluency and text comprehension, as well as the results of the full-EGRA across years of schooling and language of testing, it was necessary to define evaluation specific benchmarks. After examining the characteristics of the 12 short texts included in the EGRA assessments, the evaluation team designed six different benchmarks based on pupils being able to read enough words of a text to answer a number of comprehension questions of subtask ST8. These benchmarks aim to account for the effect of the morphology of the assessment languages in the length of the different short texts, as well as differences in complexity between the texts included in the EGRA for 3a classe and the ones included in the mini-EGRA. We started by determining, for each of the 12 short texts, how many words a pupil had to read in order to answer the comprehension questions of the EGRA. Those are described in tables xA to xE below: Table xA: Number of words of words a pupil has to read in order to answer the first comprehension question of ST8 Year/ Language Xichangana Portuguese Xirhonga 1 a classe 3 5 3 2 a classe 7 19 6 3 a classe * 4 * *. It was only possible to answer the first and second questions simultaneously as they referred to the same paragraph of the short text. Table xB: Number of words of words a pupil has to read in order to answer the first two comprehension questions of ST8 Year/ Language Xichangana Portuguese Xirhonga 1 a classe 11 12 7 2 a classe 20 23 12 3 a classe 15 20 15 Table xC: Number of words of words a pupil has to read in order to answer the first three comprehension questions of ST8 Year/ Language Xichangana Portuguese Xirhonga 1 a classe 15 22 15 2 a classe 30 48 20 3 a classe 33 38 41 3 a classe (mini-EGRA) 36 37 38 167 Table xD: Number of words of words a pupil has to read in order to answer the first four comprehension questions of ST8 Year/ Language Xichangana Portuguese Xirhonga 2 a classe 37 57 38 3 a classe * 62 * *. It was only possible to answer the fourth and fifth questions simultaneously as they referred to the full text. Table xE: Number of words of words a pupil has to read in order to answer five comprehension questions of ST8 Year/ Language Xichangana Portuguese Xirhonga 3 a classe 55 90 55 We designed the first three benchmarks in order to compare the results of the full and the mini-EGRA. The first two, benchmarks A and B, include elements of both fluency and text comprehension and are defined as:  Benchmark A: The pupil read enough words to be able to answer the first three questions of ST8 and was able to do answer them correctly.  Benchmark B: The pupil attempted to read enough words to be able to answer the first three questions of ST8 and was able to do answer them correctly. The third benchmark, benchmark C, focus only on the text comprehension element of ST8. It is only defined for the pupils who attempted to read enough words as to be able to answer the first three questions:  Benchmark C: The pupil answered three questions correctly. And the two final benchmarks apply to the full cohort of pupils being assessed by the full-EGRA:  Benchmark D: The pupil managed to answer correctly the questions corresponding to the number of words they were able to read in sequence from the beginning of the text (i.e. until a word was skipped or read incorrectly).  Benchmark E: The pupil managed to answer correctly the questions corresponding to the number of words they attempted to read. Benchmarks A and B 25.9% of the 3a class pupils who sat the full-EGRA attained benchmark A, and 38.1% attained benchmark B. For the pupils who sat the mini-EGRA, the corresponding figures are higher at 31.2% and 47.3%, respectively. For each EGRA assessment, the distributions of the percentages of pupils who attained the benchmarks in terms of language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual and testing in Home Language vs testing in an Additional Language) can be found on the graphs below: 168 Graph xA: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual) - 3a classe EGRA Graph xB: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual) - mini￾EGRA 169 Graph xC: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Home language as language of testing vs Additional language as language of testing) - 3a classe EGRA Graph xD: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Home language as language of testing vs Additional language as language of testing) – mini-EGRA 170 Benchmark C Amongts the pupils who sat the 3a classe full-EGRA and attempted to read enough words as to be able to answer the first three questions of ST8, 69.6% met the benchmark C criterion. Amongst the corresponding mini-EGRA subsample of pupils, 77.6% of the pupils attained the same result. The distributions of the percentages of pupils who attained benchmark C in terms of language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual and testing in Home Language vs testing in an Additional Language) and years of schooling can be seen on the graphs below: Graph xE: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual) 171 Graph xF: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Home language as language of testing vs Additional language as language of testing) Benchmarks D and E 52.2% of the pupils who completed a full-EGRA assessment attained benchmark D, and 80.1% attained the less stringent Benchmark E. The distributions of the percentages of pupils who attained the two benchmarks in terms of language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual and testing in Home Language vs testing in an Additional Language) and years of schooling can be found on the graphs below: 172 Graph xG: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Portuguese vs Bilingual) Graph xH: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by language of testing (Home language as language of testing vs Additional language as language of testing) 173 Graph xI: Percentage of pupils attaining the benchmarks by Years of Schooling Food for Education Project phase 2 Final Evaluation Report Contents Full-EGRA Year 1 Analysis 1 Full-EGRA Year 2 Analysis 38 Full-EGRA Year 3 Analysis 77 Teacher Survey Analysis 94 Director Survey Analysis 340 Parents Survey Analysis 434 ADPP: Survey of EPF Students 553 Technical Appendix Surve Survey Questionnaires 670 Final Evaluation RFP with SOW; Amended SOW 724 1 Full-EGRA Year 1 Analysis NFER 30/12/2020 1 ST3: Phonological awareness . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 10.000 9.166 10.000 10.000 2 1.1 ST3: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.750 10.000 9.104 10.000 10.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 10.000 9.223 10.000 10.000 3 4 1.2 ST3: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 10) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 10.000 9.211 10.000 10.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.000 9.500 9.038 10.000 10.000 5 6 2 ST4: Concepts of print . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.000 9.000 9.014 10.000 10.000 7 8 2.1 ST4: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6 8 9 9 10 10 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 9.000 9.028 10.000 10.000 9 10 2.2 ST4: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 10) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 9.000 9.131 10.000 10.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.000 9.000 8.685 10.000 10.000 11 12 3 ST5: Knowledge of letter sounds . Letter sounds per minute Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 10.00 18.00 20.18 29.25 53.00 13 3.1 ST5: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Letter sounds per minute Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 10.00 23.00 22.29 32.50 53.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 9.00 16.00 18.27 25.00 51.00 14 3.2 ST5: Home Language . Letter sounds per minute HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 10.25 18.50 20.34 29.00 53.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 7.25 16.00 19.72 31.75 52.00 15 4 ST6: Knowledge of syllables . Syllables per minute Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 4.00 13.00 15.73 24.00 52.00 16 4.1 ST6: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Syllables per minute Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 2.00 14.00 17.16 28.00 50.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 4.00 13.00 14.43 21.00 52.00 17 4.2 ST6: Home Language . Syllables per minute HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 5.50 14.00 16.14 24.00 52.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 8.00 14.53 23.00 50.00 18 5 ST7: Reading of words . Words per minute Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 8.000 9.159 15.000 33.000 19 5.1 ST7: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Words per minute Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 7.000 9.071 15.500 33.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 2.000 9.000 9.239 14.000 28.000 20 5.2 ST7: Home Language . Words per minute HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 2.000 9.000 9.742 15.000 33.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 7.453 12.000 33.000 21 6 ST8_1A: Reading fluency . Fluent reading (words per minute) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 4.00 13.00 15.94 25.50 58.00 22 6.1 ST8_1A: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Fluent reading (words per minute) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 3.25 16.00 18.26 31.75 58.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 6.00 13.00 13.86 20.00 49.00 23 6.2 ST8_1A: Home Language . Fluent reading (words per minute) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 6.00 13.00 16.62 25.75 54.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 7.00 13.96 23.00 58.00 24 7 ST8_1AS: Comparative reading fluency . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 7.00 32.00 33.88 54.00 124.00 25 7.1 ST8_1As: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 6.00 28.00 32.57 56.00 117.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.0 14.0 35.0 35.1 53.0 124.0 26 7.2 ST8_1As: Home Language . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 13.00 35.00 37.24 56.00 124.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 12.00 24.21 40.00 101.00 27 8 ST8_2:Comprehension of reading . No. of correct answers (out of 4) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.374 2.000 4.000 8.1 ST8_2: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 4) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.39 2.00 4.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.359 2.000 4.000 28 29 8.2 ST8_2: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 4) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.489 2.000 4.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0 0 1 1 2 4 30 31 9 ST9_1A: Writing first name and ST9_1B: Writing family name . 32 9.1 ST9_1A and ST9_1B: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . 33 9.2 ST9_1A and ST9_1B: Home language . 34 10 ST9_2B:Writing words . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.367 5.000 5.000 10.1 ST9_2B: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 2.000 2.141 4.000 5.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.574 5.000 5.000 35 36 10.2 ST9_2B: Home Language . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.643 5.000 5.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.566 3.000 5.000 37 38 Full-EGRA Year 2 Analysis NFER 30/12/2020 1 ST3: Phonological awareness . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 10.000 9.166 10.000 10.000 39 40 1.1 ST3: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.750 10.000 9.104 10.000 10.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 10.000 9.223 10.000 10.000 41 42 1.2 ST3: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 10) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 10.000 9.211 10.000 10.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.000 9.500 9.038 10.000 10.000 43 44 2 ST4: Concepts of print . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.000 9.000 9.014 10.000 10.000 45 46 2.1 ST4: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 10) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6 8 9 9 10 10 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 9.000 9.028 10.000 10.000 47 48 2.2 ST4: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 10) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 9.000 9.000 9.131 10.000 10.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.000 8.000 9.000 8.685 10.000 10.000 49 50 3 ST5: Knowledge of letter sounds . Letter sounds per minute Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 10.00 18.00 20.18 29.25 53.00 51 3.1 ST5: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Letter sounds per minute Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 10.00 23.00 22.29 32.50 53.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 9.00 16.00 18.27 25.00 51.00 52 3.2 ST5: Home Language . Letter sounds per minute HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 10.25 18.50 20.34 29.00 53.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 7.25 16.00 19.72 31.75 52.00 53 4 ST6: Knowledge of syllables . Syllables per minute Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 4.00 13.00 15.73 24.00 52.00 54 4.1 ST6: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Syllables per minute Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 2.00 14.00 17.16 28.00 50.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 4.00 13.00 14.43 21.00 52.00 55 4.2 ST6: Home Language . Syllables per minute HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 5.50 14.00 16.14 24.00 52.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 8.00 14.53 23.00 50.00 56 5 ST7: Reading of words . Words per minute Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 8.000 9.159 15.000 33.000 57 5.1 ST7: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Words per minute Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 7.000 9.071 15.500 33.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 2.000 9.000 9.239 14.000 28.000 58 5.2 ST7: Home Language . Words per minute HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 2.000 9.000 9.742 15.000 33.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 7.453 12.000 33.000 59 6 ST8_1A: Reading fluency . Fluent reading (words per minute) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 4.00 13.00 15.94 25.50 58.00 60 6.1 ST8_1A: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Fluent reading (words per minute) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 3.25 16.00 18.26 31.75 58.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 6.00 13.00 13.86 20.00 49.00 61 6.2 ST8_1A: Home Language . Fluent reading (words per minute) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 6.00 13.00 16.62 25.75 54.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 7.00 13.96 23.00 58.00 62 7 ST8_1AS: Comparative reading fluency . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 7.00 32.00 33.88 54.00 124.00 63 7.1 ST8_1As: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 6.00 28.00 32.57 56.00 117.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.0 14.0 35.0 35.1 53.0 124.0 64 7.2 ST8_1As: Home Language . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 13.00 35.00 37.24 56.00 124.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 12.00 24.21 40.00 101.00 65 8 ST8_2:Comprehension of reading . No. of correct answers (out of 4) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.374 2.000 4.000 66 8.1 ST8_2: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 4) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.39 2.00 4.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.359 2.000 4.000 67 68 8.2 ST8_2: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 4) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.489 2.000 4.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0 0 1 1 2 4 69 70 9 ST9_1A: Writing first name and ST9_1B: Writing family name . 71 9.1 ST9_1A and ST9_1B: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . 72 9.2 ST9_1A and ST9_1B: Home language . 73 10 ST9_2B:Writing words . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.367 5.000 5.000 10.1 ST9_2B: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 2.000 2.141 4.000 5.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.574 5.000 5.000 74 75 10.2 ST9_2B: Home Language . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.643 5.000 5.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.566 3.000 5.000 76 77 Full-EGRA Year 3 Analysis NFER 30/12/2020 1 ST8_1A: Reading fluency . Fluent reading (words per minute) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 19.00 33.50 35.29 49.25 93.00 78 1.1 ST8_1A: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Fluent reading (words per minute) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 21.50 38.00 39.95 57.00 93.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.00 18.00 31.00 29.53 42.00 70.00 79 1.2 ST8_1A: Home Language . Fluent reading (words per minute) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.00 19.75 33.50 34.22 47.00 88.00 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 16.00 33.50 37.14 57.00 93.00 80 2 ST8_1AS: Comparative reading fluency . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 24.00 48.50 46.77 67.00 127.00 2.1 ST8_1As: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 22.50 40.00 41.56 60.00 97.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.00 32.00 56.00 53.23 76.00 127.00 81 2.2 ST8_1As: Home Language . Comparative fluent reading (percentage of text read per minute) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.0 32.0 52.5 51.3 74.0 127.0 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 16.00 36.00 38.91 60.00 97.00 82 3 ST8_2:Comprehension of reading . No. of correct answers (out of 5) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.451 3.000 4.000 83 3.1 ST8_2: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of correct answers (out of 4) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.467 3.000 4.000 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.43 3.00 4.00 84 85 3.2 ST8_2: Home Language . No. of correct answers (out of 4) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.487 3.000 4.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.388 3.000 4.000 86 87 4 ST9_1A: Writing first name and ST9_1B: Writing family name . 88 4.1 ST9_1A and ST9_1B: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . 89 4.2 ST9_1A and ST9_1B: Home language . 90 5 ST9_2B:Writing words . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.2 5.0 5.0 5.1 ST9_2B: Portuguese vs Bilingual LOT . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) Portuguese as LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.00 0.25 3.00 2.86 5.00 5.00 Bilingual LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 3.000 4.000 3.626 5.000 5.000 91 92 5.2 ST9_2B: Home Language . No. of words written correctly (out of 5) HL=LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 3.000 4.000 3.496 5.000 5.000 Different HL and LOT Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.000 0.000 3.000 2.676 5.000 5.000 93 94 Teacher Survey Analysis Table of Contents 1 Demographics ...........................................................................................................................................100 1.1 District : i) Distrito .........................................................................................................................100 1.2 Professional category : v) Categoria profissional...............................................................102 1.3 Gender : vi) Sexo .............................................................................................................................105 1.4 Age : vii) Idade .................................................................................................................................107 1.5 Tenure at school : viii) Há quanto tempo trabalha nesta escola? ................................110 1.6 Taught class : viiii) Que classe lecciona?................................................................................112 1.7 Tenure in class : x) Há quanto tempo lecciona nesta classe?.........................................115 2 Group al.......................................................................................................................................................117 2.1 al.1 : al/Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar........................................................117 2.2 al.2 : al/Gestor de armazém........................................................................................................118 2.3 al.3 : al/Professor formado em nutrição e saúde ...............................................................119 2.4 al.4 : al/Professor formado em literacia ................................................................................120 2.5 al.5 : al/Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa).............................122 2.6 al.6 : al/Não.......................................................................................................................................123 3 Group A........................................................................................................................................................124 3.1 A1 : A1.Na sua opinião, a organização do lanche escolar até agora tem sido: ........124 3.2 A2 : A2. Há aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados?.......................................................125 3.3 A4 : A4. Na sua escola foram criados um ou mais clube(s) de aprendizagem extracurricular?............................................................................................................................................126 3.4 A5 : A5. Em caso afirmativo, como descreveria a assiduidade dos seus alunos nos clubes? .............................................................................................................................................................127 3.5 A6 : A6. Acha que a participação dos alunos nos clubes melhora o desempenho na sala de aula?............................................................................................................................................................129 3.6 A8 : A8. A escola alguma vez recebeu material de apoio aos clubes de aprendizagem, no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? ..............................................................................130 3.7 A9 : A9. Foi consultado para a escolha dos materiais de apoio aos clubes? ............131 3.8 A10 : A10. Se recebeu o material de apoio aos clubes, este foi utilizado? ................132 3.9 A11 : A11. Utilizou alguns dos materiais de apoio aos clubes, hoje ou ontem? .....133 3.10 A12.: Utilizou alguns dos materiais de apoio aos clubes, hoje ou ontem? Em caso afirmativo, que material / materiais utilizou? .................................................................................134 95 3.11 A13 : A13.Na sua opinião, o material de apoio aos clubes é:.....................................136 3.12 A14 : A14. Na sua turma, têm agora acesso à material didáctico suficiente e adequado para o ensino-aprendizagem? ...........................................................................................137 3.13 A15 : A15. Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar?..................................................................................................................................138 3.14 A16.: Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de formação beneficiou? ........................................139 3.15 A17a : A17a) Formação em alimentação escolar...........................................................141 3.16 A17b : A17b) Formação para gestores de armazém ....................................................142 3.17 A17c : A17c) Formação em nutrição e saúde ..................................................................143 3.18 A17d : A17d) Formação em literacia ..................................................................................145 3.19 A17e : A17e) Outra formação (por favor indicar ...........................................................147 3.20 A18 : A18. Tem beneficiado de apoio na escola, através de visitas de apoio profissional no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar?.....................................................148 3.21 A19. : Tem beneficiado de apoio na escola, através de visitas de apoio profissional no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de apoio na escola /sala de aula beneficiou? ............................................................................................................149 3.22 A20a : A20a) Assistência aos clubes ...................................................................................151 3.23 A20b : A20b) Apoio na produção de material didáctico .............................................152 3.24 A20c : A20c) Apoio pedagógico (planificação das aulas, etc.)..................................154 3.25 A20d : A20d) Apoio na organização da alimentação escolar ....................................155 3.26 A20e : A20e) Apoio no ensino em línguas locais............................................................156 3.27 A20f : A20f) Apoio na manutenção da infraestrutura..................................................158 3.28 A20g : A20g) Apoio nas regras de higiene e saúde alimentar...................................159 3.29 A20h : A20h) Outro (especifique)........................................................................................160 4 Group B........................................................................................................................................................162 4.1 B1 : B1. Durante o dia escolar, os seus alunos parecem estar com fome:.................162 4.2 B3 : B3. Os alunos têm problemas de atenção na sala de aula? ....................................163 4.3 B4 : B4. Têm dificuldades em aprender? ...............................................................................164 4.4 B5 : B5.Depois da introdução do projecto da alimentação escolar, notam-se diferenças no comportamento dos alunos em termos de concentração na aprendizagem? ...............166 4.5 B7 : B7. Depois da introdução do projeto de alimentação escolar tem notado alguma diferença nas práticas de higiene dos alunos (lavar as mãos depois de ir à casa de banho, lavar as mãos antes de comer, etc.)?....................................................................................................168 4.6 B9 : B9.Tem notado outras diferenças depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar na sua escola? ......................................................................................................169 96 5 Group C........................................................................................................................................................170 5.1 C1 : C1. Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? ...........................................170 5.2 C2.: Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? Em caso afirmativo, em que ano? (selecionar todos os que se aplicam)........................................................................................171 5.3 C3. : Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? Quais são os aspetos que aprendeu? (é possível selecionar uma ou mais respostas):........................................................173 5.4 C4.: Com quem partilha a informação sobre o que aprendeu? .....................................174 5.5 C5 : C5. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida?............176 5.6 C6.: Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? ...................................................................................177 5.7 C7 : C7 . Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus alunos? 179 5.8 C8.: Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus alunos? Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? .........................................................................180 6 Group D........................................................................................................................................................182 6.1 D1 : D1. Tem beneficiado de formação em literacia no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar?..................................................................................................................................182 6.2 D2a : D2a) Consciência fonémica .............................................................................................184 6.3 D2b : D2b) Fonética .......................................................................................................................187 6.4 D2c : D2c) Fluência ........................................................................................................................191 6.5 D2d : D2d) Vocabulário ................................................................................................................194 6.6 D2e : D2e) Compreensão .............................................................................................................198 6.7 D3 : D3. Na abordagem instrucional “Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem", que usa se para reforçar o ensino da literacia, qual é o propósito de “Eu faço”? Assinale a resposta correcta. ..........................................................................................................................................................202 6.8 D4 : D4. Na abordagem instrucional "Eu faço, Nos fazemos , Vocês fazem", qual é o propósito de “Nós fazemos”? Assinale a resposta correcta. .......................................................205 6.9 D5 : D5. Na abordagem instrucional "Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem ", durante “Vocês fazem” o professor deve… (Assinale a resposta correcta): ..........................................208 6.10 D6.1 : D6/Português..................................................................................................................211 6.11 D6.2 : D6/Xichangana...............................................................................................................213 6.12 D6.3 : D6/Xirhonga....................................................................................................................215 6.13 D6.4 : D6/Outra...........................................................................................................................217 6.14 D7a : D7a) Português ................................................................................................................219 6.15 D7b : D7b) Xichangana.............................................................................................................221 6.16 D7c : D7c) Xirhonga...................................................................................................................224 97 6.17 D7e : D7d) Outro.........................................................................................................................227 6.18 D8 : D8. Com que frequência lê para seu prazer ou informação geral? (assinale a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação)................................................................................230 6.19 D9.1 : D9/Português..................................................................................................................233 6.20 D9.2 : D9/Xichangana...............................................................................................................235 6.21 D9.3 : D9/Xirhonga....................................................................................................................237 6.22 D9.4 : D9/Outra...........................................................................................................................239 6.23 D10 : D10. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Português? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação)...................................241 6.24 D11 : D11. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Xichangana /Xirhonga? (assinale a resposta correcta conforme a sua língua de ensino)244 6.25 D12a : D12a) Uma formação sobre as cinco componentes da literacia (Se não recebeu uma formação, passe para a alínea c).................................................................................247 6.26 D12b : D12b) Se recebeu a formação, foi útil? ................................................................249 6.27 D12c : D12c) Materiais para melhorar o ensino da leitura e escrita (Se não recebeu materiais, passe para a alínea e)............................................................................................................251 6.28 D12d : D12d) Se recebeu materiais, foram úteis? .........................................................253 6.29 D12e : D12e) Um guião para facilitar a planificação das aulas (Se não recebeu um guião passe para a pergunta 13) ...........................................................................................................255 6.30 D12f : D12f) Se recebeu um guião, foi útil? ......................................................................257 6.31 D13 : D13a) Nas suas aulas e para a sua planificação, usa o guia de sugestões metodológicas?.............................................................................................................................................259 6.32 D13a : D13b. Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)?.....................................................................................................................................261 6.33 D14 : D14a. Nas suas aulas, usa cartões de letras, de sílabas e de palavras? ......264 6.34 D14a : D14b) Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)?Todos os dias.........................................................................................................266 6.35 D15 : D15a. Nas suas aulas, lê para os alunos textos ou histórias em voz alta ?269 6.36 D15a : D15b) Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)?.....................................................................................................................................271 6.37 D16 : D16a. Nas suas aulas, os alunos utilizam os livros do aluno ?.......................274 6.38 D16a : D16b) Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): .....................................................................................................................................276 6.39 D17 : D17. Durante a semana escolar, quanto tempo os seus alunos têm para ler, individualmente, as histórias descodificáveis no Livro do Aluno ou nos livros descodificáveis (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): .................................................................279 98 6.40 D18. : Como avalia o progresso dos seus alunos na leitura (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? ..........................................................................................................................282 6.41 D19. : Como regista o progresso dos seus alunos na leitura (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? ..........................................................................................................................287 6.42 D20i : D20.i) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................292 6.43 D20ii : D20.ii) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................295 6.44 D20iii : D20.iii) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................298 6.45 D20iv : D20.iv) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................301 6.46 D20v : D20.v) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................304 6.47 D20vi : D20.vi) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................307 6.48 D20vii : D20.vii) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : ...........................................................................................................310 7 Group E........................................................................................................................................................313 7.1 E1 : E1. Conseguiu manter contacto com os seus estudantes durante o período de emergência?...................................................................................................................................................313 7.2 E2.: Conseguiu manter contacto com os seus estudantes durante o período de emergência? Caso sim, como manteve contacto com os seus estudantes?...........................314 7.3 E3. : Que tipo de comunicação estabeleceu para continuar a interagir com os seus alunos?.............................................................................................................................................................316 7.4 E4 : E4. Teve conhecimento das aulas produzidas pelo projecto FFK e transmitidas via rádio e TV durante o encerramento das escolas? ...........................................................................317 7.5 E5 : E5. Encorajou os seus alunos para escutarem as aulas?.........................................318 7.6 E6 : E6. Acredita que os seus alunos acompanhavam as aulas? ...................................319 7.7 E7 : E7. Acompanhou e deu suporte aos alunos em relação as aulas transmitidas via radio ou TV?...................................................................................................................................................320 7.8 E8 : E8. Os seus alunos tiveram o suporte necessário, em casa, para compreenderem a matéria das aulas transmitidas pela radio ou TV? .........................................................................321 7.9 E9 : E9. Qual e a sua opinião sobre as aulas dadas na radio e na TV ? .......................322 7.10 E10 : E10. A liderança da escola providenciou material para facilitar a aprendizagem? .............................................................................................................................................323 7.11 E11 : E11. Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID-19?...324 99 7.12 E12. : Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID-19? Se sim, de quem ou donde ouve falar acerca da nova pandemia de coronavírus? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)............................................................................................................................325 7.13 E13. : O que sabe sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)............................................................................................................................................327 7.14 E14. : Quais são os principais sintomas de COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)......................................................................................................................................329 7.15 E15. : Das medidas preventivas abaixo, quais são as que está usando? Porquê? Ou porque não (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas).....................................................331 7.16 E16. : O que mais gostaria de saber sobre esta pandemia? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)............................................................................................................................333 7.17 E17 : E17. Você sente que pessoas em Moçambique sabem (o suficiente) sobre a pandemia da COVID-19?...........................................................................................................................335 7.18 E19. : Como é que as restrições de movimento da COVID-19 afectaram o seu sustento? (teste cada ponto abaixo)....................................................................................................336 7.19 E20 : E20. Como é que o encerramento das escolas afecta a educação dos seus alunos? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas).............................................................338 100 1 Demographics 1.1 District: i) Distrito Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Magude 49 32 17 Manhiça 58 39 19 Matutuine 21 13 8 Moamba 47 29 18 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Magude 28 21.5 35 Manhiça 33 26.2 41 Matutuine 12 7.6 18 Moamba 27 20.4 34 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Magude 28 20.2 38 Manhiça 34 25.8 44 Matutuine 12 6.3 19 Moamba 26 17.9 35 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Magude 27 16.9 40 Manhiça 31 19.6 44 Matutuine 13 5.7 24 Moamba 29 18.2 42 101 102 1.2 Professional category: v) Categoria profissional Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) N1 13 10 3 N2 1 1 0 N3 125 81 44 N4 36 21 15 N5 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper N1 7.4 4 12.4 N2 0.6 0 3.1 N3 71.4 64 78.0 N4 20.6 15 27.3 N5 0.0 0 2.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper N1 8.8 4.3 15.7 N2 0.9 0.0 4.8 N3 71.7 62.4 79.8 N4 18.6 11.9 27.0 N5 0.0 0.0 3.2 103 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper N1 4.8 1 13.5 N2 0.0 0 5.8 N3 71.0 58 81.8 N4 24.2 14 36.7 N5 0.0 0 5.8 104 105 1.3 Gender: vi) Sexo Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Masculino 102 71 31 Feminino 73 42 31 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Masculino 58 51 66 Feminino 42 34 49 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Masculino 63 53 72 Feminino 37 28 47 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Masculino 50 37 63 Feminino 50 37 63 106 107 1.4 Age: vii) Idade Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) 18-29 68 39 29 30-39 85 58 27 40-49 21 15 6 50-59 1 1 0 60-69 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper 18-29 38.9 31.6 46.5 30-39 48.6 41.0 56.2 40-49 12.0 7.6 17.8 50-59 0.6 0.0 3.1 60-69 0.0 0.0 2.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper 18-29 34.5 25.8 44.0 30-39 51.3 41.7 60.8 40-49 13.3 7.6 20.9 50-59 0.9 0.0 4.8 60-69 0.0 0.0 3.2 108 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper 18-29 46.8 34.0 59.9 30-39 43.5 31.0 56.7 40-49 9.7 3.6 19.9 50-59 0.0 0.0 5.8 60-69 0.0 0.0 5.8 109 110 1.5 Tenure at school: viii) Há quanto tempo trabalha nesta escola? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Menos de 1 ano 9 8 1 Entre 1-3 anos 38 20 18 Entre 4-6 anos 63 40 23 Mais de 6 anos 65 45 20 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Menos de 1 ano 5.1 2.4 9.5 Entre 1-3 anos 21.7 15.8 28.6 Entre 4-6 anos 36.0 28.9 43.6 Mais de 6 anos 37.1 30.0 44.8 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Menos de 1 ano 7.1 3.1 14 Entre 1-3 anos 17.7 11.2 26 Entre 4-6 anos 35.4 26.6 45 Mais de 6 anos 39.8 30.7 50 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Menos de 1 ano 1.6 0 8.7 Entre 1-3 anos 29.0 18 41.9 Entre 4-6 anos 37.1 25 50.3 Mais de 6 anos 32.3 21 45.3 111 112 index category A Menos de 1 ano B Entre 1-3 anos C Entre 4-6 anos D Mais de 6 anos 1.6 Taught class: viiii) Que classe lecciona? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) 1ª classe 31 14 17 2ª classe 29 15 14 3ª classe 33 15 18 Outro/a 82 69 13 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper 1ª classe 18 12 24 2ª classe 17 11 23 3ª classe 19 13 26 Outro/a 47 39 54 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper 1ª classe 12 6.9 20 2ª classe 13 7.6 21 3ª classe 13 7.6 21 Outro/a 61 51.4 70 113 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper 1ª classe 27 17 40 2ª classe 23 13 35 3ª classe 29 18 42 Outro/a 21 12 33 114 115 1.7 Tenure in class: x) Há quanto tempo lecciona nesta classe? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Menos de 1 ano 66 36 30 Entre 1-3 anos 59 37 22 Entre 4-6 anos 23 16 7 Mais de 6 anos 27 24 3 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Menos de 1 ano 38 30.5 45 Entre 1-3 anos 34 26.8 41 Entre 4-6 anos 13 8.5 19 Mais de 6 anos 15 10.4 22 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Menos de 1 ano 32 23.4 41 Entre 1-3 anos 33 24.2 42 Entre 4-6 anos 14 8.3 22 Mais de 6 anos 21 14.1 30 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Menos de 1 ano 48.4 35.5 61 Entre 1-3 anos 35.5 23.7 49 Entre 4-6 anos 11.3 4.7 22 Mais de 6 anos 4.8 1.0 14 116 117 index category A Menos de 1 ano B Entre 1-3 anos C Entre 4-6 anos D Mais de 6 anos 2 Group al 2.1 al.1: al/Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar Frequency Table Category Freq Não 157 Sim 18 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 90 84.2 94 Sim 10 6.2 16 118 2.2 al.2: al/Gestor de armazém Frequency Table Category Freq Não 131 Sim 44 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 75 68 81 Sim 25 19 32 119 2.3 al.3: al/Professor formado em nutrição e saúde Frequency Table Category Freq Não 117 Sim 58 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 67 59 74 Sim 33 26 41 120 2.4 al.4: al/Professor formado em literacia Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 111 78 33 Sim 64 35 29 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 63 56 71 Sim 37 29 44 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 69 60 77 Sim 31 23 40 121 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 53 40 66 Sim 47 34 60 122 2.5 al.5: al/Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa) Frequency Table Category Freq Não 163 Sim 12 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 93.1 88.3 96 Sim 6.9 3.6 12 123 2.6 al.6: al/Não Frequency Table Category Freq Não 145 Sim 30 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 83 76 88 Sim 17 12 24 124 3 Group A 3.1 A1: A1.Na sua opinião, a organização do lanche escolar até agora tem sido: Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 96 Boa 78 Razoável 1 Má 0 Muito má 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 54.9 47 62.4 Boa 44.6 37 52.3 125 Category Percenta ge lower upper Razoável 0.6 0 3.1 Má 0.0 0 2.1 Muito má 0.0 0 2.1 3.2 A2: A2. Há aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 108 Não 67 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 62 54 69 Não 38 31 46 126 3.3 A4: A4. Na sua escola foram criados um ou mais clube(s) de aprendizagem extracurricular? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 162 Não 13 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 92.6 88 96 Não 7.4 4 12 127 3.4 A5: A5. Em caso afirmativo, como descreveria a assiduidade dos seus alunos nos clubes? Frequency Table Category Freq Todos os alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube 45 A maioria dos alunos da minha turma participa regularmente no clube 63 Alguns dos alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube 43 A participação no clube é irregular 6 Eu não sei 5 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube 27.8 21.0 35.3 128 Category Percenta ge lower upper A maioria dos alunos da minha turma participa regularmente no clube 38.9 31.3 46.9 Alguns dos alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube 26.5 19.9 34.0 A participação no clube é irregular 3.7 1.4 7.9 Eu não sei 3.1 1.0 7.1 index category A Todos os alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube B A maioria dos alunos da minha turma participa regularmente no clube C Alguns dos alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube D A participação no clube é irregular E Eu não sei 129 3.5 A6: A6. Acha que a participação dos alunos nos clubes melhora o desempenho na sala de aula? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 158 Não 4 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 97.5 93.8 99.3 Não 2.5 0.7 6.2 130 3.6 A8: A8. A escola alguma vez recebeu material de apoio aos clubes de aprendizagem, no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 156 Não 6 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 96.3 92.1 98.6 Não 3.7 1.4 7.9 131 3.7 A9: A9. Foi consultado para a escolha dos materiais de apoio aos clubes? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 81 Não 75 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 52 44 60 Não 48 40 56 132 3.8 A10: A10. Se recebeu o material de apoio aos clubes, este foi utilizado? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 154 Não 2 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 98.7 95.4 99.8 Não 1.3 0.2 4.6 133 3.9 A11: A11. Utilizou alguns dos materiais de apoio aos clubes, hoje ou ontem? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 64 Não 90 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 42 34 50 Não 58 50 66 134 3.10 A12.: Utilizou alguns dos materiais de apoio aos clubes, hoje ou ontem? Em caso afirmativo, que material / materiais utilizou? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Quadro silábico 49 15 Lápis, lápis de cor 41 23 Livro de histórias 44 20 Dicionário, gramática 27 37 Caderno caligráfico 34 30 Manual de leitura 31 33 Mapas, cartolinas didácticas 31 33 Bola de futebol, rede voleibol 34 30 Tabuleiro de Xadrez 18 46 Outro 6 58 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Quadro silábico 77 23 Lápis, lápis de cor 64.1 35.9 Livro de histórias 68.8 31.2 Dicionário, gramática 42.2 57.8 Caderno caligráfico 53.1 46.9 Manual de leitura 48.4 51.6 Mapas, cartolinas didácticas 48.4 51.6 Bola de futebol, rede voleibol 53.1 46.9 Tabuleiro de Xadrez 28.1 71.9 Outro 9.4 90.6 135 index category A Quadro silábico B Lápis, lápis de cor C Livro de histórias D Dicionário, gramática E Caderno caligráfico F Manual de leitura G Mapas, cartolinas didácticas H Bola de futebol, rede voleibol I Tabuleiro de Xadrez J Outro 136 3.11 A13 : A13.Na sua opinião, o material de apoio aos clubes é: Frequency Table Category Freq Muito adequado às actividades dos clubes 84 Bem adequado 55 Razoavelmente adequado 17 Pouco adequado 0 Inadequado 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Muito adequado às actividades dos clubes 54 45.7 61.8 Bem adequado 35 27.8 43.3 Razoavelmente adequado 11 6.5 16.9 Pouco adequado 0 0.0 2.3 Inadequado 0 0.0 2.3 137 3.12 A14 : A14. Na sua turma, têm agora acesso à material didáctico suficiente e adequado para o ensino-aprendizagem? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 113 Não 62 index category A Muito adequado às actividades dos clubes B Bem adequado C Razoavelmente adequado D Pouco adequado E Inadequado 138 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 65 57 72 Não 35 28 43 3.13 A15: A15. Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 156 Não 19 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 89 83.6 93 Não 11 6.7 16 139 3.14 A16.: Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de formação beneficiou? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Formação em alimentação escolar 66 90 Formação para gestores de armazém 47 109 Formação em nutrição e saúde 95 61 Formação em literacia 90 66 Outra 4 152 140 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Formação em alimentação escolar 42 58 Formação para gestores de armazém 30.1 69.9 Formação em nutrição e saúde 60.9 39.1 Formação em literacia 57.7 42.3 Outra 2.6 97.4 index category A Formação em alimentação escolar B Formação para gestores de armazém C Formação em nutrição e saúde D Formação em literacia E Outra 141 3.15 A17a: A17a) Formação em alimentação escolar Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 26 Boa 40 Razoável/suficiente 0 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 39 28 52.2 Boa 61 48 72.4 Razoável/suficiente 0 0 5.4 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 0 5.4 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 0 5.4 142 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.16 A17b: A17b) Formação para gestores de armazém Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 28 Boa 18 Razoável/suficiente 1 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 59.6 44.3 73.6 Boa 38.3 24.5 53.6 Razoável/suficiente 2.1 0.1 11.3 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0.0 7.5 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0.0 7.5 143 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.17 A17c: A17c) Formação em nutrição e saúde Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 47 Boa 45 Razoável/suficiente 3 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 144 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 49.5 39.1 59.9 Boa 47.4 37.0 57.9 Razoável/suficiente 3.2 0.7 9.0 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0.0 3.8 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0.0 3.8 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 145 3.18 A17d: A17d) Formação em literacia Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 52 Boa 36 Razoável/suficiente 2 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 57.8 46.9 68.1 Boa 40.0 29.8 50.9 Razoável/suficiente 2.2 0.3 7.8 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0.0 4.0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0.0 4.0 146 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 147 3.19 A17e: A17e) Outra formação (por favor indicar Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 1 Boa 3 Razoável/suficiente 0 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 25 0.6 81 Boa 75 19.4 99 Razoável/suficiente 0 0.0 60 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 0.0 60 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 0.0 60 148 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.20 A18: A18. Tem beneficiado de apoio na escola, através de visitas de apoio profissional no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 160 Não 15 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 91.4 86.3 95 Não 8.6 4.9 14 149 3.21 A19.: Tem beneficiado de apoio na escola, através de visitas de apoio profissional no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de apoio na escola /sala de aula beneficiou? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Assistência aos clubes 75 85 Apoio na produção de material didáctico 78 82 Apoio pedagógico (planificação das aulas, etc.) 68 92 Apoio na organização da alimentação escolar 66 94 Apoio no ensino em línguas locais 50 110 Apoio na manutenção da infraestrutura 35 125 Apoio nas regras de higiene e saúde alimentar 82 78 Outra 1 159 150 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Assistência aos clubes 47 53 Apoio na produção de material didáctico 48.8 51.2 Apoio pedagógico (planificação das aulas, etc.) 42.5 57.5 Apoio na organização da alimentação escolar 41.2 58.8 Apoio no ensino em línguas locais 31.2 68.8 Apoio na manutenção da infraestrutura 21.9 78.1 Apoio nas regras de higiene e saúde alimentar 51.2 48.8 Outra 0.6 99.4 151 index category A Assistência aos clubes B Apoio na produção de material didáctico C Apoio pedagógico (planificação das aulas, etc.) D Apoio na organização da alimentação escolar E Apoio no ensino em línguas locais F Apoio na manutenção da infraestrutura G Apoio nas regras de higiene e saúde alimentar H Outra 3.22 A20a: A20a) Assistência aos clubes Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 25 Boa 48 Razoável/suficiente 2 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 33.3 22.9 45.2 Boa 64.0 52.1 74.8 Razoável/suficiente 2.7 0.3 9.3 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0.0 4.8 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0.0 4.8 152 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.23 A20b: A20b) Apoio na produção de material didáctico Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 45 Boa 32 Razoável/suficiente 1 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 153 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 57.7 46 68.8 Boa 41.0 30 52.7 Razoável/suficiente 1.3 0 6.9 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0 4.6 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0 4.6 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 154 3.24 A20c: A20c) Apoio pedagógico (planificação das aulas, etc.) Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 32 Boa 35 Razoável/suficiente 0 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 1 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 47.1 35 59.6 Boa 51.5 39 63.8 Razoável/suficiente 0.0 0 5.3 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 1.5 0 7.9 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0 5.3 155 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.25 A20d: A20d) Apoio na organização da alimentação escolar Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 32 Boa 33 Razoável/suficiente 1 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 48.5 36 61.1 Boa 50.0 37 62.6 Razoável/suficiente 1.5 0 8.2 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0 5.4 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0 5.4 156 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.26 A20e: A20e) Apoio no ensino em línguas locais Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 32 Boa 15 Razoável/suficiente 3 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 157 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 64 49.2 77.1 Boa 30 17.9 44.6 Razoável/suficiente 6 1.3 16.5 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 0.0 7.1 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 0.0 7.1 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 158 3.27 A20f: A20f) Apoio na manutenção da infraestrutura Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 15 Boa 15 Razoável/suficiente 4 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 1 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 42.9 26.3 61 Boa 42.9 26.3 61 Razoável/suficiente 11.4 3.2 27 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 2.9 0.1 15 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0.0 10 159 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.28 A20g: A20g) Apoio nas regras de higiene e saúde alimentar Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 40 Boa 41 Razoável/suficiente 1 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 48.8 38 60.1 Boa 50.0 39 61.3 Razoável/suficiente 1.2 0 6.6 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.0 0 4.4 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.0 0 4.4 160 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 3.29 A20h: A20h) Outro (especifique) Frequency Table Category Freq Excelente 0 Boa 1 Razoável/suficiente 0 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 161 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelente 0 0.0 98 Boa 100 2.5 100 Razoável/suficiente 0 0.0 98 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 0.0 98 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 0.0 98 index category A Excelente B Boa C Razoável/suficiente D Fraca/ ajudou pouco E Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 162 4 Group B 4.1 B1: B1. Durante o dia escolar, os seus alunos parecem estar com fome: Frequency Table Category Freq Frequentemente 29 De vez em quando 122 Nunca 24 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Frequentemente 17 11 23 De vez em quando 70 62 76 Nunca 14 9 20 163 index category A Frequentemente B De vez em quando C Nunca 4.2 B3: B3. Os alunos têm problemas de atenção na sala de aula? Frequency Table Category Freq Frequentemente 7 De vez em quando 157 Nunca 11 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Frequentemente 4.0 1.6 8.1 De vez em quando 89.7 84.2 93.8 Nunca 6.3 3.2 11.0 164 index category A Frequentemente B De vez em quando C Nunca 4.3 B4: B4. Têm dificuldades em aprender? Frequency Table Category Freq Frequentemente 10 De vez em quando 150 Nunca 15 165 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Frequentemente 5.7 2.8 10 De vez em quando 85.7 79.6 90 Nunca 8.6 4.9 14 index category A Frequentemente B De vez em quando C Nunca 166 4.4 B5: B5.Depois da introdução do projecto da alimentação escolar, notam-se diferenças no comportamento dos alunos em termos de concentração na aprendizagem? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 131 Não 5 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 39 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 74.9 67.8 81.1 Não 2.9 0.9 6.5 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 22.3 16.4 29.2 167 index category A Sim B Não C Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 168 4.5 B7: B7. Depois da introdução do projeto de alimentação escolar tem notado alguma diferença nas práticas de higiene dos alunos (lavar as mãos depois de ir à casa de banho, lavar as mãos antes de comer, etc.)? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 132 Não 7 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 36 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 75 68.4 81.6 Não 4 1.6 8.1 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 21 14.8 27.3 169 index category A Sim B Não C Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 4.6 B9: B9.Tem notado outras diferenças depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar na sua escola? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 110 Não 26 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 39 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 63 55.2 70 Não 15 9.9 21 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 22 16.4 29 170 index category A Sim B Não C Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 5 Group C 5.1 C1: C1. Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 134 Não 41 171 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 77 70 83 Não 23 17 30 5.2 C2.: Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? Em caso afirmativo, em que ano? (selecionar todos os que se aplicam) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) 2013 12 122 2014 18 116 2015 44 90 2016 63 71 2017 63 71 172 Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) 2018 64 70 2019 50 84 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) 2013 9 91 2014 13.4 86.6 2015 32.8 67.2 2016 47 53 2017 47 53 2018 47.8 52.2 2019 37.3 62.7 173 5.3 C3. : Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? Quais são os aspetos que aprendeu? (é possível selecionar uma ou mais respostas): Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Limpeza e higiene 104 30 Grupos de alimentos 120 14 Higiene e conservação dos alimentos 106 28 Lavagem das mãos 104 30 Dieta equilibrada 93 41 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Limpeza e higiene 78 22 Grupos de alimentos 89.6 10.4 Higiene e conservação dos alimentos 79.1 20.9 Lavagem das mãos 77.6 22.4 Dieta equilibrada 69.4 30.6 174 index category A Limpeza e higiene B Grupos de alimentos C Higiene e conservação dos alimentos D Lavagem das mãos E Dieta equilibrada 5.4 C4.: Com quem partilha a informação sobre o que aprendeu? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Alunos 129 5 Pais e encarregados de educação 91 43 Sua família 90 44 175 Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Conselho da escola 60 74 Comunidade 65 69 Outros 8 126 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Alunos 96 4 Pais e encarregados de educação 67.9 32.1 Sua família 67.2 32.8 Conselho da escola 44.8 55.2 Comunidade 48.5 51.5 Outros 6 94 176 index category A Alunos B Pais e encarregados de educação C Sua família D Conselho da escola E Comunidade F Outros 5.5 C5: C5. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 133 Não 1 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 99.3 96 100.0 Não 0.7 0 4.1 177 5.6 C6.: Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) A minha maneira de cozinhar/preparar comida é mais saudável agora que percebo os princípios de alimentação equilibrada 115 18 Sei como conservar os alimentos 101 32 Minha dieta melhorou 82 51 A dieta da minha família melhorou 83 50 Minha saúde melhorou 57 76 A saúde dos membros da minha família melhorou 63 70 Outro 2 131 178 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) A minha maneira de cozinhar/preparar comida é mais saudável agora que percebo os princípios de alimentação equilibrada 86 14 Sei como conservar os alimentos 75.9 24.1 Minha dieta melhorou 61.7 38.3 A dieta da minha família melhorou 62.4 37.6 Minha saúde melhorou 42.9 57.1 A saúde dos membros da minha família melhorou 47.4 52.6 Outro 1.5 98.5 179 index category A A minha maneira de cozinhar/preparar comida é mais saudável agora que percebo os princípios de alimentação equilibrada B Sei como conservar os alimentos C Minha dieta melhorou D A dieta da minha família melhorou E Minha saúde melhorou F A saúde dos membros da minha família melhorou G Outro 5.7 C7: C7. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus alunos? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 133 Não 1 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 99.3 96 100.0 Não 0.7 0 4.1 180 5.8 C8.: Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus alunos? Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) A higiene pessoal dos alunos melhorou 115 18 A dieta dos alunos melhorou 45 88 Os alunos podem explicar os princípios da nutrição 72 61 Os alunos parecem mais saudáveis 80 53 Outro 1 132 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) A higiene pessoal dos alunos melhorou 86 14 A dieta dos alunos melhorou 33.8 66.2 Os alunos podem explicar os princípios da nutrição 54.1 45.9 181 Category Yes (%) No (%) Os alunos parecem mais saudáveis 60.2 39.8 Outro 0.8 99.2 index category A A higiene pessoal dos alunos melhorou B A dieta dos alunos melhorou C Os alunos podem explicar os princípios da nutrição D Os alunos parecem mais saudáveis E Outro 182 6 Group D 6.1 D1: D1. Tem beneficiado de formação em literacia no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 134 78 56 Não 41 35 6 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 77 70 83 Não 23 17 30 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 69 60 77 Não 31 23 40 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 90.3 80.1 96 Não 9.7 3.6 20 183 184 6.2 D2a: D2a) Consciência fonémica Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 15 10 5 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 7 5 2 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 92 53 39 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 8 6 2 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 2 2 0 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 51 37 14 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 8.6 4.9 13.7 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 4.0 1.6 8.1 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 52.6 44.9 60.2 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 4.6 2.0 8.8 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 1.1 0.1 4.1 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 29.1 22.5 36.5 185 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 8.8 4.3 15.7 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 4.4 1.5 10.0 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 46.9 37.5 56.5 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 5.3 2.0 11.2 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 1.8 0.2 6.2 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 32.7 24.2 42.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 8.1 2.7 17.8 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 3.2 0.4 11.2 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 62.9 49.7 74.8 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 3.2 0.4 11.2 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 0.0 0.0 5.8 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 22.6 12.9 35.0 186 187 index category A Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido B Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra C Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral D Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão E Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova F Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 6.3 D2b: D2b) Fonética Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 7 5 2 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 9 9 0 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 65 43 22 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 10 6 4 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 3 1 2 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 81 49 32 188 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 4.0 1.6 8.1 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 5.1 2.4 9.5 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 37.1 30.0 44.8 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 5.7 2.8 10.3 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 1.7 0.4 4.9 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 46.3 38.7 54.0 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 4.4 1.5 10.0 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 8.0 3.7 14.6 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 38.1 29.1 47.7 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 5.3 2.0 11.2 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 0.9 0.0 4.8 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 43.4 34.1 53.0 189 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 3.2 0.4 11.2 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 0.0 0.0 5.8 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 35.5 23.7 48.7 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 6.5 1.8 15.7 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 3.2 0.4 11.2 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 51.6 38.6 64.5 190 index category A Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido B Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra C Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral D Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão E Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova F Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 191 6.4 D2c: D2c) Fluência Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 11 6 5 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 10 9 1 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 3 2 1 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 134 82 52 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 6 5 1 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 11 9 2 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 6.3 3.2 11.0 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 5.7 2.8 10.3 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 1.7 0.4 4.9 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 76.6 69.6 82.6 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 3.4 1.3 7.3 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 6.3 3.2 11.0 192 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 5.3 2.0 11.2 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 8.0 3.7 14.6 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 1.8 0.2 6.2 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 72.6 63.4 80.5 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 4.4 1.5 10.0 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 8.0 3.7 14.6 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 8.1 2.7 17.8 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 1.6 0.0 8.7 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 1.6 0.0 8.7 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 83.9 72.3 92.0 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 1.6 0.0 8.7 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 3.2 0.4 11.2 193 194 index category A Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido B Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra C Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral D Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão E Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova F Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 6.5 D2d: D2d) Vocabulário Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 20 13 7 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 128 84 44 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 4 4 0 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 4 3 1 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 1 0 1 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 18 9 9 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 11.4 7.1 17.1 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 73.1 65.9 79.6 195 Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 2.3 0.6 5.7 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 2.3 0.6 5.7 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 0.6 0.0 3.1 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 10.3 6.2 15.8 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 11.5 6.3 18.9 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 74.3 65.3 82.1 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 3.5 1.0 8.8 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 2.7 0.6 7.6 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 0.0 0.0 3.2 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 8.0 3.7 14.6 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 11.3 4.7 21.9 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 71.0 58.1 81.8 196 Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 0.0 0.0 5.8 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 1.6 0.0 8.7 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 1.6 0.0 8.7 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 14.5 6.9 25.8 197 198 index category A Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido B Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra C Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral D Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão E Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova F Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 6.6 D2e: D2e) Compreensão Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 137 83 54 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 6 5 1 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 2 2 0 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 7 7 0 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 19 13 6 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 4 3 1 199 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 78.3 71.4 84.2 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 3.4 1.3 7.3 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 1.1 0.1 4.1 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 4.0 1.6 8.1 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 10.9 6.7 16.4 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 2.3 0.6 5.7 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 73.5 64.3 81.3 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 4.4 1.5 10.0 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 1.8 0.2 6.2 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 6.2 2.5 12.3 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 11.5 6.3 18.9 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 2.7 0.6 7.6 200 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido 87.1 76.1 94.3 Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra 1.6 0.0 8.7 Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral 0.0 0.0 5.8 Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão 0.0 0.0 5.8 Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova 9.7 3.6 19.9 Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 1.6 0.0 8.7 201 202 index category A Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido B Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra C Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral D Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão E Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova F Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons 6.7 D3: D3. Na abordagem instrucional “Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem", que usa se para reforçar o ensino da literacia, qual é o propósito de “Eu faço”? Assinale a resposta correcta. Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Os alunos praticam palavras novas ou trabalhos novos enquanto o professor demonstra 35 25 10 Mostrar uma capacidade nova aos alunos para que eles saibam o que estão a aprender e o que devem fazer 107 63 44 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar como ler/dizer palavras novas 33 25 8 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Os alunos praticam palavras novas ou trabalhos novos enquanto o professor demonstra 20 14 27 203 Category Percenta ge lower upper Mostrar uma capacidade nova aos alunos para que eles saibam o que estão a aprender e o que devem fazer 61 54 68 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar como ler/dizer palavras novas 19 13 26 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Os alunos praticam palavras novas ou trabalhos novos enquanto o professor demonstra 22 15 31 Mostrar uma capacidade nova aos alunos para que eles saibam o que estão a aprender e o que devem fazer 56 46 65 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar como ler/dizer palavras novas 22 15 31 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Os alunos praticam palavras novas ou trabalhos novos enquanto o professor demonstra 16 8.0 28 Mostrar uma capacidade nova aos alunos para que eles saibam o que estão a aprender e o que devem fazer 71 58.1 82 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar como ler/dizer palavras novas 13 5.7 24 204 205 index category A Os alunos praticam palavras novas ou trabalhos novos enquanto o professor demonstra B Mostrar uma capacidade nova aos alunos para que eles saibam o que estão a aprender e o que devem fazer C Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar como ler/dizer palavras novas 6.8 D4: D4. Na abordagem instrucional "Eu faço, Nos fazemos , Vocês fazem", qual é o propósito de “Nós fazemos”? Assinale a resposta correcta. Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar a capacidade nova com o apoio do professor 115 66 49 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de trabalhar em pares ou grupos 57 45 12 Manter ocupados os alunos 3 2 1 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar a capacidade nova com o apoio do professor 65.7 58.2 72.7 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de trabalhar em pares ou grupos 32.6 25.7 40.1 Manter ocupados os alunos 1.7 0.4 4.9 206 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar a capacidade nova com o apoio do professor 58.4 48.8 67.6 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de trabalhar em pares ou grupos 39.8 30.7 49.5 Manter ocupados os alunos 1.8 0.2 6.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar a capacidade nova com o apoio do professor 79.0 67 88.3 Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de trabalhar em pares ou grupos 19.4 10 31.4 Manter ocupados os alunos 1.6 0 8.7 207 208 index category A Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar a capacidade nova com o apoio do professor B Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de trabalhar em pares ou grupos C Manter ocupados os alunos 6.9 D5: D5. Na abordagem instrucional "Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem ", durante “Vocês fazem” o professor deve… (Assinale a resposta correcta): Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Ler em voz alta para que os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos possam seguir 50 38 12 Preparar a atividade seguinte 13 7 6 Circular na sala para observar e ajudar os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos 112 68 44 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Ler em voz alta para que os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos possam seguir 28.6 22 36 Preparar a atividade seguinte 7.4 4 12 Circular na sala para observar e ajudar os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos 64.0 56 71 209 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Ler em voz alta para que os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos possam seguir 33.6 25.0 43 Preparar a atividade seguinte 6.2 2.5 12 Circular na sala para observar e ajudar os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos 60.2 50.5 69 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Ler em voz alta para que os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos possam seguir 19.4 10.4 31 Preparar a atividade seguinte 9.7 3.6 20 Circular na sala para observar e ajudar os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos 71.0 58.1 82 210 211 index category A Ler em voz alta para que os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos possam seguir B Preparar a atividade seguinte C Circular na sala para observar e ajudar os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos 6.10 D6.1: D6/Português Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 36 0 36 Sim 139 113 26 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 21 15 27 Sim 79 73 85 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 0 0 3.2 Sim 100 97 100.0 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 58 45 70 Sim 42 30 55 212 213 6.11 D6.2 : D6/Xichangana Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 119 113 6 Sim 56 0 56 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 68 60 75 Sim 32 25 40 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 100 97 100.0 Sim 0 0 3.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 9.7 3.6 20 Sim 90.3 80.1 96 214 215 6.12 D6.3: D6/Xirhonga Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 168 113 55 Sim 7 0 7 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 96 91.9 98.4 Sim 4 1.6 8.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 100 97 100.0 Sim 0 0 3.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 89 78.1 95 Sim 11 4.7 22 216 217 6.13 D6.4: D6/Outra Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 174 112 62 Sim 1 1 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 99.4 97 100.0 Sim 0.6 0 3.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 99.1 95 100.0 Sim 0.9 0 4.8 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 100 94 100.0 Sim 0 0 5.8 218 219 6.14 D7a: D7a) Português Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 131 105 26 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 6 6 0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 1 1 0 Nunca 1 1 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 94.2 89.0 97.5 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 4.3 1.6 9.2 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.7 0.0 3.9 Nunca 0.7 0.0 3.9 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 92.9 86 96.9 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 5.3 2 11.2 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.9 0 4.8 Nunca 0.9 0 4.8 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 100 87 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 0 13 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 13 Nunca 0 0 13 220 221 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.15 D7b: D7b) Xichangana Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 51 0 51 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 5 0 5 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 91.1 80 97.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 8.9 3 19.6 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0 6.4 Nunca 0.0 0 6.4 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 0 100 222 Category Percenta ge lower upper Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 100 Nunca 0 100 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 91.1 80 97.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 8.9 3 19.6 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0 6.4 Nunca 0.0 0 6.4 223 224 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.16 D7c: D7c) Xirhonga Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 6 0 6 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 1 0 1 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 86 42.1 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 14 0.4 58 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0.0 41 Nunca 0 0.0 41 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 0 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 100 Nunca 0 100 225 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 86 42.1 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 14 0.4 58 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0.0 41 Nunca 0 0.0 41 226 227 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.17 D7e: D7d) Outro Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 1 1 0 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 0 0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 100 2.5 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 0.0 98 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0.0 98 Nunca 0 0.0 98 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 100 2.5 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 0.0 98 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0.0 98 Nunca 0 0.0 98 228 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 0 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 0 100 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 100 Nunca 0 100 229 230 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.18 D8: D8. Com que frequência lê para seu prazer ou informação geral? (assinale a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 117 74 43 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 57 39 18 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 1 0 1 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 66.9 59 73.8 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 32.6 26 40.1 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0 2.1 Nunca 0.6 0 3.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 66 56 74.2 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 34 26 44.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 3.2 231 Category Percenta ge lower upper Nunca 0 0 3.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 69.4 56 80.4 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 29.0 18 41.9 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0 5.8 Nunca 1.6 0 8.7 232 233 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.19 D9.1: D9/Português Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 17 10 7 Sim 157 103 54 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 9.8 5.8 15 Sim 90.2 84.8 94 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 8.8 4.3 16 Sim 91.2 84.3 96 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 12 4.7 22 Sim 88 77.8 95 234 235 6.20 D9.2: D9/Xichangana Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 136 99 37 Sim 38 14 24 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 78 71 84 Sim 22 16 29 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 88 80.1 93 Sim 12 6.9 20 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 61 47 73 Sim 39 27 53 236 237 6.21 D9.3: D9/Xirhonga Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 166 111 55 Sim 8 2 6 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 95.4 91 98.0 Sim 4.6 2 8.9 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 98.2 93.8 99.8 Sim 1.8 0.2 6.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 90.2 79.8 96 Sim 9.8 3.7 20 238 239 6.22 D9.4: D9/Outra Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Não 169 108 61 Sim 5 5 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 97.1 93.4 99.1 Sim 2.9 0.9 6.6 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 95.6 90.0 98 Sim 4.4 1.5 10 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Não 100 94 100.0 Sim 0 0 5.9 240 241 6.23 D10: D10. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Português? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 94 57 37 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 78 53 25 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 0 0 0 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 3 3 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 53.7 46.0 61.3 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 44.6 37.1 52.3 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 0.0 0.0 2.1 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 1.7 0.4 4.9 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 50.4 40.9 60.0 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 46.9 37.5 56.5 242 Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 0.0 0.0 3.2 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 2.7 0.6 7.6 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 60 46 71.9 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 40 28 53.6 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 0 0 5.8 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 0 0 5.8 243 244 index category A Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo B Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras C Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras D Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 6.24 D11: D11. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Xichangana /Xirhonga? (assinale a resposta correcta conforme a sua língua de ensino) Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 40 21 19 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 85 47 38 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 38 34 4 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 12 11 1 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 22.9 16.9 30 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 48.6 41.0 56 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 21.7 15.8 29 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 6.9 3.6 12 245 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 18.6 12 27 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 41.6 32 51 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 30.1 22 39 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 9.7 5 17 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 30.6 19.6 43.7 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 61.3 48.1 73.4 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 6.5 1.8 15.7 Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 1.6 0.0 8.7 246 247 index category A Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo B Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras C Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras D Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 6.25 D12a: D12a) Uma formação sobre as cinco componentes da literacia (Se não recebeu uma formação, passe para a alínea c) Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 103 52 51 Não 72 61 11 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 59 51 66 Não 41 34 49 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 46 37 56 Não 54 44 63 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 82 70.5 91 Não 18 9.2 30 248 249 6.26 D12b: D12b) Se recebeu a formação, foi útil? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 102 52 50 Não 1 0 1 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 99 95 100.0 Não 1 0 5.3 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 93 100.0 Não 0 0 6.8 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 98 90 100 Não 2 0 10 250 251 6.27 D12c: D12c) Materiais para melhorar o ensino da leitura e escrita (Se não recebeu materiais, passe para a alínea e) Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 99 51 48 Não 3 1 2 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 97.1 91.6 99.4 Não 2.9 0.6 8.4 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 98.1 90 100 Não 1.9 0 10 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 96 86.3 100 Não 4 0.5 14 252 253 6.28 D12d: D12d) Se recebeu materiais, foram úteis? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 99 51 48 Não 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 96 100.0 Não 0 0 3.7 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 93 100 Não 0 0 7 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 93 100.0 Não 0 0 7.4 254 255 6.29 D12e: D12e) Um guião para facilitar a planificação das aulas (Se não recebeu um guião passe para a pergunta 13) Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 88 43 45 Não 11 8 3 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 89 81.0 94 Não 11 5.7 19 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 84 71 93 Não 16 7 29 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 93.8 82.8 99 Não 6.2 1.3 17 256 257 6.30 D12f : D12f) Se recebeu um guião, foi útil? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 88 43 45 Não 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 96 100.0 Não 0 0 4.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 92 100.0 Não 0 0 8.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 92 100.0 Não 0 0 7.9 258 259 6.31 D13: D13a) Nas suas aulas e para a sua planificação, usa o guia de sugestões metodológicas? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 171 110 61 Não 4 3 1 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 97.7 94.3 99.4 Não 2.3 0.6 5.7 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 97.3 92.4 99.4 Não 2.7 0.6 7.6 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 98.4 91 100.0 Não 1.6 0 8.7 260 261 6.32 D13a: D13b. Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 138 86 52 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 31 22 9 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 1 1 0 Nunca 1 1 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 80.7 74 86.3 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 18.1 13 24.7 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.6 0 3.2 Nunca 0.6 0 3.2 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 78.2 69 86 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 20.0 13 29 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.9 0 5 Nunca 0.9 0 5 262 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 85 74 93.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 15 7 26.2 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 5.9 Nunca 0 0 5.9 263 264 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.33 D14: D14a. Nas suas aulas, usa cartões de letras, de sílabas e de palavras? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 161 99 62 Não 14 14 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 92 86.9 96 Não 8 4.4 13 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 88 80.1 93 Não 12 6.9 20 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 94 100.0 Não 0 0 5.8 265 266 6.34 D14a: D14b) Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)?Todos os dias Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 106 58 48 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 55 41 14 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 66 58 73.1 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 34 27 42.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 2.3 Nunca 0 0 2.3 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 59 48 68.4 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 41 32 51.8 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 3.7 Nunca 0 0 3.7 267 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 77 65 87.1 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 23 13 35.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 5.8 Nunca 0 0 5.8 268 269 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.35 D15: D15a. Nas suas aulas, lê para os alunos textos ou histórias em voz alta ? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 168 109 59 Não 7 4 3 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 96 91.9 98.4 Não 4 1.6 8.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 96.5 91 99.0 Não 3.5 1 8.8 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 95.2 86 99 Não 4.8 1 14 270 271 6.36 D15a: D15b) Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 100 62 38 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 68 47 21 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 60 52 67.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 40 33 48.3 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 2.2 Nunca 0 0 2.2 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 57 47 66.3 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 43 34 53.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 3.3 Nunca 0 0 3.3 272 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 64 51 76.4 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 36 24 49.1 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 6.1 Nunca 0 0 6.1 273 274 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.37 D16: D16a. Nas suas aulas, os alunos utilizam os livros do aluno ? Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Sim 175 113 62 Não 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 98 100.0 Não 0 0 2.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 97 100.0 Não 0 0 3.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 94 100.0 Não 0 0 5.8 275 276 6.38 D16a: D16b) Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) Todos os dias 164 105 59 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 11 8 3 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0 0 0 Nunca 0 0 0 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 93.7 89.0 96.8 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 6.3 3.2 11.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0.0 2.1 Nunca 0.0 0.0 2.1 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 92.9 86.5 96.9 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 7.1 3.1 13.5 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0.0 3.2 Nunca 0.0 0.0 3.2 277 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper Todos os dias 95.2 86 99.0 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 4.8 1 13.5 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 0.0 0 5.8 Nunca 0.0 0 5.8 278 279 index category A Todos os dias B Mais ou menos uma vez por semana C Mais ou menos uma vez por mês D Nunca 6.39 D17: D17. Durante a semana escolar, quanto tempo os seus alunos têm para ler, individualmente, as histórias descodificáveis no Livro do Aluno ou nos livros descodificáveis (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) 15 minutos por semana 40 30 10 5 minutos por semana 7 6 1 15 minutos por dia 72 37 35 5 minutos por dia 56 40 16 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper 15 minutos por semana 23 16.9 29.8 5 minutos por semana 4 1.6 8.1 15 minutos por dia 41 33.8 48.8 5 minutos por dia 32 25.2 39.5 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper 15 minutos por semana 26.5 19 36 5 minutos por semana 5.3 2 11 15 minutos por dia 32.7 24 42 5 minutos por dia 35.4 27 45 280 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper 15 minutos por semana 16.1 8 27.7 5 minutos por semana 1.6 0 8.7 15 minutos por dia 56.5 43 69.0 5 minutos por dia 25.8 16 38.5 281 282 index category A 15 minutos por semana B 5 minutos por semana C 15 minutos por dia D 5 minutos por dia 6.40 D18.: Como avalia o progresso dos seus alunos na leitura (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Frequency Table: General Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre 10 165 Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura 132 43 Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula 122 53 Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 2 173 Frequency Table: Portuguese as LOT Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre 6 107 Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura 87 26 Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula 77 36 Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 1 112 Frequency Table: Bilingual Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre 4 58 Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura 45 17 283 Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula 45 17 Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 1 61 Percentages: General Category Yes (%) No (%) Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre 6 94 Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura 75.4 24.6 Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula 69.7 30.3 Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 1.1 98.9 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Yes (%) No (%) Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre 5 95 Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura 77 23 Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula 68.1 31.9 Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 0.9 99.1 Percentages: Bilingual Category Yes (%) No (%) Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre 6 94 Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura 72.6 27.4 Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula 72.6 27.4 Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 1.6 98.4 284 index category A Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre B Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura C Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula D Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 285 index category A Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre B Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura C Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula D Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 286 index category A Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre B Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura C Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula D Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler 287 6.41 D19.: Como regista o progresso dos seus alunos na leitura (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Frequency Table: General Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um 157 18 Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre 22 153 Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas 92 83 Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 18 157 Frequency Table: Portuguese as LOT Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um 100 13 Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre 11 102 Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas 59 54 Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 10 103 Frequency Table: Bilingual Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um 57 5 Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre 11 51 288 Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas 33 29 Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 8 54 Percentages: General Category Yes (%) No (%) Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um 90 10 Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre 12.6 87.4 Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas 52.6 47.4 Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 10.3 89.7 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Yes (%) No (%) Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um 88 12 Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre 9.7 90.3 Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas 52.2 47.8 Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 8.8 91.2 Percentages: Bilingual Category Yes (%) No (%) Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um 92 8 Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre 17.7 82.3 289 Category Yes (%) No (%) Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas 53.2 46.8 Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 12.9 87.1 index category A Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um B Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre C Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas D Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 290 index category A Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um B Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre C Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas D Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 291 index category A Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um B Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre C Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas D Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano 292 6.42 D20i: D20.i) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A )É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. 170 112 58 (B) Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá￾los para o futuro. 5 1 4 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A )É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. 97.1 93.5 99.1 (B) Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá￾los para o futuro. 2.9 0.9 6.5 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A )É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. 99.1 95 100.0 (B) Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá￾los para o futuro. 0.9 0 4.8 293 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A )É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. 93.5 84.3 98 (B) Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá￾los para o futuro. 6.5 1.8 16 294 295 index category A (A )É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. B (B) Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá-los para o futuro. 6.43 D20ii: D20.ii) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A) É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. 9 6 3 (B) Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. 166 107 59 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. 5.1 2.4 9.5 (B) Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. 94.9 90.5 97.6 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. 5.3 2 11 (B) Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. 94.7 89 98 296 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. 4.8 1 14 (B) Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. 95.2 86 99 297 298 index category A (A) É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. B (B) Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. 6.44 D20iii: D20.iii) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A) Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. 59 38 21 (B) Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. 116 75 41 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. 34 27 41 (B) Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. 66 59 73 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. 34 25 43 (B) Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. 66 57 75 299 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. 34 22 47 (B) Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. 66 53 78 300 301 index category A (A) Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. B (B) Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. 6.45 D20iv: D20.iv) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A) Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. 16 11 5 (B) É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. 159 102 57 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. 9.1 5.3 14 (B) É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. 90.9 85.6 95 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. 9.7 5 17 (B) É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. 90.3 83 95 302 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. 8.1 2.7 18 (B) É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. 91.9 82.2 97 303 304 index category A (A) Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. B (B) É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. 6.46 D20v: D20.v) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A) A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. 170 110 60 (B) A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. 5 3 2 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. 97.1 93.5 99.1 (B) A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. 2.9 0.9 6.5 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. 97.3 92.4 99.4 (B) A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. 2.7 0.6 7.6 305 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. 96.8 88.8 100 (B) A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. 3.2 0.4 11 306 307 index category A (A) A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. B (B) A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. 6.47 D20vi: D20.vi) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A) Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. 95 59 36 (B) Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritm 80 54 26 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. 54 47 62 (B) Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritm 46 38 53 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. 52 43 62 (B) Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritm 48 38 57 308 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. 58 45 70 (B) Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritm 42 30 55 309 310 index category A (A) Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. B (B) Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritm 6.48 D20vii: D20.vii) Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B) : Frequency Table Category Freq Freq(Prt.) Freq(Bil.) (A) A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros 11 6 5 (B) Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem 164 107 57 Percentages: General Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros 6.3 3.2 11 (B) Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem 93.7 89.0 97 Percentages: Portuguese as LOT Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros 5.3 2 11 (B) Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem 94.7 89 98 311 Percentages: Bilingual Category Percenta ge lower upper (A) A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros 8.1 2.7 18 (B) Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem 91.9 82.2 97 312 313 index category A (A) A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros B (B) Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem 7 Group E 7.1 E1: E1. Conseguiu manter contacto com os seus estudantes durante o período de emergência? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim, com todos 25 Sim, com alguns 107 Não 43 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim, com todos 14 9.5 20 Sim, com alguns 61 53.5 68 Não 25 18.4 32 314 index category A Sim, com todos B Sim, com alguns C Não 7.2 E2.: Conseguiu manter contacto com os seus estudantes durante o período de emergência? Caso sim, como manteve contacto com os seus estudantes? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria 33 99 Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio 125 7 Outra 3 129 315 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria 25 75 Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio 94.7 5.3 Outra 2.3 97.7 index category A Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria B Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio C Outra 316 7.3 E3.: Que tipo de comunicação estabeleceu para continuar a interagir com os seus alunos? Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp 50 82 Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade 112 20 Visitas nas suas residências 4 128 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp 38 62 Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade 84.8 15.2 Visitas nas suas residências 3 97 317 index category A Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp B Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade C Visitas nas suas residências 7.4 E4 : E4. Teve conhecimento das aulas produzidas pelo projecto FFK e transmitidas via rádio e TV durante o encerramento das escolas? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 133 Não 42 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 76 69 82 Não 24 18 31 318 7.5 E5 : E5. Encorajou os seus alunos para escutarem as aulas? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 121 Não 12 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 91 84.8 95 Não 9 4.7 15 319 7.6 E6: E6. Acredita que os seus alunos acompanhavam as aulas? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim, todos 8 Sim, alguns 80 Não 20 Não sei 25 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim, todos 6 2.6 12 Sim, alguns 60 51.3 68 Não 15 9.4 22 Não sei 19 12.5 26 320 7.7 E7: E7. Acompanhou e deu suporte aos alunos em relação as aulas transmitidas via radio ou TV? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 83 Não 50 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 62 54 71 Não 38 29 46 321 7.8 E8: E8. Os seus alunos tiveram o suporte necessário, em casa, para compreenderem a matéria das aulas transmitidas pela radio ou TV? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 43 Não 57 Não sei 33 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 32 24 41 Não 43 34 52 Não sei 25 18 33 322 7.9 E9: E9. Qual e a sua opinião sobre as aulas dadas na radio e na TV ? Frequency Table Category Freq Excelentes 13 Boas 69 Razoáveis 49 Más 0 Péssimas 2 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Excelentes 9.8 5.3 16.1 Boas 51.9 43.1 60.6 Razoáveis 36.8 28.6 45.6 Más 0.0 0.0 2.7 Péssimas 1.5 0.2 5.3 323 7.10 E10: E10. A liderança da escola providenciou material para facilitar a aprendizagem? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 153 Não 13 Não sei 9 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 87.4 81.6 92.0 Não 7.4 4.0 12.4 Não sei 5.1 2.4 9.5 324 7.11 E11: E11. Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID-19? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 175 Não 0 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 100 98 100.0 Não 0 0 2.1 325 7.12 E12.: Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID￾19? Se sim, de quem ou donde ouve falar acerca da nova pandemia de coronavírus? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Membro da família 68 107 Membro da comunidade 71 104 Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) 40 135 Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) 172 3 Outro 8 167 326 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Membro da família 39 61 Membro da comunidade 40.6 59.4 Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) 22.9 77.1 Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) 98.3 1.7 Outro 4.6 95.4 index category A Membro da família B Membro da comunidade C Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) D Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) E Outro 327 7.13 E13.:O que sabe sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Passos de protecção 153 22 Sintomas 156 19 Transmissão 156 19 Autocuidados 111 64 Acções governamentais 76 99 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Passos de protecção 87 13 Sintomas 89.1 10.9 Transmissão 89.1 10.9 Autocuidados 63.4 36.6 Acções governamentais 43.4 56.6 328 index category A Passos de protecção B Sintomas C Transmissão D Autocuidados E Acções governamentais 329 7.14 E14.: Quais são os principais sintomas de COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Febre 160 15 Tosse 159 16 Falta de ar 139 36 Dificuldades de respiração 167 8 Dores musculares 70 105 Dor de cabeça 118 57 Diarreia 19 156 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Febre 91 9 Tosse 90.9 9.1 Falta de ar 79.4 20.6 Dificuldades de respiração 95.4 4.6 Dores musculares 40 60 Dor de cabeça 67.4 32.6 Diarreia 10.9 89.1 330 index category A Febre B Tosse C Falta de ar D Dificuldades de respiração E Dores musculares F Dor de cabeça G Diarreia 331 7.15 E15.: Das medidas preventivas abaixo, quais são as que está usando? Porquê? Ou porque não (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão pelo menos por 20 segundos 172 3 Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. 174 1 Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. 174 1 Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. 174 1 Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. 175 0 Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. 169 6 Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. 175 0 Evitar grandes reuniões, reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc. 175 0 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão pelo menos por 20 segundos 98 2 Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. 99.4 0.6 Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. 99.4 0.6 Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. 99.4 0.6 Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. 100 0 332 Category Yes (%) No (%) Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. 96.6 3.4 Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. 100 0 Evitar grandes reuniões, reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc. 100 0 index category A Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão pelo menos por 20 segundos B Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. C Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. D Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. 333 index category E Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. F Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. G Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. H Evitar grandes reuniões, reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc. 7.16 E16.: O que mais gostaria de saber sobre esta pandemia? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Como se proteger desta pandemia 29 146 Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus 28 147 Como é que é transmitido 22 153 O que fazer se tiver os sintomas 69 106 Grupos de maior risco 75 100 Qual é o seu tratamento 124 51 Outros 15 160 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Como se proteger desta pandemia 17 83 Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus 16 84 Como é que é transmitido 12.6 87.4 O que fazer se tiver os sintomas 39.4 60.6 Grupos de maior risco 42.9 57.1 Qual é o seu tratamento 70.9 29.1 Outros 8.6 91.4 334 index category A Como se proteger desta pandemia B Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus C Como é que é transmitido D O que fazer se tiver os sintomas E Grupos de maior risco F Qual é o seu tratamento G Outros 335 7.17 E17: E17. Você sente que pessoas em Moçambique sabem (o suficiente) sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? Frequency Table Category Freq Sim 83 Não 92 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper Sim 47 40 55 Não 53 45 60 336 7.18 E19. : Como é que as restrições de movimento da COVID-19 afectaram o seu sustento? (teste cada ponto abaixo) Frequency Table Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Impacto na Agricultura 35 140 Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas 60 115 Impacto na gestão de gado 17 158 Impacto no tralho diário assalariado 129 46 Outro 17 158 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Impacto na Agricultura 20 80 Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas 34.3 65.7 Impacto na gestão de gado 9.7 90.3 Impacto no tralho diário assalariado 73.7 26.3 Outro 9.7 90.3 337 index category A Impacto na Agricultura B Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas C Impacto na gestão de gado D Impacto no tralho diário assalariado E Outro 338 7.19 E20: E20. Como é que o encerramento das escolas afecta a educação dos seus alunos? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequency Table Category Freq A educação dos alunos foi interrompida 73 Os alunos não recebem mais comida na escola 9 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores 38 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças 9 Outro/a 46 Percentages Category Percenta ge lower upper A educação dos alunos foi interrompida 41.7 34.3 49.4 Os alunos não recebem mais comida na escola 5.1 2.4 9.5 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores 21.7 15.8 28.6 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças 5.1 2.4 9.5 Outro/a 26.3 19.9 33.5 339 index category A A educação dos alunos foi interrompida B Os alunos não recebem mais comida na escola C Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores D Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças E Outro/a 340 Director Survey Analysis NFER 28/1/2021 Table of Contents 1 Categorical........................................................................................................................................................343 1.1 Q1.7b..........................................................................................................................................................343 1.2 Q2.1 ............................................................................................................................................................344 1.3 Q2.2 ............................................................................................................................................................345 1.4 Q2.3 ............................................................................................................................................................347 1.5 Q2.4 ............................................................................................................................................................348 1.6 Q2.5 ............................................................................................................................................................350 1.7 Q2.6 ............................................................................................................................................................351 1.8 Q2.7 ............................................................................................................................................................353 1.9 Q3.1 ............................................................................................................................................................354 1.10 Q3.2........................................................................................................................................................355 1.11 Q3.3........................................................................................................................................................356 1.12 Q3.4........................................................................................................................................................357 1.13 Q3.5........................................................................................................................................................359 1.14 Q3.6........................................................................................................................................................360 1.15 Q3.7........................................................................................................................................................362 1.16 Q3.8........................................................................................................................................................364 1.17 Q4.1........................................................................................................................................................365 1.18 Q4.2........................................................................................................................................................366 1.19 Q4.4........................................................................................................................................................368 1.20 Q4.5........................................................................................................................................................369 1.21 Q5.1........................................................................................................................................................371 1.22 Q5.3........................................................................................................................................................372 1.23 Q5.4........................................................................................................................................................373 1.24 Q5.5.3 ....................................................................................................................................................374 1.25 Q5.5.4 ....................................................................................................................................................375 1.26 Q5.6.1 ....................................................................................................................................................377 1.27 Q5.6.2 ....................................................................................................................................................378 341 1.28 Q5.7.1 ....................................................................................................................................................379 1.29 Q5.7.2 ....................................................................................................................................................380 1.30 Q5.8.1 ....................................................................................................................................................381 1.31 Q5.8.2 ....................................................................................................................................................382 1.32 Q5.8.3 ....................................................................................................................................................383 1.33 Q5.9........................................................................................................................................................384 1.34 Q5.10 .....................................................................................................................................................385 1.35 Q5.11 .....................................................................................................................................................386 1.36 Q6.1........................................................................................................................................................387 1.37 Q6.2........................................................................................................................................................389 1.38 Q6.3. .......................................................................................................................................................390 1.39 Q6.3.2.1.................................................................................................................................................391 1.40 Q6.3.3 ....................................................................................................................................................392 1.41 Q7.2........................................................................................................................................................394 1.42 Q7.3.1 ....................................................................................................................................................395 1.43 Q7.3.2 ....................................................................................................................................................396 1.44 Q8.1........................................................................................................................................................398 1.45 Q8.2........................................................................................................................................................400 1.46 Q8.3........................................................................................................................................................401 1.47 Q8.4........................................................................................................................................................402 1.48 Q8.6........................................................................................................................................................403 2 Numerical variables......................................................................................................................................405 2.1 Q1.4 ............................................................................................................................................................405 2.2 Q1.5 ............................................................................................................................................................406 2.3 Q1.6 ............................................................................................................................................................407 2.4 Q1.7.1ª.......................................................................................................................................................408 2.5 Q1.7.2ª.......................................................................................................................................................408 2.6 Q1.7.3ª.......................................................................................................................................................409 2.7 Q1.7.4ª.......................................................................................................................................................409 2.8 Q1.7.5ª.......................................................................................................................................................410 2.9 Q1.7.6ª.......................................................................................................................................................411 2.10 Q1.7.7ª ..................................................................................................................................................411 2.11 Q1.8........................................................................................................................................................412 2.12 ee5a........................................................................................................................................................413 342 2.13 ee5b .......................................................................................................................................................413 2.14 ee5c........................................................................................................................................................414 2.15 ee5d .......................................................................................................................................................415 2.16 ee5e........................................................................................................................................................415 2.17 Q5.5.1f...................................................................................................................................................416 2.18 Q5.5.1g..................................................................................................................................................416 2.19 Q5.5.2a..................................................................................................................................................417 2.20 Q5.5.2b..................................................................................................................................................418 2.21 Q5.5.2c ..................................................................................................................................................418 2.22 Q5.5.2d..................................................................................................................................................419 2.23 Q7.1........................................................................................................................................................420 2.24 classe1_primeira turma .................................................................................................................420 2.25 classe1_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................421 2.26 classe1_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................422 2.27 classe2_primeira turma .................................................................................................................422 2.28 classe2_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................423 2.29 classe2_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................424 2.30 classe3_primeira turma .................................................................................................................424 2.31 classe3_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................425 2.32 classe3_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................426 2.33 classe4_primeira turma .................................................................................................................426 2.34 classe4_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................427 2.35 classe4_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................428 2.36 classe5_primeira turma .................................................................................................................428 2.37 classe5_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................429 2.38 classe5_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................430 2.39 classe6_primeira turma .................................................................................................................430 2.40 classe6_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................431 2.41 classe6_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................431 2.42 classe7_primeira turma .................................................................................................................432 2.43 classe7_segunda turma ..................................................................................................................433 2.44 classe7_terceira turma ...................................................................................................................433 343 1 Categorical 1.1 Q1.7b Q1.7b) A Escola tem turmas mistas? Frequencies i Freq SIM 22 NÃO 33 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 40 27.02289 54.09274 NÃO 60 45.90726 72.97711 344 1.2 Q2.1 Q2.1 Com que frequencia se faz a limpeza da cozinha? Frequencies i Freq Diaria 50 Semanal 3 Bi semanal 2 De Vezes em Qando 0 Outra 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Diaria 90.909091 80.0460384 96.981913 Semanal 5.454546 1.1393006 15.123496 Bi semanal 3.636364 0.4434547 12.526426 De Vezes em Qando 0.000000 0.0000000 6.487076 Outra 0.000000 0.0000000 6.487076 345 1.3 Q2.2 Q2.2 Quem faz a limpeza da cozinha? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) As cozinheiras voluntarias 44 11 Os alunos da escola 19 36 O professor gestor 15 40 Membro do Conselho da Escola 6 49 Outra 4 51 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) As cozinheiras voluntarias 80 20 Os alunos da escola 34.5 65.5 O professor gestor 27.3 72.7 Membro do Conselho da Escola 10.9 89.1 Outra 7.3 92.7 346 index category A As cozinheiras voluntarias B Os alunos da escola C O professor gestor D Membro do Conselho da Escola E Outra 347 1.4 Q2.3 Q2.3 Com que frequencia se faz a limpeza do armazem? Frequencies i Freq Diaria 40 Semanal 13 Bi semanal 2 De Vezes em Qando 0 Outra 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Diaria 72.727273 59.0380515 83.862036 Semanal 23.636364 13.2278995 37.019508 Bi semanal 3.636364 0.4434547 12.526426 De Vezes em Qando 0.000000 0.0000000 6.487076 Outra 0.000000 0.0000000 6.487076 348 1.5 Q2.4 Q2.4 Quem faz a limpeza do armazem? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) As cozinheiras voluntarias 23 32 Os alunos da escola 14 41 O professor gestor 42 13 Membro do Conselho da Escola 4 51 Outra 3 52 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) As cozinheiras voluntarias 42 58 Os alunos da escola 25.5 74.5 O professor gestor 76.4 23.6 Membro do Conselho da Escola 7.3 92.7 Outra 5.5 94.5 349 index category A As cozinheiras voluntarias B Os alunos da escola C O professor gestor D Membro do Conselho da Escola E Outra 350 1.6 Q2.5 2.5 A escola tem um plano de manutenção para infraestrutura (cozinha, armazém, fogão)? Frequencies i Freq SIM 21 NÃO 32 Não sabe 2 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 38.181818 25.4091648 52.27377 NÃO 58.181818 44.1058411 71.34548 Não sabe 3.636364 0.4434547 12.52643 351 1.7 Q2.6 Q2.6 Quem conhece o plano de manutenção das infrastruturas feito pela escola (cozinha, armazém, fogão)? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) O Conselho de Escola 20 3 Os Professores da direcção apenas 2 21 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola 3 20 O Director da escola 4 19 O Director Pedagógico 3 20 Não Sei 1 22 Outra 2 21 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) O Conselho de Escola 87 13 Os Professores da direcção apenas 8.7 91.3 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola 13 87 O Director da escola 17.4 82.6 O Director Pedagógico 13 87 Não Sei 4.3 95.7 Outra 8.7 91.3 352 index category A O Conselho de Escola B Os Professores da direcção apenas C O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola D O Director da escola E O Director Pedagógico F Não Sei G Outra 353 1.8 Q2.7 2.7 O plano de manutenção é seguido? Frequencies i Freq SIM 18 NÃO 1 As vezes 4 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 78.260870 56.2969274 92.53966 NÃO 4.347826 0.1100169 21.94866 As vezes 17.391304 4.9507645 38.78119 354 1.9 Q3.1 3.1 A escola tem um sistema de abastecimento de água? i Freq SIM 40 NÃO 15 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 72.72727 59.03805 83.86204 NÃO 27.27273 16.13796 40.96195 355 1.10 Q3.2 Q.32Em que condições se encontra este sistema de água? Frequencies i Freq Funciona 100%, temos tido água todos os dias deste ano 26 Funciona maioria das vezes (não todos dias, mais de 11 dias por mes) 3 Funciona de vezes em quando (menos que 10 dias por mes) 2 Não funciona 5 Outro 4 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Funciona 100%, temos tido água todos os dias deste ano 65.0 48.3155546 79.37175 Funciona maioria das vezes (não todos dias, mais de 11 dias por mes) 7.5 1.5742180 20.38647 Funciona de vezes em quando (menos que 10 dias por mes) 5.0 0.6113647 16.91969 Não funciona 12.5 4.1859626 26.80329 Outro 10.0 2.7925415 23.66374 356 1.11 Q3.3 Q3.3 Existe um plano de manutenção de rotina e limpeza para os sistemas de água? Frequencies i Freq SIM 27 NÃO 12 Não sabe 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 67.5 50.8705125 81.42710 NÃO 30.0 16.5627204 46.53163 Não sabe 2.5 0.0632745 13.15859 357 1.12 Q3.4 Q3.4 Quem conhece o plano de manutenção dos sistemas de água elaborado pela escola? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) O Conselho de Escola 22 5 Os Professores da direcção apenas 3 24 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola 6 21 O Director da escola 8 19 O Director Pedagógico 4 23 Não Sei 0 27 Outra 4 23 358 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) O Conselho de Escola 81 19 Os Professores da direcção apenas 11.1 88.9 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola 22.2 77.8 O Director da escola 29.6 70.4 O Director Pedagógico 14.8 85.2 Não Sei 0 100 Outra 14.8 85.2 index category A O Conselho de Escola B Os Professores da direcção apenas C O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola D O Director da escola 359 index category E O Director Pedagógico F Não Sei G Outra 1.13 Q3.5 Q3.5 Existe um comite/ pessoas que cuidam do sistema de água Frequencies i Freq SIM 26 NÃO 1 Não sabe 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 96.296296 81.0294383 99.90627 NÃO 3.703704 0.0937257 18.97056 Não sabe 0.000000 0.0000000 12.77029 360 1.14 Q3.6 Q3.6 Quais os membros da escola que fazem parte dele? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) O Professor gestor do lanche escolar 16 26 Todos professores da escola 13 29 O Director da Escola 15 27 O Director Pedagógico 3 39 Não sei 1 41 Nenhum 5 37 Outra 6 36 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) O Professor gestor do lanche escolar 38 62 361 Category Yes (%) No (%) Todos professores da escola 31 69 O Director da Escola 35.7 64.3 O Director Pedagógico 7.1 92.9 Não sei 2.4 97.6 Nenhum 11.9 88.1 Outra 14.3 85.7 index category A O Professor gestor do lanche escolar B Todos professores da escola C O Director da Escola D O Director Pedagógico E Não sei F Nenhum G Outra 362 1.15 Q3.7 Q3.7 Quem cuida do sistema de água? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) O Conselho de Escola 11 17 A comunidade circunvizinha atraves do Comite de água 18 10 Os Professores da direção apenas 2 26 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a Escola 5 23 Os alunos da Escola 4 24 Não sei 0 28 Outro 2 26 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) O Conselho de Escola 39 61 A comunidade circunvizinha atraves do Comite de água 64.3 35.7 Os Professores da direção apenas 7.1 92.9 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a Escola 17.9 82.1 Os alunos da Escola 14.3 85.7 Não sei 0 100 Outro 7.1 92.9 363 index category A O Conselho de Escola B A comunidade circunvizinha atraves do Comite de água C Os Professores da direção apenas D O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a Escola E Os alunos da Escola F Não sei G Outro 364 1.16 Q3.8 Q3.8 Qual é a frequência da limpeza do sistema(s) de água? Frequencies i Freq Diaria 0 Semanal 0 Bi semanal 0 De Vezes em Quando 1 Outra 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Diaria 0 0.0 97.5 Semanal 0 0.0 97.5 Bi semanal 0 0.0 97.5 De Vezes em Quando 100 2.5 100.0 Outra 0 0.0 97.5 365 1.17 Q4.1 Q4.1 Nos últimos dois meses de aulas algum dia não se preparou o lanche escolar? Frequencies i Freq SIM 11 NÃO 44 Se não 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 20 10.42959 32.972851 NÃO 80 67.02715 89.570408 Se não 0 0.00000 6.487076 366 1.18 Q4.2 Q4.2 Qual foi a razão para não preparar o lanche escolar? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) rotura de CSB na escolar 1 10 falta de lenha 1 10 falta de água 2 9 falta de utencilios 0 11 ausência de cozinheiras 5 6 Outras 4 7 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) rotura de CSB na escolar 9 91 falta de lenha 9.1 90.9 falta de água 18.2 81.8 falta de utencilios 0 100 ausência de cozinheiras 45.5 54.5 Outras 36.4 63.6 367 index category A rotura de CSB na escolar B falta de lenha C falta de água D falta de utencilios E ausência de cozinheiras F Outras 368 1.19 Q4.4 Q4.4 Os utencilios existentes na escola são suffciente para preparação e distribuição de lanche escolar? Frequencies i Freq SIM 35 NÃO 20 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 63.63636 49.56315 76.18616 NÃO 36.36364 23.81384 50.43685 369 1.20 Q4.5 Q4.5. Quais são os utensilios em falta? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) panelas 6 14 tijelas 11 9 colheres 13 7 copos 13 7 bacias 9 11 baldes 14 6 jarras 9 11 balanca 3 17 Outra 4 16 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) panelas 30 70 tijelas 55 45 colheres 65 35 copos 65 35 bacias 45 55 baldes 70 30 jarras 45 55 balanca 15 85 Outra 20 80 370 index category A panelas B tijelas C colheres D copos E bacias F baldes G jarras H balanca I Outra 371 1.21 Q5.1 Q5.1 A escola tem horta ou machamba escolar? Frequencies i Freq horta 14 machamba 10 não tem 31 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound horta 25.45455 14.670045 39.00284 machamba 18.18182 9.079051 30.90485 não tem 56.36364 42.321665 69.69631 372 1.22 Q5.3 Q5.3 Qual é a frequnecia da produção da horta/machamba? Frequencies i Freq Na epoca chuvosa 1 Produzimos todo ano 2 Produzimos apenas uma vez por ano 14 Produzimos duas vezes por ano 7 Produzimos trez vezes por ano 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Na epoca chuvosa 4.166667 0.1054352 21.12017 Produzimos todo ano 8.333333 1.0256341 26.99728 Produzimos apenas uma vez por ano 58.333333 36.6430646 77.89031 Produzimos duas vezes por ano 29.166667 12.6152089 51.09478 Produzimos trez vezes por ano 0.000000 0.0000000 14.24736 373 1.23 Q5.4 Q5.4 Desde que iniciou se a produzir qual é a dimensão da área de produção? Frequencies i Freq Menos que 25 x 25m 12 Mais que 25m ha e menos de 1 ha 9 Mais que 1 ha menos que 2 ha 2 Mais de 3 ha e menos que 5 ha 0 Mais de 5 ha 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Menos que 25 x 25m 50.000000 29.1241780 70.87582 Mais que 25m ha e menos de 1 ha 37.500000 18.7992928 59.40636 Mais que 1 ha menos que 2 ha 8.333333 1.0256341 26.99728 Mais de 3 ha e menos que 5 ha 0.000000 0.0000000 14.24736 Mais de 5 ha 4.166667 0.1054352 21.12017 374 1.24 Q5.5.3 Q5.5.3 Existem evidências do consumo registado? Frequencies i Freq SIM 11 NÃO 13 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 45.83333 25.55302 67.17919 NÃO 54.16667 32.82081 74.44698 375 1.25 Q5.5.4 Q5.5.4 Existem evidências do consumo registado? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Livro de registro da Escola 2 9 Formulario fornecido pelo SDEJT 4 7 Registrado no Relatorio de distribuição de CSB 2 9 No caderno/livro da horta 0 11 Outro 7 4 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Livro de registro da Escola 18 82 Formulario fornecido pelo SDEJT 36.4 63.6 Registrado no Relatorio de distribuição de CSB 18.2 81.8 376 Category Yes (%) No (%) No caderno/livro da horta 0 100 Outro 63.6 36.4 index category A Livro de registro da Escola B Formulario fornecido pelo SDEJT C Registrado no Relatorio de distribuição de CSB D No caderno/livro da horta E Outro 377 1.26 Q5.6.1 Q5.6.1 A escola recebeu insumos de produção (sementes)? Frequencies i Freq SIM 4 NÃO 9 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 30.76923 9.09204 61.42617 NÃO 69.23077 38.57383 90.90796 378 1.27 Q5.6.2 Q5.6.2 Se sim, quantos tipos? Frequencies i Freq um tipo 0 dois tipos 1 tres tipos 0 mais de tres tipos 3 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound um tipo 0 0.0000000 60.23646 dois tipos 25 0.6309463 80.58795 tres tipos 0 0.0000000 60.23646 mais de tres tipos 75 19.4120450 99.36905 379 1.28 Q5.7.1 Q5.7.1 A escola recebeu instrumentos de produção (catanas, enxadas, ancinhos etc.)? Frequencies i Freq SIM 12 NÃO 12 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 50 29.12418 70.87582 NÃO 50 29.12418 70.87582 380 1.29 Q5.7.2 Q5.7.2 Se sim, quantos tipos Frequencies i Freq um tipo 4 dois tipos 3 tres tipos 3 mais de tres tipos 2 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound um tipo 33.33333 9.924609 65.11245 dois tipos 25.00000 5.486065 57.18585 tres tipos 25.00000 5.486065 57.18585 mais de tres tipos 16.66667 2.086253 48.41377 381 1.30 Q5.8.1 Q5.8.1 Qual e a fonte de irrigação da horta/machamba? Frequencies i Freq água do Rio 2 água da chuva 3 água da fontenaria 14 Outro 5 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound água do Rio 8.333333 1.025634 26.99728 água da chuva 12.500000 2.655931 32.36114 água da fontenaria 58.333333 36.643065 77.89031 Outro 20.833333 7.131862 42.15128 382 1.31 Q5.8.2 Q5.8.2 Esta fonte de irrigação está disponivel todo o ano? Frequencies i Freq SIM 17 NÃO 7 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 70.83333 48.90522 87.38479 NÃO 29.16667 12.61521 51.09478 383 1.32 Q5.8.3 Q5.8.3 Se não, quando não está disponivel continuam a fazer horta/machamba ? Frequencies i Freq SIM 4 NÃO 3 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 57.14286 18.405157 90.10117 NÃO 42.85714 9.898828 81.59484 384 1.33 Q5.9 Q5.9 A horta/machamba esta vedada? Frequencies i Freq SIM 11 NÃO 13 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 45.83333 25.55302 67.17919 NÃO 54.16667 32.82081 74.44698 385 1.34 Q5.10 Q5.10 A escola ja tem DUAT ? Frequencies i Freq SIM 2 NÃO 22 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 8.333333 1.025634 26.99728 NÃO 91.666667 73.002720 98.97437 386 1.35 Q5.11 Q5.11 Qual é envolvimento da comunidade na horta/machamba escolar? Frequencies i Freq ajudam regularmente (semanalmente) na preparação e produção 2 ajudam algumas vezes por ano, quando tem grande acções 18 não estão envolvidos 1 outro 3 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound ajudam regularmente (semanalmente) na preparação e produção 8.333333 1.0256341 26.99728 ajudam algumas vezes por ano, quando tem grande acções 75.000000 53.2887198 90.22696 não estão envolvidos 4.166667 0.1054352 21.12017 outro 12.500000 2.6559315 32.36114 387 1.36 Q6.1 Q6.1 O(s) professor(es) formado(s) em educação nutricional já fez/fizeram algo das seguintes afirmações para a difusão da materia aprendida? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Já fez replica para os professores 54 1 Organizou um encontro de inclusão de materia de nutrição nos planos de aulas 54 1 Incluiu a materia de nutrição nas suas aulas para os alunos 55 0 Introduziu a materia de nutrição durante a formatura dos alunos 53 2 Organizou jornada de limpeza e saude na escola 55 0 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Já fez replica para os professores 98 2 Organizou um encontro de inclusão de materia de nutrição nos planos de aulas 98.2 1.8 Incluiu a materia de nutrição nas suas aulas para os alunos 100 0 Introduziu a materia de nutrição durante a formatura dos alunos 96.4 3.6 Organizou jornada de limpeza e saude na escola 100 0 388 index category A Já fez replica para os professores B Organizou um encontro de inclusão de materia de nutrição nos planos de aulas C Incluiu a materia de nutrição nas suas aulas para os alunos D Introduziu a materia de nutrição durante a formatura dos alunos E Organizou jornada de limpeza e saude na escola 389 1.37 Q6.2 Q6.2 Voluntarias receberam treinamento em higiene e nutrição feito pelo profissional do Projecto durante o ano passado? Frequencies i Freq Sim, receberam 51 Não, não receberam 3 Não sei 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, receberam 92.727273 82.4132465 97.982947 Não, não receberam 5.454546 1.1393006 15.123496 Não sei 1.818182 0.0460218 9.719102 390 1.38 Q6.3. Q6.3. A escola recebeu materiais de nutrição do projecto? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) cartazes 49 6 manuais 43 12 panfletos 42 13 não recebeu 1 54 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) cartazes 89 11 manuais 78.2 21.8 panfletos 76.4 23.6 não recebeu 1.8 98.2 391 index category A cartazes B manuais C panfletos D não recebeu 1.39 Q6.3.2.1 Q6.3.2 Os materiais estão sendo usados? Frequencies i Freq SIM 54 NÃO 0 392 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 100 93.39685 100.000000 NÃO 0 0.00000 6.603151 1.40 Q6.3.3 Q6.3.3 Como é que os materiais recebidos estao a ser usados? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Professores usam nas sala de aulas 51 3 Estão colados nos paredes de cozinha, armazém ou sala dos professores 49 5 Foram distribuidos para alunos 24 30 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Professores usam nas sala de aulas 94 6 393 Category Yes (%) No (%) Estão colados nos paredes de cozinha, armazém ou sala dos professores 90.7 9.3 Foram distribuidos para alunos 44.4 55.6 index category A Professores usam nas sala de aulas B Estão colados nos paredes de cozinha, armazém ou sala dos professores C Foram distribuidos para alunos 394 1.41 Q7.2 Q7.2 Que tipos de clubes existem na escola? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Clube de leitura 54 0 Clube da matemática 52 2 Clube de hortas 20 34 Clube de ciencias sociais 21 33 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Clube de leitura 100 0 Clube da matemática 96.3 3.7 Clube de hortas 37 63 Clube de ciencias sociais 38.9 61.1 395 index category A Clube de leitura B Clube da matemática C Clube de hortas D Clube de ciencias sociais 1.42 Q7.3.1 Q7.3.1 Notam se algumas mudanças nos alunos que participam nos clubes? Frequencies i Freq SIM 53 NÃO 0 Não sabe 1 396 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 98.148148 90.1084840 99.953126 NÃO 0.000000 0.0000000 6.603151 Não sabe 1.851852 0.0468738 9.891516 1.43 Q7.3.2 Q7.3.2) Quais a mudanças que se notam? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Os alunos são mais activos nas aulas regulares 26 27 Melhoria no desempenho dos alunos 46 7 Melhoria na comunicação e expressão dos alunos 29 24 Outro 4 49 397 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Os alunos são mais activos nas aulas regulares 49 51 Melhoria no desempenho dos alunos 86.8 13.2 Melhoria na comunicação e expressão dos alunos 54.7 45.3 Outro 7.5 92.5 index category A Os alunos são mais activos nas aulas regulares B Melhoria no desempenho dos alunos C Melhoria na comunicação e expressão dos alunos D Outro 398 1.44 Q8.1 Q8.1 Como é que a COVID-19 afectou a sua escola? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) A educação dos alunos foi interompida 40 15 Os alunos não receberam comida na escola 24 31 Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola 23 32 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças 14 41 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professors 31 24 Outro 6 49 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) A educação dos alunos foi interompida 73 27 Os alunos não receberam comida na escola 43.6 56.4 Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola 41.8 58.2 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças 25.5 74.5 Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professors 56.4 43.6 Outro 10.9 89.1 399 index category A A educação dos alunos foi interompida B Os alunos não receberam comida na escola C Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola D Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças E Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professors F Outro 400 1.45 Q8.2 Q8.2 Quais são as medidas tomadas para enfrentar estes desafios? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Trabalhos eram enviados para os alunos em casa 44 11 Os professores contactaram os alunos ao telefone 11 44 Outro 16 39 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Trabalhos eram enviados para os alunos em casa 80 20 Os professores contactaram os alunos ao telefone 20 80 Outro 29.1 70.9 401 index category A Trabalhos eram enviados para os alunos em casa B Os professores contactaram os alunos ao telefone C Outro 1.46 Q8.3 Q8.3) A liderança da escola providenciou material para facilitar a aprendizagem em casa? Frequencies i Freq SIM 52 NÃO 3 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound SIM 94.545455 84.876504 98.8607 NÃO 5.454546 1.139301 15.1235 402 1.47 Q8.4 Q8.4 Se sim, que tipo de material Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Fichas 42 10 Exercícios escritos e trabalhos 35 17 Outro 3 49 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Fichas 81 19 Exercícios escritos e trabalhos 67.3 32.7 Outro 5.8 94.2 403 index category A Fichas B Exercícios escritos e trabalhos C Outro 1.48 Q8.6 8.6) O que devia ser melhorado nas medidas tomadas para combater a COVID-19 e para dar face a continuidade das aulas? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Criar-se condições sanitárias 41 14 Reduzir-se o número de alunos por turma 38 17 Outro 16 39 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Criar-se condições sanitárias 75 25 Reduzir-se o número de alunos por turma 69.1 30.9 Outro 29.1 70.9 404 index category A Criar-se condições sanitárias B Reduzir-se o número de alunos por turma C Outro 405 2 Numerical variables 2.1 Q1.4 Q1.4 Quantos Professores tinha a escola no inicio do ano 2020? Frequencies Var1 Freq 2 5 3 7 4 5 5 2 7 1 8 8 9 6 10 6 11 4 13 1 14 1 15 2 16 1 19 1 22 1 24 2 28 1 40 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 11.428690 mean 9.454546 lower 7.480402 406 2.2 Q1.5 Q1.5 Quantos Professores tinha a Escola no final do ano lectivo 2019? Frequencies Var1 Freq 2 4 3 11 4 4 5 1 7 1 8 6 9 7 10 2 11 8 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 18 1 19 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 28 1 40 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 11.455924 mean 9.454546 lower 7.453167 407 2.3 Q1.6 Q1.6 Quantas Turmas tem a escola? Frequencies Var1 Freq 3 8 5 5 6 4 7 15 8 1 9 5 10 4 11 2 13 1 14 1 15 2 16 1 19 1 22 1 23 1 26 2 39 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 11.337612 mean 9.472727 lower 7.607843 408 2.4 Q1.7.1ª Q1.7.1ª) Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 38 2 9 3 4 4 3 5 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 1.809810 mean 1.545454 lower 1.281099 2.5 Q1.7.2ª Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 41 2 6 3 4 4 2 6 1 30 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 3.0562525 mean 1.9818182 lower 0.9073838 409 2.6 Q1.7.3ª Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 37 2 9 3 4 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 32 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 3.359153 mean 2.200000 lower 1.040847 2.7 Q1.7.4ª Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 35 2 13 3 4 4 1 6 1 27 1 410 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 2.962140 mean 2.000000 lower 1.037861 2.8 Q1.7.5ª Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 38 2 8 3 3 4 2 5 1 6 1 21 1 23 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 3.376847 mean 2.290909 lower 1.204971 411 2.9 Q1.7.6ª Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 14 1 29 2 5 3 2 4 3 14 1 44 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 4.9942153 mean 2.8048780 lower 0.6155408 2.10 Q1.7.7ª Numero de turmas da cada classe Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 15 1 25 2 9 3 2 5 1 12 1 13 1 44 1 412 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 5.3507578 mean 3.0750000 lower 0.7992422 2.11 Q1.8 Q1.8 Quantos turnos tem a Escola ? Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 1 1 3 2 44 3 2 7 2 10 1 16 1 39 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 4.758184 mean 3.259259 lower 1.760334 413 2.12 ee5a 5.5.1 a) Legumes Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 3 6 1 10 1 12 1 25 2 30 2 65 1 315 1 365 1 400 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 222.93528 mean 116.63636 lower 10.33744 2.13 ee5b 5.5.1 b) Horticolas Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 2 7 1 14 1 15 2 20 2 25 1 30 1 45 1 50 2 92 1 100 2 175 1 414 250 1 350 1 450 1 860 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 243.39435 mean 140.42105 lower 37.44775 2.14 ee5c 5.5.1 c) Tuberculos Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 2 15 1 16 1 30 3 40 1 50 1 60 1 80 1 150 1 300 1 328 1 352 1 500 1 630 1 850 1 2630 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 685.12492 mean 358.29412 lower 31.46332 415 2.15 ee5d 5.5.1 d) Oleginosas Frequencies Var1 Freq 4 1 80 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 524.8358 mean 42.0000 lower -440.8358 2.16 ee5e 5.5.1 e) Cereais Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 1 10 1 50 1 100 1 380 1 1000 1 2045 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 1436.6532 mean 597.5000 lower -241.6532 416 2.17 Q5.5.1f Q5.5.1 f) Fruteiras Frequencies Var1 Freq 5 1 10 1 20 1 23 1 30 1 50 1 55 1 180 1 550 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 237.81717 mean 102.55556 lower -32.70606 2.18 Q5.5.1g Q5.5.1 g) Outro Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 1 80 1 100 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 217.06205 mean 90.00000 lower -37.06205 417 2.19 Q5.5.2a Q5.5.2 a) Consumo escolar/como lanche escolar Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 3 25 1 30 1 42 1 45 1 50 1 60 1 65 1 70 1 77 1 80 2 90 1 175 1 240 1 300 1 328 1 352 1 1200 1 1800 1 1880 1 4600 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 1044.60401 mean 551.85714 lower 59.11027 418 2.20 Q5.5.2b Q5.5.2b) Venda na comunidade Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 21 20 1 30 1 950 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 1660.0427 mean 333.3333 lower -993.3761 2.21 Q5.5.2c Q5.5.2c) Consumo escolar em dias festivos Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 8 10 2 18 1 30 2 40 1 45 1 50 2 75 1 77 1 92 1 100 1 328 1 400 1 530 1 419 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 201.20441 mean 117.81250 lower 34.42059 2.22 Q5.5.2d Q5.5.2d) outro Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 10 5 1 15 1 80 1 350 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 369.9391 mean 112.5000 lower -144.9391 420 2.23 Q7.1 Q7.1 Quantos clubes existem na escola? Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 1 1 2 2 10 3 22 4 10 5 8 7 1 12 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 3.915092 mean 3.462963 lower 3.010834 2.24 classe1_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 6 1 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 5 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 421 19 2 20 1 21 1 24 1 25 2 27 2 28 1 31 1 32 2 33 1 36 1 38 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 19.91916 mean 16.65000 lower 13.38084 2.25 classe1_segunda turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 32 2 1 3 2 24 2 26 1 33 1 34 1 36 1 37 2 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 33.11898 mean 23.54545 lower 13.97193 422 2.26 classe1_terceira turma 2.26 classe1_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 40 5 1 30 1 35 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 63.26026 mean 23.33333 lower -16.59359 2.27 classe2_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 4 40 2 41 1 42 1 44 1 45 1 46 3 47 2 48 2 49 2 50 2 51 1 52 1 53 1 423 54 1 55 2 56 1 57 1 58 1 59 1 60 1 62 2 64 2 65 1 66 1 67 1 68 2 70 1 73 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 57.25858 mean 54.28205 lower 51.30552 2.28 classe2_segunda turma Var1 Freq 0 35 41 1 62 1 65 1 68 1 69 1 71 1 72 1 74 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 74.04952 mean 65.25000 lower 56.45048 424 2.29 classe2_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 40 43 1 66 1 67 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 92.39366 mean 58.66667 lower 24.93967 2.30 classe3_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 3 40 2 41 2 43 2 44 1 46 1 47 1 48 2 50 1 53 1 54 1 57 3 60 3 61 1 64 1 68 1 69 1 70 1 72 1 74 1 425 76 1 77 2 79 2 80 1 82 1 83 1 84 1 85 1 86 1 88 1 89 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 68.38476 mean 63.30000 lower 58.21524 2.31 classe3_segunda turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 31 53 1 60 1 61 3 65 1 72 1 75 1 81 1 86 1 87 1 89 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 78.82212 mean 70.91667 lower 63.01121 426 2.32 classe3_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 39 47 1 66 1 72 1 84 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 91.81108 mean 67.25000 lower 42.68892 2.33 classe4_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 2 40 3 41 1 43 1 45 2 46 1 47 2 48 2 49 1 50 2 51 1 53 1 54 1 56 1 57 1 60 2 61 1 68 1 70 1 72 1 427 74 2 76 1 77 2 78 1 79 1 80 1 91 1 92 2 93 1 94 1 97 2 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 69.54504 mean 63.70732 lower 57.86960 2.34 classe4_segunda turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 28 42 1 45 1 55 2 61 1 68 1 70 2 77 1 81 1 86 1 90 1 97 2 98 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 83.15438 mean 72.80000 lower 62.44562 428 2.35 classe4_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 40 95 1 96 1 97 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 98.48414 mean 96.00000 lower 93.51586 2.36 classe5_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 3 40 3 43 1 44 2 45 1 46 2 47 1 48 1 52 1 54 2 58 2 60 1 61 1 65 1 67 2 68 1 71 1 72 1 76 1 77 1 429 78 1 79 2 81 1 82 1 91 1 92 2 93 2 95 1 97 1 100 1 101 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 73.65443 mean 67.40000 lower 61.14557 2.37 classe5_segunda turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 33 61 1 68 1 69 1 72 1 80 1 85 1 90 1 94 1 99 1 102 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 92.16154 mean 82.00000 lower 71.83846 430 2.38 classe5_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 40 45 1 68 2 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 93.32034 mean 60.33333 lower 27.34633 2.39 classe6_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 15 40 1 45 1 46 3 47 2 48 2 53 1 59 2 60 1 62 1 65 1 68 1 79 1 81 2 82 1 84 2 85 1 86 1 96 1 98 1 100 1 104 1 431 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 75.55004 mean 67.82143 lower 60.09281 2.40 classe6_segunda turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 37 44 1 64 1 67 1 68 1 87 1 103 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 93.54444 mean 72.16667 lower 50.78890 2.41 classe6_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 42 68 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper NaN mean 68 lower NaN 432 2.42 classe7_primeira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 15 40 1 44 1 45 1 49 1 51 1 52 1 53 1 58 1 59 3 64 1 67 3 72 1 77 1 84 1 92 2 97 1 98 1 99 2 100 1 105 1 106 1 107 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 82.15672 mean 73.64286 lower 65.12900 433 2.43 classe7_segunda turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 33 42 1 43 1 44 1 60 1 70 1 87 1 96 1 98 1 100 1 108 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 93.50232 mean 74.80000 lower 56.09768 2.44 classe7_terceira turma Frequencies Var1 Freq 0 42 88 1 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper NaN mean 88 lower NaN 434 Parents Survey Analysis NFER 28/1/2021 Table of Contents 1 Categorical........................................................................................................................................................437 1.1 Distrito.......................................................................................................................................................437 1.2 Ocupação_do_respondente .................................................................................................................438 1.3 Sexo_do_respondente............................................................................................................................439 1.4 Idade_do_respondente..........................................................................................................................440 1.5 Beneficiam................................................................................................................................................441 1.6 Responsabilidade ...................................................................................................................................442 1.7 Membro_do_Comité...............................................................................................................................444 1.8 Cozinheiravoluntaria ...........................................................................................................................445 1.9 Outra_responsabilidade.......................................................................................................................446 1.10 l.4.............................................................................................................................................................447 1.11 Opinião..................................................................................................................................................448 1.12 Aprendizagem ....................................................................................................................................449 1.13 Assiduidade..........................................................................................................................................451 1.14 A1............................................................................................................................................................452 1.15 A2............................................................................................................................................................453 1.16 A4............................................................................................................................................................454 1.17 A6............................................................................................................................................................455 1.18 A7............................................................................................................................................................456 1.19 A8............................................................................................................................................................459 1.20 B1............................................................................................................................................................461 1.21 B3............................................................................................................................................................462 1.22 B4............................................................................................................................................................463 1.23 B5............................................................................................................................................................464 1.24 B7............................................................................................................................................................465 1.25 B9............................................................................................................................................................466 1.26 C1 ............................................................................................................................................................467 1.27 C2 ............................................................................................................................................................468 1.28 C3 ............................................................................................................................................................470 435 1.29 C4 ............................................................................................................................................................472 1.30 C6 ............................................................................................................................................................473 1.31 C7 ............................................................................................................................................................474 1.32 C8 ............................................................................................................................................................476 1.33 C9 ............................................................................................................................................................477 1.34 C10..........................................................................................................................................................478 1.35 C12..........................................................................................................................................................479 1.36 C14..........................................................................................................................................................480 1.37 C15..........................................................................................................................................................481 1.38 C16..........................................................................................................................................................482 1.39 C17..........................................................................................................................................................483 1.40 C18..........................................................................................................................................................484 1.41 C19..........................................................................................................................................................485 1.42 D1............................................................................................................................................................486 1.43 D2............................................................................................................................................................487 1.44 D3............................................................................................................................................................489 1.45 D4............................................................................................................................................................491 1.46 D5............................................................................................................................................................493 1.47 D6............................................................................................................................................................495 1.48 D7............................................................................................................................................................497 1.49 D8............................................................................................................................................................499 1.50 D9............................................................................................................................................................500 1.51 D10 .........................................................................................................................................................501 1.52 D11 .........................................................................................................................................................503 1.53 D12 .........................................................................................................................................................504 1.54 D13 .........................................................................................................................................................505 1.55 D14 .........................................................................................................................................................506 1.56 D15 .........................................................................................................................................................507 1.57 E1............................................................................................................................................................509 1.58 E2............................................................................................................................................................510 1.59 E3............................................................................................................................................................512 1.60 E4............................................................................................................................................................514 1.61 E5............................................................................................................................................................515 1.62 E6............................................................................................................................................................516 436 1.63 E7............................................................................................................................................................517 1.64 E8............................................................................................................................................................518 1.65 E9............................................................................................................................................................519 1.66 E10..........................................................................................................................................................520 1.67 E11..........................................................................................................................................................521 1.68 E12..........................................................................................................................................................522 1.69 E13a.......................................................................................................................................................523 1.70 E13b.......................................................................................................................................................525 1.71 E13c........................................................................................................................................................526 1.72 E13d.......................................................................................................................................................528 1.73 E14..........................................................................................................................................................529 1.74 E15..........................................................................................................................................................530 1.75 E16..........................................................................................................................................................533 1.76 E17..........................................................................................................................................................535 1.77 E18..........................................................................................................................................................537 1.78 E19..........................................................................................................................................................539 1.79 E20..........................................................................................................................................................541 1.80 E22..........................................................................................................................................................542 1.81 E23..........................................................................................................................................................545 2 Numerical variables......................................................................................................................................547 2.1 Número_de_adultos...............................................................................................................................547 2.2 Número_de_crianças.............................................................................................................................548 2.3 Número_de_crianças_de_idade..........................................................................................................548 2.4 Contagem_de_crianças.........................................................................................................................549 2.5 age.x ...........................................................................................................................................................550 2.6 age.y ...........................................................................................................................................................550 437 1 Categorical 1.1 Distrito Distrito Frequencies i Freq Manhiça 134 Moamba 114 Magude 164 Matutuine 138 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Manhiça 24.36364 20.83100 28.17429 Moamba 20.72727 17.41357 24.35902 Magude 29.81818 26.02136 33.83344 Matutuine 25.09091 21.51886 28.93301 438 1.2 Ocupação_do_respondente Ocupação do respondent Frequencies i Freq Trabalha fora da casa (assalariado) 111 Trabalha dentro da casa (não assalariado). Ex: machamba 232 Conta própria com empregados 21 Conta própria sem empregados 124 Não trabalha 62 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Trabalha fora da casa (assalariado) 20.181818 16.904355 23.783361 Trabalha dentro da casa (não assalariado). Ex: machamba 42.181818 38.015295 46.432778 Conta própria com empregados 3.818182 2.378775 5.777459 Conta própria sem empregados 22.545455 19.117559 26.271345 Não trabalha 11.272727 8.752717 14.217419 439 1.3 Sexo_do_respondente Sexo do respondent Frequencies i Freq Masculino 196 Feminino 354 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Masculino 35.63636 31.62941 39.79858 Feminino 64.36364 60.20142 68.37059 440 1.4 Idade_do_respondente Idade do respondent Frequencies i Freq 18-29 62 30-39 227 40-49 142 50-59 80 60-69 27 70 ou + 12 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound 18-29 11.272727 8.752717 14.217419 30-39 41.272727 37.123806 45.515912 40-49 25.818182 22.208071 29.690382 50-59 14.545454 11.705117 17.772912 60-69 4.909091 3.259698 7.062365 70 ou + 2.181818 1.132339 3.780159 441 1.5 Beneficiam Os seus filhos beneficiam da alimentação escolar Frequencies i Freq Sim, todos 519 Sim, alguns 29 Não 2 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, todos 94.3636364 92.0947367 96.138607 Sim, alguns 5.2727273 3.5593018 7.485003 Não 0.3636364 0.0440684 1.307355 442 1.6 Responsabilidade Tem alguma responsabilidade específica no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? (assinale a resposta correcta / as respostas correctas - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas): Frequencies i Freq Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar 39 Cozinheira voluntaria 168 Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa) 54 Não 276 443 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar 7.26257 5.215061 9.794681 Cozinheira voluntaria 31.28492 27.382568 35.394713 Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa) 10.05587 7.644842 12.916688 Não 51.39665 47.078541 55.699308 444 1.7 Membro_do_Comité Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar Frequencies i Freq Não 505 Sim 45 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Não 91.818182 89.205146 93.96972 Sim 8.181818 6.030283 10.79485 445 1.8 Cozinheiravoluntaria Cozinheira voluntaria Frequencies Frequencies i Freq Não 371 Sim 179 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Não 67.45455 63.36191 71.35839 Sim 32.54545 28.64161 36.63809 446 1.9 Outra_responsabilidade Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa) Frequencies i Freq Não 487 Sim 63 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Não 88.54545 85.583439 91.08491 Sim 11.45455 8.915094 14.41656 447 1.10 l.4 l/Não Frequency i Freq Não 274 Sim 276 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Não 49.81818 45.55928 54.07904 Sim 50.18182 45.92096 54.44072 448 1.11 Opinião Na sua opinião qual é a importância da educação dos sues filhos?: Frequencies i Freq Muito importante para todos 546 Mais importante para os rapazes do que para as raparigas 3 Mais importante para as raparigas do que para os rapazes 1 Não muito importante 0 Não tem nenhuma importância 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Muito importante para todos 99.2727273 98.1484361 99.8014975 Mais importante para os rapazes do que para as raparigas 0.5454545 0.1126274 1.5857112 Mais importante para as raparigas do que para os rapazes 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.0088259 Não muito importante 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 Não tem nenhuma importância 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 449 1.12 Aprendizagem Está satisfeito/a com o nível de educação ou aprendizagem dos seus filhos na escola? Frequencies i Freq Muito satisfeito/a 516 Um pouco satisfeito/a 32 Tanto faz 0 Não satisfeito/a 2 Decepcionado(a) 0 450 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Muito satisfeito/a 93.8181818 91.4683572 95.6812888 Um pouco satisfeito/a 5.8181818 4.0132998 8.1145681 Tanto faz 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 Não satisfeito/a 0.3636364 0.0440684 1.3073552 Decepcionado(a) 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 451 1.13 Assiduidade Qual é a sua opinião sobre a assiduidade dos professores dos seus filhos? Frequencies i Freq Estão sempre presentes e sempre chegam a hora 409 Estão sempre presentes e em geral chegam a hora 104 Estão presentes em geral e em geral chegam a hora 27 Frequentemente faltam ou chegam com atraso 9 Maior parte de tempo faltam ou chegam com atraso 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Estão sempre presentes e sempre chegam a hora 74.3636364 70.4988374 77.964356 Estão sempre presentes e em geral chegam a hora 18.9090909 15.7199614 22.436415 Estão presentes em geral e em geral chegam a hora 4.9090909 3.2596980 7.062365 Frequentemente faltam ou chegam com atraso 1.6363636 0.7509097 3.083523 Maior parte de tempo faltam ou chegam com atraso 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.008826 452 1.14 A1 A1. Na sua opinião, a organização do lanche escolar até agora tem sido: i Freq Excelente 317 Boa 198 Razoável 34 Má 0 Muito má 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Excelente 57.6363636 53.3840200 61.8062353 Boa 36.0000000 31.9821322 40.1691891 Razoável 6.1818182 4.3187112 8.5316428 Má 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 Muito má 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.0088259 453 1.15 A2 A2. Há aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados? Frequencies i Freq Sim 116 Não 434 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 21.09091 17.75357 24.74227 Não 78.90909 75.25773 82.24643 454 1.16 A4 A4. Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequencies i Freq Sim 171 Não 379 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 31.09091 27.24220 35.14421 Não 68.90909 64.85579 72.75780 455 1.17 A6 A6.Se beneficiou, a formação foi Frequencies i Freq Excelente 131 Boa 38 Razoável/suficiente 2 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Excelente 76.608187 69.538158 82.732129 Boa 22.222222 16.231355 29.201731 Razoável/suficiente 1.169591 0.141958 4.160909 Fraca/ ajudou pouco 0.000000 0.000000 2.134138 Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada 0.000000 0.000000 2.134138 456 1.18 A7 A7: Acha que os pais/famílias dos alunos deveriam participar na preparação do lanche escolar? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha em troca de incentivos 156 394 Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha sem incentivos 284 266 Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água em troca de incentivos 131 419 Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água sem incentivos 202 348 Deveriam participar na confecção da soja em troca de incentivos 185 365 457 Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Deveriam participar na confecção da soja sem incentivos 250 300 Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas em troca de incentivos 136 414 Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas sem incentivos 181 369 Não 9 541 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha em troca de incentivos 28 72 Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha sem incentivos 51.6 48.4 Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água em troca de incentivos 23.8 76.2 Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água sem incentivos 36.7 63.3 Deveriam participar na confecção da soja em troca de incentivos 33.6 66.4 Deveriam participar na confecção da soja sem incentivos 45.5 54.5 Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas em troca de incentivos 24.7 75.3 Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas sem incentivos 32.9 67.1 Não 1.6 98.4 458 index category A Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha em troca de incentivos B Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha sem incentivos C Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água em troca de incentivos D Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água sem incentivos E Deveriam participar na confecção da soja em troca de incentivos F Deveriam participar na confecção da soja sem incentivos 459 index category G Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas em troca de incentivos H Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas sem incentivos I Não 1.19 A8 A8. Depois do fim do projecto, acha que quais são das seguintes actividades poderão continuar sem o apoio do projecto? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) A preparação diária do lanche escolar 331 219 A participação nos comités de água 199 351 A manutenção dos sistemas de água 245 305 O cultivo de hortícolas nas hortas escolares e grandes machambas 338 212 A manutenção de infra-estruturas na escola (cozinha, armazéns, latrinas, sistemas de lavagem das mãos 323 227 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) A preparação diária do lanche escolar 60 40 A participação nos comités de água 36.2 63.8 A manutenção dos sistemas de água 44.5 55.5 O cultivo de hortícolas nas hortas escolares e grandes machambas 61.5 38.5 A manutenção de infra-estruturas na escola (cozinha, armazéns, latrinas, sistemas de lavagem das mãos 58.7 41.3 460 index category A A preparação diária do lanche escolar B A participação nos comités de água C A manutenção dos sistemas de água D O cultivo de hortícolas nas hortas escolares e grandes machambas E A manutenção de infra-estruturas na escola (cozinha, armazéns, latrinas, sistemas de lavagem das mãos 461 1.20 B1 B1.Durante o dia escolar, os seus filhos parecem estar com fome: Frequencies i Freq Frequentemente 12 De vez em quando 50 Nunca 488 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Frequentemente 2.181818 1.132339 3.780159 De vez em quando 9.090909 6.822728 11.809562 Nunca 88.727273 85.782582 91.247283 462 1.21 B3 B3. Os seus filhos têm problemas de atenção na sala de aula? Frequencies i Freq Frequentemente 14 De vez em quando 99 Nunca 404 Não sei 33 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Frequentemente 2.545454 1.398455 4.233989 De vez em quando 18.000000 14.877389 21.470924 Nunca 73.454545 69.553551 77.101403 Não sei 6.000000 4.165747 8.323354 463 1.22 B4 B4. Têm dificuldades em aprender? Frequencies i Freq Frequentemente 10 De vez em quando 137 Nunca 379 Não sei 24 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Frequentemente 1.818182 0.8752461 3.318219 De vez em quando 24.909091 21.3467680 28.743456 Nunca 68.909091 64.8557891 72.757796 Não sei 4.363636 2.8155559 6.423397 464 1.23 B5 B5. Depois da introdução do projecto da alimentação escolar, notam-se diferenças no comportamento dos seus filhos em termos de concentração na aprendizagem e assiduidade na escola? Frequencies i Freq Sim 404 Não 139 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 7 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 73.454545 69.5535511 77.101403 Não 25.272727 21.6910379 29.122476 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 1.272727 0.5131921 2.604638 465 1.24 B7 B7. Depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar tem notado alguma diferença nas práticas de higienedos seus filhos (lavar as mãos depois de ir à casa de banho, lavar as mãos antes de comer, etc.)? Frequencies i Freq Sim 435 Não 110 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 5 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 79.0909091 75.4493038 82.41648 Não 20.0000000 16.7348267 23.59127 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 0.9090909 0.2958195 2.10868 466 1.25 B9 B9. Tem notado outras diferenças depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequencies i Freq Sim 168 Não 377 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 5 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 30.5454545 26.7185630 34.58287 Não 68.5454545 64.4819112 72.40835 Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto 0.9090909 0.2958195 2.10868 467 1.26 C1 C1. Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição e higiene no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar ? Frequencies i Freq Sim 223 Não 327 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 40.54545 36.41165 44.78138 Não 59.45455 55.21862 63.58835 468 1.27 C2 C2. Quais são os aspectos que aprendeu - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Limpeza e higiene 205 18 Grupos de alimentos 85 138 Higiene e conservação dos alimentos 128 95 Lavagem das mãos 165 58 Dieta equilibrada 86 137 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Limpeza e higiene 92 8 Grupos de alimentos 38.1 61.9 Higiene e conservação dos alimentos 57.4 42.6 Lavagem das mãos 74 26 Dieta equilibrada 38.6 61.4 469 index category A Limpeza e higiene B Grupos de alimentos C Higiene e conservação dos alimentos D Lavagem das mãos E Dieta equilibrada 470 1.28 C3 C3. Com quem partilha a informação sobre o que aprendeu? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Os seus filhos 133 90 Membros da sua família 150 73 Membro da comunidade 103 120 Ninguém 10 213 Outros 9 214 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Os seus filhos 60 40 Membros da sua família 67.3 32.7 Membro da comunidade 46.2 53.8 Ninguém 4.5 95.5 Outros 4 96 471 index category A Os seus filhos B Membros da sua família C Membro da comunidade D Ninguém E Outros 472 1.29 C4 C4. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Frequencies i Freq Sim 175 Não 48 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 78.47534 72.49460 83.68228 Não 21.52466 16.31772 27.50540 473 1.30 C6 C6. Os sus filhos beneficiaram de algum treinamento sobre nutrição e higiene na escola (no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar )? Frequencies i Freq Sim 416 Não 134 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 75.63636 71.82571 79.16900 Não 24.36364 20.83100 28.17429 474 1.31 C7 C7. Quais são os aspectos que aprenderam - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas: Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Limpeza e higiene 390 28 Grupos de alimentos 137 281 Higiene e conservação dos alimentos 154 264 Lavagem das mãos 314 104 Dieta equilibrada 119 299 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Limpeza e higiene 93 7 Grupos de alimentos 32.8 67.2 Higiene e conservação dos alimentos 36.8 63.2 Lavagem das mãos 75.1 24.9 Dieta equilibrada 28.5 71.5 475 index category A Limpeza e higiene B Grupos de alimentos C Higiene e conservação dos alimentos D Lavagem das mãos E Dieta equilibrada 476 1.32 C8 C8. Com quem partilham a informação sobre o que aprenderam? Frequencies i Freq Os seus irmãos 78 Os seus pais 240 Outros membros da sua família 40 Membros da comunidade 37 Ninguém 12 Outros (por favor indique com quem 9 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Os seus irmãos 18.750000 15.1127924 22.838604 Os seus pais 57.692308 52.7839033 62.490515 Outros membros da sua família 9.615385 6.9584482 12.862980 Membros da comunidade 8.894231 6.3396796 12.051061 Ninguém 2.884615 1.4992203 4.984594 Outros (por favor indique com quem 2.163461 0.9939322 4.067075 477 1.33 C9 C9. Os seus filhos aplicam as mensagens de saúde, higiene e saneamento em casa? Frequencies i Freq Sim 406 Não 10 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 97.596154 95.62377 98.841380 Não 2.403846 1.15862 4.376229 478 1.34 C10 C10. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus filhos? Frequencies i Freq Sim 321 Não 95 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 77.16346 72.82368 81.11195 Não 22.83654 18.88805 27.17632 479 1.35 C12 C12. A dieta em casa mudou depois da introdução do lanche escolar? Frequencies i Freq Sim 311 Não 239 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 56.54545 52.28600 60.73422 Não 43.45455 39.26578 47.71400 480 1.36 C14 C14. A quantidade de refeições servidas às crianças em casa mudou depois da introdução do lanche escolar? Frequencies i Freq Sim 449 Não 101 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 81.63636 78.14253 84.78594 Não 18.36364 15.21406 21.85747 481 1.37 C15 C15. Em caso afirmativo, como mudou? Frequencies i Freq Comem menos em casa de que antes 438 Comem mais em casa de que antes 11 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Comem menos em casa de que antes 97.550111 95.658821 98.770823 Comem mais em casa de que antes 2.449889 1.229177 4.341179 482 1.38 C16 C16. Existe horta escolar ou grande machamba na escola dos seus filhos? Frequencies i Freq Sim 326 Não 224 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 59.27273 55.0349 63.4104 Não 40.72727 36.5896 44.9651 483 1.39 C17 C17. A horta escolar ou a grande machamba tem benefício para os seus filhos? Frequencies i Freq Sim, muito 214 Sim um pouco 65 Não 47 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, muito 65.64417 60.21140 70.78967 Sim um pouco 19.93865 15.73866 24.69445 Não 14.41718 10.78938 18.70671 484 1.40 C18 C18. A horta escolar ou a grande machamba tem benefício para toda sua família? Frequencies i Freq Sim, muito 88 Sim um pouco 54 Não 137 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, muito 31.54122 26.13155 37.34817 Sim um pouco 19.35484 14.88734 24.48652 Não 49.10394 43.09551 55.13160 485 1.41 C19 C19. Sua família participa nas actividades das machambas e hortas escolares Frequencies i Freq Sim, muito 120 Sim um pouco 103 Não 56 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, muito 43.01075 37.12389 49.04767 Sim um pouco 36.91756 31.24170 42.87457 Não 20.07168 15.53283 25.25877 486 1.42 D1 D1. Os seus filhos têm beneficiado de reforço em literacia no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Frequencies i Freq Sim 297 Não 193 Não sei 36 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 56.463878 52.105410 60.749323 Não 36.692015 32.562995 40.971501 Não sei 6.844106 4.839227 9.349501 487 1.43 D2 D2. Qual é a língua em que aprendem a ler? (assinale a resposta correta / as respostas corretas) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Português 542 8 Xichangana 126 424 Xirhonga 21 529 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Português 99 1 Xichangana 22.9 77.1 Xirhonga 3.8 96.2 488 index category A Português B Xichangana C Xirhonga 489 1.44 D3 D3. Qual é a sua opinião sobre a língua usada na escola? (seleccione todos que se aplicam) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) O uso do Changana na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos 23 527 O uso do Changana na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 152 398 O uso do Rhonga na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos 5 545 O uso do Rhonga na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 32 518 O uso do Português na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos 60 490 O uso do Português na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 459 91 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) O uso do Changana na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos 4 96 O uso do Changana na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 27.6 72.4 O uso do Rhonga na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos 0.9 99.1 O uso do Rhonga na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 5.8 94.2 O uso do Português na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos 10.9 89.1 O uso do Português na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 83.5 16.5 490 index category A O uso do Changana na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos B O uso do Changana na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos C O uso do Rhonga na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos D O uso do Rhonga na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos E O uso do Português na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos F O uso do Português na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos 491 1.45 D4 D4. Qual é a sua opinião sobre a língua usada em casa? (seleccione todos que se aplicam) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) O uso do Changana em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola 141 409 O uso do Changana em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 232 318 O uso do Rhonga em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola 21 529 O uso do Rhonga em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 32 518 O uso do Português em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola 15 535 O uso do Português em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 286 264 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) O uso do Changana em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola 26 74 O uso do Changana em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 42.2 57.8 O uso do Rhonga em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola 3.8 96.2 O uso do Rhonga em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 5.8 94.2 O uso do Português em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola 2.7 97.3 O uso do Português em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 52 48 492 index category A O uso do Changana em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola B O uso do Changana em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola C O uso do Rhonga em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola D O uso do Rhonga em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola E O uso do Português em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola F O uso do Português em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola 493 1.46 D5 D5. Qual é a sua opinião sobre as afirmações seguintes? (seleccione todos que se aplicam) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) É melhor aprender numa língua que percebe bem 154 396 É melhor aprender em Português porque ajuda mais tarde 326 224 É melhor aprender em Português porque é a língua da escola 245 305 É melhor aprender na língua que se fala em casa 111 439 A língua não é tão importante: o mas importante é ter um professor que ensina bem 128 422 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) É melhor aprender numa língua que percebe bem 28 72 É melhor aprender em Português porque ajuda mais tarde 59.3 40.7 É melhor aprender em Português porque é a língua da escola 44.5 55.5 É melhor aprender na língua que se fala em casa 20.2 79.8 A língua não é tão importante: o mas importante é ter um professor que ensina bem 23.3 76.7 494 index category A É melhor aprender numa língua que percebe bem B É melhor aprender em Português porque ajuda mais tarde C É melhor aprender em Português porque é a língua da escola D É melhor aprender na língua que se fala em casa E A língua não é tão importante: o mas importante é ter um professor que ensina bem 495 1.47 D6 D6. Os seus filhos sabem ler fluentemente? (questão para crianças entre 5 – 10 anos)? Frequencies i Freq Lêm fluentemente e compreendem tudo 277 Lêm fluentemente e têm alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 156 Lêm e têm dificuldades em compreender muitas palavras 57 Leêm raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 26 Não sei 10 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Lêm fluentemente e compreendem tudo 52.661597 48.2949526 56.998178 Lêm fluentemente e têm alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 29.657795 25.7831519 33.762800 Lêm e têm dificuldades em compreender muitas palavras 10.836502 8.3113792 13.811385 Leêm raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 4.942966 3.2539661 7.158966 Não sei 1.901141 0.9153426 3.468406 496 497 1.48 D7 D7. Qual é a língua que mais se fala em casa? (assinale a resposta correta / as respostas corretas) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Português 253 297 Xichangana 422 128 Xirhonga 62 488 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Português 46 54 Xichangana 76.7 23.3 Xirhonga 11.3 88.7 498 index category A Português B Xichangana C Xirhonga 499 1.49 D8 D8. Os adultos da sua família sabem ler? Frequencies i Freq Sim, todos 298 Sim, pelo menos um adulto da família 196 Não 56 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, todos 54.18182 49.91391 58.40457 Sim, pelo menos um adulto da família 35.63636 31.62941 39.79858 Não 10.18182 7.78321 13.01790 500 1.50 D9 D9. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Português? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Frequencies i Freq Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 247 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 130 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 48 Leio raramente e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 19 Não sei ler em Português 50 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 50.000000 45.501015 54.498985 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 26.315790 22.483154 30.434565 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 9.716599 7.251354 12.676103 Leio raramente e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 3.846154 2.331240 5.941252 Não sei ler em Português 10.121457 7.606004 13.125794 501 1.51 D10 D10. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Xichangana /Xirhonga? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Frequencies i Freq Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 206 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 98 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 45 Leio raramente/nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 40 Não sei ler em Xichangana /Xirhonga 105 502 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo 41.700405 37.312239 46.18850 Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras 19.838057 16.409658 23.63208 Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras 9.109312 6.722016 11.99900 Leio raramente/nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras 8.097166 5.847549 10.86295 Não sei ler em Xichangana /Xirhonga 21.255061 17.727331 25.13093 503 1.52 D11 D11. Os seus filhos trazem livros de histórias da escola para ler em casa? Frequencies i Freq Sim 204 Não 346 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 37.09091 33.04178 41.27955 Não 62.90909 58.72045 66.95822 504 1.53 D12 D12. Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): Frequencies i Freq Todos os dias 38 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 114 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 49 Nunca 3 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Todos os dias 18.627451 13.5319864 24.659014 Mais ou menos uma vez por semana 55.882353 48.7803441 62.810893 Mais ou menos uma vez por mês 24.019608 18.3292694 30.481455 Nunca 1.470588 0.3043035 4.237306 505 1.54 D13 D13. Qual é a sua opinião sobre os métodos de ensino que os professores usam? Frequencies i Freq Excelentes 302 Bons 205 Razoáveis 36 Maus 4 Muito maus 0 Não sei 3 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Excelentes 54.9090909 50.6427779 59.1223964 Bons 37.2727273 33.2185992 41.4643918 Razoáveis 6.5454545 4.6261081 8.9468065 Maus 0.7272727 0.1985025 1.8515639 Muito maus 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 Não sei 0.5454545 0.1126274 1.5857112 506 1.55 D14 D14. Qual e a sua opinião sobre as actividades sobre leitura e escrita que os sues filhos praticam? Frequencies i Freq Excelentes 164 Bons 249 Razoáveis 76 Maus 1 Muito maus 1 Não sei 59 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Excelentes 29.8181818 26.0213638 33.833443 Bons 45.2727273 41.0569755 49.539523 Razoáveis 13.8181818 11.0440266 16.987721 Maus 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.008826 Muito maus 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.008826 Não sei 10.7272727 8.2669136 13.618688 507 1.56 D15 D15. Os sues filhos têm acesso à material didáctico suficiente e adequado para o ensino￾aprendizagem? Frequencies i Freq Sim 481 Não 69 Não sei 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 87.45455 84.392845 90.1062964 Não 12.54545 9.893704 15.6071553 Não sei 0.00000 0.000000 0.6684611 508 509 1.57 E1 E1. A escola conseguiu manter contacto com os seus filhos durante o período de emergência? Frequencies i Freq Sim, com todos 426 Sim, com alguns 48 Não 76 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, com todos 77.454545 73.728655 80.88244 Sim, com alguns 8.727273 6.504817 11.40459 Não 13.818182 11.044027 16.98772 510 1.58 E2 E2. Caso sim, como manteve contacto com os seus filhos? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria 162 312 Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio 414 60 Outra 37 437 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria 34 66 Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio 87.3 12.7 Outra 7.8 92.2 511 index category A Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria B Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio C Outra 512 1.59 E3 E3. Que tipo de comunicação estabeleceu o professor/a ou a escola para continuar a interagir com os seus filhos? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp 224 326 Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade 292 258 Visitas nas suas residências 54 496 Outra 96 454 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp 41 59 Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade 53.1 46.9 Visitas nas suas residências 9.8 90.2 Outra 17.5 82.5 513 index category A Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp B Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade C Visitas nas suas residências D Outra 514 1.60 E4 E4. Tem rádio na sua casa? Frequencies i Freq Sim 286 Não 264 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 52 47.73263 56.24578 Não 48 43.75422 52.26737 515 1.61 E5 E5. Tem televisão na sua casa? Frequencies i Freq Sim 234 Não 316 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 42.54545 38.37229 46.79912 Não 57.45455 53.20088 61.62771 516 1.62 E6 E6. Teve conhecimento das aulas produzidas pelo projecto FFK e transmitidas via rádio e TV durante o encerramento das escolas? Frequencies i Freq Sim 296 Não 254 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 53.81818 49.54981 58.04533 Não 46.18182 41.95467 50.45019 517 1.63 E7 E7. O professor/a ou a escola recomendou os seus filhos para escutarem as aulas? Frequencies i Freq Sim 183 Não 113 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 61.82432 56.02482 67.38457 Não 38.17568 32.61543 43.97518 518 1.64 E8 E8. Os seus filhos acompanhavam as aulas? Frequencies i Freq Sim, com todos 138 Sim, alguns 58 Não 96 Não sei 4 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim, com todos 46.621622 40.8285999 52.482936 Sim, alguns 19.594595 15.2283531 24.581187 Não 32.432432 27.1303860 38.090449 Não sei 1.351351 0.3693924 3.423662 519 1.65 E9 E9. O professor/a ou a escola acompanhou e deu suporte aos alunos em relação as aulas transmitidas via radio ou TV? Frequencies i Freq Sim 88 Não 208 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 29.72973 24.58007 35.29051 Não 70.27027 64.70949 75.41993 520 1.66 E10 E10. Alguém na sua casa conseguiu dar o suporte necessário aos seus filhos para compreenderem a matéria das aulas transmitidas pela radio ou TV? Frequencies i Freq Sim 170 Não 125 Não sei (Porquê ) 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 57.4324324 51.5799581 63.13461 Não 42.2297297 36.5368367 48.07975 Não sei (Porquê ) 0.3378378 0.0085529 1.86784 521 1.67 E11 E11. Qual é a sua opinião sobre as aulas dadas na radio e na TV ? Frequencies i Freq Excelentes 79 Boas 135 Razoáveis 71 Más 7 Péssimas 4 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Excelentes 26.689189 21.7370145 32.114771 Boas 45.608108 39.8342561 51.470746 Razoáveis 23.986487 19.2352391 29.266800 Más 2.364865 0.9559650 4.811612 Péssimas 1.351351 0.3693924 3.423662 522 1.68 E12 E12. Alguma vez os seus filhos ficaram o dia inteiro sem comer durante o período do encerramento das escolas? Frequencies i Freq Sim 91 Não 458 Não sei 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 16.5454545 13.5356828 19.919802 Não 83.2727273 79.8858604 86.297057 Não sei 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.008826 523 1.69 E13a E13a Durante os passados 7 dias, quantos dias alguém da sua família restringiu o consumo de alimentos pelos adultos às pequenas crianças Frequencies i Freq 0 477 1 27 2 31 3 10 4 3 5 1 6 0 7 1 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound 0 86.7272727 83.6029004 89.4500365 1 4.9090909 3.2596980 7.0623653 2 5.6363636 3.8613930 7.9052633 3 1.8181818 0.8752461 3.3182192 4 0.5454545 0.1126274 1.5857112 5 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.0088259 6 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 7 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.0088259 524 525 1.70 E13b E13b Durante os passados 7 dias, quantos dias alguém da sua família reduziu o número de refeições tidas Frequencies i Freq 0 439 1 25 2 45 3 23 4 7 5 3 6 1 7 7 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound 0 79.8181818 76.2166387 83.095645 1 4.5454545 2.9628492 6.637103 2 8.1818182 6.0302828 10.794854 3 4.1818182 2.6690770 6.208920 4 1.2727273 0.5131921 2.604638 5 0.5454545 0.1126274 1.585711 6 0.1818182 0.0046031 1.008826 7 1.2727273 0.5131921 2.604638 526 1.71 E13c E13c Durante os passados 7 dias, quantos dias alguém da sua família pediu comida emprestada, ou contar com ajuda de amigos, familiares ou outros membros da comunidade Frequencies i Freq 0 427 1 65 2 37 3 17 4 4 5 0 6 0 7 0 527 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound 0 77.6363636 73.9194521 81.0532791 1 11.8181818 9.2404865 14.8142216 2 6.7272727 4.7805024 9.1537174 3 3.0909091 1.8106676 4.9028218 4 0.7272727 0.1985025 1.8515639 5 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 6 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 7 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 528 1.72 E13d E13d Durante os passados 7 dias, quantos dias alguém da sua família limitou a quantidade de comida na hora da refeição Frequencies i Freq 0 460 1 20 2 32 3 12 4 14 5 4 6 0 7 8 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound 0 83.6363636 80.2746684 86.6314432 1 3.6363636 2.2350728 5.5603658 2 5.8181818 4.0132998 8.1145681 3 2.1818182 1.1323390 3.7801590 4 2.5454545 1.3984548 4.2339886 5 0.7272727 0.1985025 1.8515639 6 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.6684611 7 1.4545455 0.6300060 2.8458352 529 1.73 E14 E14. Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID-19? Frequencies i Freq Sim 550 Não 0 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 100 99.33154 100.0000000 Não 0 0.00000 0.6684611 530 1.74 E15 E15. Se sim, de quem ou donde ouve falar acerca da nova pandemia de coronavírus? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Membro da família 157 393 Membro da comunidade 340 210 Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) 96 454 Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) 359 191 Outro 62 488 531 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Membro da família 29 71 Membro da comunidade 61.8 38.2 Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) 17.5 82.5 Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) 65.3 34.7 Outro 11.3 88.7 532 index category A Membro da família B Membro da comunidade C Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) D Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) E Outro 533 1.75 E16 "E16. que sabe sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)?" Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Passos de protecção 409 141 Sintomas 322 228 Transmissão 284 266 Autocuidados 252 298 Acções governamentais 54 496 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Passos de protecção 74 26 Sintomas 58.5 41.5 Transmissão 51.6 48.4 Autocuidados 45.8 54.2 Acções governamentais 9.8 90.2 534 index category A Passos de protecção B Sintomas C Transmissão D Autocuidados E Acções governamentais 535 1.76 E17 E17. Quais são os principais sintomas de COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Febre 418 132 Tosse 490 60 Falta de ar 273 277 Dificuldades de respiração 217 333 Dores musculares 150 400 Dor de cabeça 263 287 Diarreia 38 512 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Febre 76 24 Tosse 89.1 10.9 Falta de ar 49.6 50.4 Dificuldades de respiração 39.5 60.5 Dores musculares 27.3 72.7 Dor de cabeça 47.8 52.2 Diarreia 6.9 93.1 536 index category A Febre B Tosse C Falta de ar D Dificuldades de respiração E Dores musculares F Dor de cabeça G Diarreia 537 1.77 E18 E18 Das medidas preventivas abaixo, quais são as que está usando? Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão/cinza pelo menos por 20 segundos 538 12 Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. 469 81 Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. 524 26 Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. 491 59 Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. 446 104 Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. 478 72 Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. 538 12 Evitar grandes reuniões (reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc.) 414 136 Outras medidas 272 278 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão/cinza pelo menos por 20 segundos 98 2 Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. 85.3 14.7 Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. 95.3 4.7 Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. 89.3 10.7 538 Category Yes (%) No (%) Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. 81.1 18.9 Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. 86.9 13.1 Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. 97.8 2.2 Evitar grandes reuniões (reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc.) 75.3 24.7 Outras medidas 49.5 50.5 539 index category A Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão/cinza pelo menos por 20 segundos B Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. C Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. D Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. E Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. F Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. G Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. H Evitar grandes reuniões (reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc.) I Outras medidas 1.78 E19 E19. O que mais gostaria de saber sobre esta pandemia? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Como se proteger desta pandemia 93 457 Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus 50 500 Como é que é transmitido 30 520 O que fazer se tiver os sintomas 79 471 Grupos de maior risco 56 494 Qual é o seu tratamento 183 367 Outros 199 351 540 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Como se proteger desta pandemia 17 83 Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus 9.1 90.9 Como é que é transmitido 5.5 94.5 O que fazer se tiver os sintomas 14.4 85.6 Grupos de maior risco 10.2 89.8 Qual é o seu tratamento 33.3 66.7 Outros 36.2 63.8 541 index category A Como se proteger desta pandemia B Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus C Como é que é transmitido D O que fazer se tiver os sintomas E Grupos de maior risco F Qual é o seu tratamento G Outros 1.79 E20 E20. Você sente que pessoas em Moçambique sabem (o suficiente) sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? Frequencies i Freq Sim 436 Não 60 Não sei 54 Percentage Lower bound Upper bound Sim 79.272727 75.640983 82.58643 Não 10.909091 8.428622 13.81849 Não sei 9.818182 7.461981 12.61616 542 1.80 E22 E22. Como é que as restrições de movimento da COVID-19 afectaram o seu sustento? (teste cada ponto abaixo) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) Impacto na Agricultura 146 404 Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas 145 405 Impacto na gestão de gado 23 527 Impacto no tralho diário assalariado 157 393 Outro 257 293 543 Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) Impacto na Agricultura 27 73 Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas 26.4 73.6 Impacto na gestão de gado 4.2 95.8 Impacto no tralho diário assalariado 28.5 71.5 Outro 46.7 53.3 544 index category A Impacto na Agricultura B Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas C Impacto na gestão de gado D Impacto no tralho diário assalariado E Outro 545 1.81 E23 E23. Como é que o encerramento das escolas afecta a educação dos seus filhos? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Frequencies Category Yes (Freq.) No (Freq.) A educação dos filhos foi interrompida 499 51 Os filhos não recebem mais comida na escola 107 443 Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola 141 409 Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores 157 393 Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças 84 466 Outro 47 503 Category Yes (%) No (%) Percentages Category Yes (%) No (%) A educação dos filhos foi interrompida 91 9 Os filhos não recebem mais comida na escola 19.5 80.5 Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola 25.6 74.4 Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores 28.5 71.5 Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças 15.3 84.7 Outro 8.5 91.5 546 index category A A educação dos filhos foi interrompida B Os filhos não recebem mais comida na escola C Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola D Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores E Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças F Outro 547 2 Numerical variables 2.1 Número_de_adultos c)Número de adultos que vivem na sua casa Frequencies Var1 Freq 2 69 3 227 4 87 5 75 6 37 7 21 8 19 9 6 10 9 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 4.159808 mean 4.012727 lower 3.865646 548 2.2 Número_de_crianças Número de crianças que vivem na sua casa Frequencies Var1 Freq 2 43 3 108 4 117 5 112 6 60 7 48 8 27 9 11 10 24 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 5.056768 mean 4.889091 lower 4.721414 2.3 Número_de_crianças_de_idade Número de crianças de idade da escola primária que vivem na sua casa Frequencies Var1 Freq 2 146 3 193 4 122 5 54 6 21 7 4 8 4 9 3 10 3 549 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 3.516813 mean 3.403636 lower 3.290459 2.4 Contagem_de_crianças Contagem de crianças Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 146 2 193 3 122 4 54 5 21 6 4 7 4 8 3 9 3 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 2.516813 mean 2.403636 lower 2.290459 550 2.5 age.x Number of children Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 146 2 193 3 122 4 54 5 21 6 4 7 4 8 3 9 3 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 2.516813 mean 2.403636 lower 2.290459 2.6 age.y Age of children Frequencies Var1 Freq 1 1 2 6 6.33333333333333 1 6.5 1 7 13 7.25 1 7.5 2 8 28 8.33333333333333 2 8.5 10 8.57142857142857 1 8.66666666666667 4 9 46 551 9.33333333333333 6 9.4 1 9.5 19 9.6 1 9.66666666666667 9 9.75 2 10 46 10.2 2 10.25 1 10.3333333333333 5 10.375 1 10.4 2 10.4285714285714 1 10.5 21 10.5555555555556 1 10.6666666666667 9 10.75 4 10.7777777777778 2 10.8 1 10.8571428571429 1 11 61 11.125 1 11.2 2 11.25 3 11.3333333333333 12 11.5 20 11.6 2 11.6666666666667 8 11.75 2 11.8333333333333 1 12 37 12.2 3 12.25 2 12.3333333333333 6 12.4 1 12.5 16 12.6 1 12.6666666666667 8 12.75 3 12.8 1 13 178 35 13.25 2 13.3333333333333 4 13.4 1 552 Means do not take into consideration 0 in the data x upper 11.12913 mean 10.94009 lower 10.75104 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 index category A Seus alunos (logo que começa a leccionar) B Pais e encarregados de educação C Sua família D Conselho da escola E Comunidade F Outros 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 index category A Ligaram para mim via telefone ou Whatsap B Mandaram-me mensagem por SMS ou Whatsap C Enviaram trabalho para mim por email D Organizaram aulas usando plataformas digitais E De outra maneira 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 index category A Estava disponível para conectar-me a qualquer momento que eu quisesse B Estava normalmente apto para conectar-me C Estava frequentemente apto para conectar-me D Nunca estive apto para conectar-me E Tive que me deslocar para um outro sítio para poder me conectar F A conexão tinha melhor qualidade G A conexão era normalmente boa H A conexão era frequentemente deplorável para o uso I A conexão nunca esteve boa 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 index category A Lamento ter deixado a EPF durante COVID-19 por causa da perda de contacto social com os formadores e outros formandos B Lamento ter deixado a EPF durante COVID-19 porque não tive acesso aos mesmos recursos, como livros, material de aprendizagem, computadores, etc C Ter que deixar a EPF era inconveniente mas consegui recuperar parte do tempo perdido estudando sozinho D Ter que abandonar a EPF era inconveniente mas tenho conseguido recuperar parte do tempo perdido graças ao ensino a distância da EPF E Fiquei feliz em deixar a EPF ter passado tempo em casa/noutro lugar 657 658 659 660 661 662 index category A Passos de protecção B Sintomas C Transmissão D Autocuidados E Acções governamentais 663 664 index category A Febre B Tosse C Falta de ar D Dificuldades de respiração E Dores musculares F Dor de cabeça G Diarreia 665 666 667 668 669 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 1 Questionário para professores/as Introdução Estimado(a) professor(a), Esta é uma sondagem no âmbito da avaliação final do projecto de alimentação escolar (FFKII). Obrigado por ter aceitado participar nesta avaliação que visa avaliar o impacto assim como a sustentabilidade do projecto nas escolas e comunidade abrangidas pelo mesmo. O(A) Sr.(a). Professor(a) foi escolhido(a) aleatoriamente para participar nesta avaliação porque faz parte dos professores das escolas do projecto e, em certos casos pode ter participado na avaliação intermédia. Folha de consentimento informado A sua participação é voluntária e pode decidir não continuar com a sondagem quando quiser. Porém a sua participação seria muito valiosa para a avaliação. A informação que irá fornecer destina-se exclusivamente para esta avaliação e não será partilhada com nenhuma outra entidade que esteja fora da avaliação. Os dados serão anonimizados e serão protegidos num sistema seguro e depois da avaliação serão destruídos. A razão deste modelo de entrevista por via desta plataforma deve-se ao estado actual imposto pelo COVID-19, o que não permite entrevistas físicas. Em caso de dúvida esteja livre para contactar os responsáveis pelo estudo nos seguintes contactos: Apolowil (consultora responsável pela recolha de dados): Ernest Chimuka – 840108960 Email: apolowilconsultants@gmail.com www.apolowilconsultants.com Aceita participar na avaliação? Sim A Não (end survey) B Dados pessoais e administrativos (a serem preenchidos na sua totalidade, por favor) Nome da escola ________________________________ Código da escola ___________________________________ Distrito ______________________________________ Nome do professor __________________________________ Categoria profissional N1 A N2 B N3 C N4 D N5 E Sexo Masculino A Feminino B Idade 670 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 2 18-29 A 30-39 B 40-49 C 50-59 D 60-69 E Há quanto tempo trabalha nesta escola? Menos de 1 ano A entre 1-3 anos B entre 4-6 anos C mais de 6 anos D Que classe lecciona? 1ª classe A 2ª classe B 3ª classe C Outra classe (por favor indique qual é a classe) ___________________________ D Há quanto tempo lecciona nesta classe? Menos de 1 ano A entre 1-3 anos B entre 4-6 anos C mais de 6 anos D Tem alguma responsabilidade específica no âmbito do projeto de alimentação escolar? (assinale a resposta correcta / as respostas correctas - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas): Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar A Gestor de armazém B Professor formado em nutrição e saúde C Professor formado em literacia D Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa) ___________________________ E Não F A. Perguntas sobre o projecto 1. Na sua opinião, a organização do lanche escolar até agora tem sido: Excelente A Boa B Razoável C Má D Muito má E 2. Há aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 4) B 671 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 3 3. Em caso afirmativo, quais são os aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Na sua escola foram criados um ou mais clube (s) de aprendizagem extracurricular? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 8) B 5. Em caso afirmativo, como descreveria a assiduidade dos seus alunos nos clubes? Todos os alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube A A maioria dos alunos da minha turma participa regularmente no clube B Alguns dos alunos da minha turma participam regularmente no clube C A participação no clube é irregular D Eu não sei E 6. Acha que a participação dos alunos nos clubes melhora o desempenho na sala de aula? Sim A Não B 7. Pode dar mais detalhes ou alguns exemplos? ___________________________________________________________________ 8. A escola alguma vez recebeu material de apoio aos clubes de aprendizagem, no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 15) B 9. Foi consultado para a escolha dos materiais de apoio aos clubes? Sim A Não B 10. Se recebeu o material de apoio aos clubes, este foi utilizado? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 15) B 11. Utilizou alguns dos materiais de apoio aos clubes, hoje ou ontem? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 15) B 12. Em caso afirmativo, que material / materiais utilizou? ______________________________________ 13. Na sua opinião, o material de apoio aos clubes é: 672 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 4 Muito adequado às actividades dos clubes A Bem adequado B Razoavelmente adequado C Pouco adequado D Inadequado E 14. Na sua turma, têm agora acesso à material didáctico suficiente e adequado para o ensino-aprendizagem? Sim A Não B 15. Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 18) B 16. Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de formação beneficiou? Formação em alimentação escolar A Formação para gestores de armazém B Formação em nutrição e saúde C Formação em literacia D Outra formação (por favor indicar) ___________________________ E 17. Se beneficiou, a formação foi: Excelente A Boa B Razoável/suficiente C Fraca/ ajudou pouco D Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada E 18. Tem beneficiado de apoio na escola, através de visitas de apoio profissional no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Sim A Não (passe à Secção B) B 19. Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de apoio na escola /sala de aula beneficiou? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 20. Se beneficiou, o apoio na escola/sala de aula foi: Excelente A Bom B Razoável/suficiente C Fraca/ ajudou pouco D Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada E B. Perguntas sobre os alunos 673 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 5 1. Durante o dia escolar, os seus alunos parecem estar com fome: Frequentemente A De vez em quando B Nunca (passe à pergunta 3 ) C 2. No caso de parecerem estar com fome, quais são os sinais que o(a) fazem pensar que as crianças podem estar com fome? _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Os alunos têm problemas de atenção na sala de aula? Frequentemente A De vez em quando B Nunca C 4. Têm dificuldades em aprender? Frequentemente A De vez em quando B Nunca C 5. Depois da introdução do projecto da alimentação escolar, notam-se diferenças no comportamento dos alunos em termos de concentração na aprendizagem? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 7) B Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto (passe à pergunta 7) C 6. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças que tem notado? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Depois da introdução do projeto de alimentação escolar tem notado alguma diferença nas práticas de higiene dos alunos (lavar as mãos depois de ir à casa de banho, lavar as mãos antes de comer, etc.)? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 9) B Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projeto (passe à pergunta 9) C 8. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças que tem notado? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Tem notado outras diferenças depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar na sua escola? Sim A Não (passe à secção C) B Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projeto (passe à secção C) C 10. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? _______________________________________________________________________________________ C. Perguntas em relação à nutrição 674 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 6 1. Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 9) B 2. Em caso afirmativo, em que ano? (selecionar todos os que se aplicam) 2013 A 2014 B 2015 C 2016 D 2017 E 2018 F 2019 G 3. Quais são os aspetos que aprendeu (NOTA PARA O ENTREVISTADOR: não é necessário dizer a expressão exacta: se pode explicar ou reformular - é possível selecionar uma ou mais respostas): Limpeza e higiene A Grupos de alimentos B Higiene e conservação dos alimentos C Lavagem das mãos D Dieta equilibrada E 4. Com quem partilha a informação sobre o que aprendeu? Alunos A Pais e encarregados de educação B Sua família C Conselho da escola D Comunidade E Outros (por favor indique com quem) ___________________________________ F 5. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 7) B 6. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus alunos? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 9) B 8. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? _______________________________________________________________________________________ (NOTA PARA O ENTREVISTADOR: Entregue o material do professor ao professor) 675 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 7 9. Indique 2 exemplos de elementos de cada grupo de alimentos: Grupos de alimentos Exemplo 1 Exemplo 2 Alimentos base Alimentos ricos em proteína (alimentos para crescer) Alimentos ricos em vitaminas/minerais (alimentos para proteger) Alimentos ricos em energia (ricos em calorias) 10. Indique 3 passos para a lavagem das mãos: 1. 2. 3. D. Perguntas em relação à literacia 1. Tem beneficiado de formação em literacia no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Sim A Não B 2. Faça corresponder as 5 competências de literacia com as definições mais abaixo (há uma definição extra): As 5 Competências Definição i. Consciência fonémica  ii. Fonética  iii. Fluência  iv. Vocabulário  v. Compreensão  Definições A. Capacidade de responder a questões sobre o texto lido B. Capacidade de dar a definição correcta duma palavra C. Capacidade de ouvir os diferentes sons no discurso oral D. Capacidade de ler palavras ou frases rapidamente, com precisão e expressão E. Capacidade de escrever respostas às perguntas durante uma prova F. Capacidade de conectar os sons com a sua forma escrita, ou de ler uma palavra nova, descodificando cada um dos seus sons som a som). 3. Na abordagem instrucional “Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem”, que usa se para reforçar o ensino da literacia, qual é o propósito de Eu faço? Assinale a resposta correcta. 676 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 8 Os alunos praticam palavras novas ou trabalhos novos enquanto o professor demonstra A Mostrar uma capacidade nova aos alunos para que eles saibam o que estão a aprender e o que devem fazer B Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar como ler/dizer palavras novas C 4. Na abordagem instrucional “Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem”, qual é o propósito de Nós fazemos? Assinale a resposta correcta. Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de praticar a capacidade nova com o apoio do professor A Propiciar aos alunos a oportunidade de trabalhar em pares ou grupos B Manter ocupados os alunos C 5. Na abordagem instrucional “Eu faço, Nós fazemos, Vocês fazem”, durante Vocês fazem o professor deve… (Assinale a resposta correcta): Ler em voz alta para que os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos possam seguir A Preparar a atividade seguinte B Circular na sala para observar e ajudar os alunos, individualmente, em pares ou em grupos C 6. Qual é a língua em que ensina? (assinale a resposta correta / as respostas corretas) Português A Xichangana B Xirhonga C Outra (por favor indique qual é a língua) ___________________________________ D 7. Com que frequência lê livros ou outros materiais nesta língua para preparar suas licções? (assinale a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Todos os dias A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca D 8. Com que frequência lê para seu prazer ou informação geral? (assinale a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Todos os dias A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca (passe à questão 10) D 9. Em que língua lê por prazer? (assinale a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Português A Xichangana B Xirhonga C Outra (por favor indique qual é a língua) ___________________________________ D 677 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 9 10. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Português? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo A Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras C Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D 11. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Xichangana /Xirhonga? (assinale a resposta correcta conforme a sua língua de ensino) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo A Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras C Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D 12. (questão só para professores que responderam “sim” à questão 1: Tem beneficiado de formação em literacia...” Antes de começar a participar no projeto de literacia de FFK, recebeu: (assinale a resposta correta “sim” ou “não”; caso assinale “sim” indique se foi útil) a) Uma formação sobre as cinco componentes da literacia (Se não recebeu uma formação, passe para a alínea c) sim / não b) Se recebeu a formação, foi útil? sim / não c) Materiais para melhorar o ensino da leitura e escrita (Se não recebeu materiais, passe para a alínea e) sim / não d) Se recebeu materiais, foram úteis? sim / não e) Um guião para facilitar a planificação das aulas (Se não recebeu um guião passe para a pergunta 13) sim / não f) Se recebeu um guião, foi útil? sim / não 13. (Pergunta para os professores de Xirhonga e Xichangana) Nas suas aulas e para a sua planificação, usa o guia de sugestões metodológicas? Sim / não? Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)? Todos os dias A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca D 14. Nas suas aulas, usa cartões de letras, de sílabas e de palavras? Sim / não? Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)?Todos os dias A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca D 15. Nas suas aulas, lê para os alunos textos ou histórias em voz alta Sim / não? Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação)? Mais ou menos três vezes por semana A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca D 678 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 10 16. Nas suas aulas, os alunos utilizam os livros do aluno ? Sim / não? Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): Todos os dias A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca D 17. Durante a semana escolar, quanto tempo os seus alunos têm para ler, individualmente, as histórias descodificáveis no Livro do Aluno ou nos livros descodificáveis (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): 15 minutos por semana A 5 minutos por semana B 15 minutos por dia C 5 minutos por dia D 18. Como avalia o progresso dos seus alunos na leitura (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Só avalio os alunos por meio de um teste no final de cada trimestre A Ouço os alunos ler individualmente para ajudar e monitorar a leitura B Peço aos alunos para lerem, um por um, durante a aula C Muitos alunos não sabem ler: eu só avalio os alunos que sabem ler D 19. Como regista o progresso dos alunos na leitura (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e anoto as etapas atingidas por cada um A Tenho um registo com os nomes de todos os alunos e dou notas a cada um no final do trimestre B Corrijo os exercícios nos cadernos dos alunos durante as aulas C Completo os registos de progresso dos alunos no final do ano D 20. Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B)1 : # Resposta A Minha opinião Resposta B Minha opinião i É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá-los para o futuro. ii É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. iii Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. iv Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. v 1 Secção adaptada do Learning Gains Study no âmbito do EGRA desenvolvido no Malawi por USAID Malawi e RTI, 2016 679 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 11 A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. vi Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritmo. vii A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem E. Perguntas sobre Covid-19 1. Conseguiu manter contacto com os seus estudantes durante o período de emergência? Sim, com todos A Sim, com alguns B Não C 2. Caso sim, como manteve contacto com os seus estudantes? Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria A Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio B De outra maneira (especifique) C De que maneira ?______________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Que tipo de comunicação estabeleceu para continuar a interagir com os seus alunos? Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp A Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade B Visitas nas suas residências C De outra maneira (especifique) D De que maneira ?_____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Teve conhecimento das aulas produzidas pelo projecto FFK e transmitidas via rádio e TV durante o encerramento das escolas? Sim A Não (passe à pergunta 10) B 5. Encorajou os seus alunos para escutarem as aulas? Sim A Não B 6. Acredita que os seus alunos acompanhavam as aulas? 680 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 12 Sim, todos A Sim, alguns B Não C Não sei D 7. Acompanhou e deu suporte aos alunos em relação as aulas transmitidas via radio ou TV? Sim A Não B 8. Os seus alunos tiveram o suporte necessário, em casa, para compreenderem a matéria das aulas transmitidas pela radio ou TV? Sim A Não B Não sei C Se não sabe, porquê__________________________________________________________________ 9. Qual e a sua opinião sobre as aulas dadas na radio e na TV ? Excelentes A Boas B Razoáveis C Más D Péssimas E 10. A liderança da escola providenciou material para facilitar a aprendizagem? Sim A Não B Não sei C 11. Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID-19? Sim A Não B 12. Se sim, de quem ou donde ouve falar acerca da nova pandemia de coronavírus? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Membro da família A Membro da comunidade B Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) C Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) D Outro E Especifique _____________________________________________________________________________________ 681 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 13 13. O que sabe sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Passos de protecção A Sintomas B Transmissão C Autocuidados D Acções governamentais E 14. Quais são os principais sintomas de COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? Febre A Tosse B Falta de ar C Dificuldades de respiração D Dores musculares E Dor de cabeça F Diarreia G 15. Das medidas preventivas abaixo, quais são as que está usando? Porquê? Ou porque não (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Medida Sim Não Porquê/ Porque não? Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão pelo menos por 20 segundos Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. Evitar grandes reuniões, reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc. Outras medidas 16. O que mais gostaria de saber sobre esta pandemia? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Como se proteger desta pandemia A Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus B Como é que é transmitido C O que fazer se tiver os sintomas D Grupos de maior risco E Qual é o seu tratamento F Outros G Especifique _____________________________________________________________________________________ 682 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 14 17. Você sente que pessoas em Moçambique sabem (o suficiente) sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? Sim A Não B 18. Porquê ou porque não? ________________________________________________________________________ 19. Como é que as restrições de movimento da COVID-19 afectaram o seu sustento? (teste cada ponto abaixo) Impacto na Agricultura A Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas B Impacto na gestão de gado C Impacto no tralho diário assalariado D Outro E Especifique _____________________________________________________________________________________ 20. Como é que o encerramento das escolas afecta a educação dos seus alunos? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) A educação dos alunos foi interrompida A Os alunos não recebem mais comida na escola B Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola C Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores D Os alunos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças E Outro (especifique) F Especifique _____________________________________________________________________________________ Quer acrescentar mais alguma informação? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agradecemos a sua disponibilidade e tempo para as respostas. “Esteja seguro e cumprindo as medidas de prevenção no tempo do Covid-19: Lava sempre as mãos com água e sabão ou cinza, usa máscara em locais públicos e nos aglomerados de pessoas, mantenha a distância física entre outras pessoas de 1,5m ou mais” Muito obrigado pela sua participação na avaliação. O projecto de Alimentação Escolar é financiado pelo Departamento da Agricultura dos Estados Unidos da América (USDA) e é implementado pela Planet Aid e seus parceiros ADPP Moçambique e Cambridge Education em colaboração com o Ministério da Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano.” 683 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 1 Questionário para pais e membros da comunidade Introdução Este questionário deve ser respondido por um adulto (pai/mãe ou encarregado de educação Estimado(a) pai/mãe ou encarregado de educação, Esta é uma sondagem no âmbito da avaliação final do projecto de alimentação escolar (FFKII). Obrigado por ter aceitado participar nesta avaliação que visa avaliar o impacto assim como a sustentabilidade do projecto nas escolas e comunidade abrangidas pelo mesmo. O(A) Sr.(a). foi escolhido(a) aleatoriamente para participar nesta avaliação porque faz parte dos pais/mães ou encarregados de educação dos alunos abrangidos pelo projecto de alimentação escolar. Olhe para o projecto desde o seu início. Agradecíamos que não se limitasse no comentário sobre a COVID-19 porque, mais adiante, teremos uma secção sobre esta pandemia. Folha de consentimento informado A sua participação é voluntária e pode decidir não continuar com a sondagem quando quiser. Porém a sua participação seria muito valiosa para a avaliação. A informação que irá fornecer destina-se exclusivamente para esta avaliação e não será partilhada com nenhuma outra entidade que esteja fora da avaliação. Os dados serão anonimizados e serão protegidos num sistema seguro e depois da avaliação serão destruídos. A razão desta sondagem via telefonema deve-se ao estado actual imposto pelo COVID-19, o que não permite entrevistas físicas com os seus educandos, na escola. A qualquer momento pode pedir que os seus dados sejam retirados do estudo. Em caso de dúvida esteja livre para contactar os responsáveis pelo estudo nos seguintes contactos: Apollowil (consultora responsável pela recolha de dados): Ernest Chimuka – 840108960 Email: apolowilconsultants@gmail.com www.apolowilconsultants.com Aceite de participar na avaliação? Sim / Não (If no, end survey) Muito obrigado pela sua participação na avaliação. Nom do respondente ___________________________ Distrito (drop down menu: Magude, Manhica, Matutuine, Moamba) Número de adultos que vivem na sua casa (drop down menu 0-9) Número de crianças que vivem na sua casa (drop down menu 0- 9) Número de crianças de idade da escola primária que vivem na sua casa (drop down menu 0-9) 684 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 2 Idades das crianças da escola primária que vivem na sua casa (drop down menu 0-18, one for each child, depending on previous response “idade da 1ª criança, idade da 2ª criança, idade da 3ª criança, idade da 4ª criança, etc. ) Nome da escola primária onde os seus filhos estudam (drop down menu generated by district: please take school names from sample list) Ocupação do respondente Trabalha fora da casa (assalariado) A Trabalha dentro da casa (não assalariado). Ex: machamba B Conta própria com empregados C D Conta própria sem empregados Não trabalha E Sexo do respondente Masculino A Feminino B Idade do respondente 18-29 A 30-39 B 40-49 C 50-59 D 60-69 E 70 ou + F Os seus filhos beneficiam da alimentação escolar Sim, todos A Sim, alguns B Não C Tem alguma responsabilidade específica no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? (assinale a resposta correcta / as respostas correctas - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas): Membro do Comité de Alimentação Escolar A Cozinheira voluntaria B Outra responsabilidade (por favor indica qual é a tarefa) ___________________________ C Não D (if C selected, please ask “Por favor indica qual é a tarefa)” Na sua opinião qual é a importância da educação dos sues filhos?: Muito importante para todos A Mais importante para os rapazes do que para as raparigas B Mais importante para as raparigas do que para os rapazes C Não muito importante D Não tem nenhuma importância E Está satisfeito/a com o nível de educação ou aprendizagem dos seus filhos na escola? Muito satisfeito/a A 685 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 3 Um pouco satisfeito/a B Tanto faz C Não satisfeito/a D Decepcionado(a) E Qual é a sua opinião sobre a assiduidade dos professores dos seus filhos? Estão sempre presentes e sempre chegam a hora A Estão sempre presentes e em geral chegam a hora B Estão presentes em geral e em geral chegam a hora C Frequentemente faltam ou chegam com atraso D Maior parte de tempo faltam ou chegam com atraso E A. Perguntas sobre o projecto 1. Na sua opinião, a organização do lanche escolar até agora tem sido: Excelente A Boa B Razoável C Má D Muito má E 2. Há aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados? Sim A Não (go to Q 4) B 3. Em caso afirmativo, quais são os aspectos que poderiam ser melhorados? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Tem beneficiado de acções de formação no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? Sim A Não (go to Q 7) B 5. Em caso afirmativo, de que tipo de formação beneficiou? ________________________________________ 6. Se beneficiou, a formação foi: Excelente A Boa B Razoável/suficiente C Fraca/ ajudou pouco D Muito fraca/ não ajudou nada E 7. Acha que os pais/famílias dos alunos deveriam participar na preparação do lanche escolar? (selecione todos que se aplicam) (please accept multiple responses) Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha em troca de incentivos A Deveriam participar na colecta de lenha sem incentivos B Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água em troca de incentivos C Deveriam participar no provisionamento de água sem incentivos D 686 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 4 Deveriam participar na confecção da soja em troca de incentivos E Deveriam participar na confecção da soja sem incentivos F Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas em troca de incentivos G Deveriam participar na produção de hortícolas nas hortas escolares/grandes machambas sem incentivos H 8. Depois do fim do projecto, acha que quais são das seguintes actividades poderão continuar sem o apoio do projecto? (selecione todos que se aplicam) (please accept multiple responses) A preparação diária do lanche escolar A A participação nos comités de água B A manutenção dos sistemas de água C O cultivo de hortícolas nas hortas escolares e grandes machambas D A manutenção de infra-estruturas na escola (cozinha, armazéns, latrinas, sistemas de lavagem das mãos E B. Perguntas sobre os alunos 1. Durante o dia escolar, os seus filhos parecem estar com fome: Frequentemente A De vez em quando B Nunca (go to Q 3 ) C 2. No caso de parecerem estar com fome, quais são os sinais que o(a) fazem pensar que as crianças podem estar com fome? _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Os seus filhos têm problemas de atenção na sala de aula? Frequentemente A De vez em quando B Nunca C Não sei D 4. Têm dificuldades em aprender? Frequentemente A De vez em quando B Nunca C Não sei D 5. Depois da introdução do projecto da alimentação escolar, notam-se diferenças no comportamento dos seus filhos em termos de concentração na aprendizagem e assiduidade na escola? Sim A Não (go to Q 7) B Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto (go to Q 7) C 6. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças que tem notado? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar tem notado alguma diferença nas práticas de higiene 687 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 5 dos seus filhos (lavar as mãos depois de ir à casa de banho, lavar as mãos antes de comer, etc.)? Sim A Não (go to Q 9) B Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto (go to Q 9) C 8. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças que tem notado? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Tem notado outras diferenças depois da introdução do projecto de alimentação escolar? Sim A Não (go to section C) B Não sei. Não estava na escola antes da introdução do projecto (go to section C) C 10. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? _______________________________________________________________________________________ C. Perguntas em relação à educação sobre nutrição e higiene 1. Beneficiou de algum treinamento sobre nutrição e higiene no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar ? Sim A Não (go to Q 7) B 2. Quais são os aspectos que aprendeu - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas): (please accept multiple responses) Limpeza e higiene A Grupos de alimentos B Higiene e conservação dos alimentos C Lavagem das mãos D Dieta equilibrada E 3. Com quem partilha a informação sobre o que aprendeu? Os seus filhos A Membros da sua família B Membro da comunidade C Ninguém D Outros (por favor indique com quem) ___________________________________ E If E, please ask “Por favor indique com quem” 4. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Sim A Não (go to Q 7) B 5. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Os sus filhos beneficiaram de algum treinamento sobre nutrição e higiene na escola (no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar )? 688 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 6 Sim A Não (go to Q 13) B 7. Quais são os aspectos que aprenderam - é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas: (please accept multiple responses) Limpeza e higiene A Grupos de alimentos B Higiene e conservação dos alimentos C Lavagem das mãos D Dieta equilibrada E 8. Com quem partilham a informação sobre o que aprenderam? Os seus irmãos A Os seus pais B Outros membros da sua família C Membros da comunidade D Ninguém E Outros (por favor indique com quem) ___________________________________ F If F, please ask: “Por favor indique com quem” 9. Os seus filhos aplicam as mensagens de saúde, higiene e saneamento em casa? Sim A Não B 10. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na vida dos seus filhos? Sim A Não (go to Q 13) B 11. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? 12. A dieta em casa mudou depois da introdução do lanche escolar? Sim A Não (go to Q 15) B 13. Em caso afirmativo, como mudou? 14. A quantidade de refeições servidas às crianças em casa mudou depois da introdução do lanche escolar? A 689 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 7 Sim Não (go to Q 17) B 15. Em caso afirmativo, como mudou? Comem menos em casa de que antes A Comem mais em casa de que antes B 16. Existe horta escolar ou grande machamba na escola dos seus filhos? Sim A Não (go to Section D) B 17. A horta escolar ou a grande machamba tem benefício para os seus filhos? Sim, muito A Sim um pouco B Não (go to Q 19) C 18. A horta escolar ou a grande machamba tem benefício para toda sua família? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C 19. Sua família participa nas actividades das machambas e hortas escolares Sim, muito (go to section D) A Sim, um pouco (go to section D) B Não C 20. Caso não, porque e que não participa? ___________________________________________ D. Perguntas em relação à literacia 1. Os seus filhos têm beneficiado de reforço em literacia no âmbito do projecto de alimentação escolar? (question for respondents who have declared having children between 5 – 10 years old in introductory section) Sim A Não B C Não sei 2. Qual é a língua em que aprendem a ler? (assinale a resposta correta / as respostas corretas) Português A Xichangana B Xirhonga C 3. Qual é a sua opinião sobre a língua usada na escola? (seleccione todos que se aplicam) (please accept multiple responses) 690 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 8 O uso do Changana na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos A O uso do Changana na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos B O uso do Rhonga na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos C O uso do Rhonga na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos D O uso do Português na escola dificulta a aprendizagem dos alunos E O uso do Português na escola facilita a aprendizagem dos alunos F . 4. Qual é a sua opinião sobre a língua usada em casa? (seleccione todos que se aplicam) (please accept multiple responses) O uso do Changana em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola A O uso do Changana em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola B O uso do Rhonga em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola C O uso do Rhonga em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola D O uso do Português em casa dificulta a aprendizagem na escola E O uso do Português em casa facilita a aprendizagem na escola F 5. Qual é a sua opinião sobre as afirmações seguintes? (seleccione todos que se aplicam) (please accept multiple responses) É melhor aprender numa língua que percebe bem A É melhor aprender em Português porque ajuda mais tarde B É melhor aprender em Português porque é a língua da escola C É melhor aprender na língua que se fala em casa D A língua não é tão importante: o mas importante é ter um professor que ensina bem E 6. Os seus filhos sabem ler fluentemente? (questão para crianças entre 5 – 10 anos)? (question for respondents who have declared having children between 5 – 10 year in introductory section) Lêm fluentemente e compreendem tudo A Lêm fluentemente e têm alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Lêm e têm dificuldades em compreender muitas palavras C Leêm raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D E Não sei 7. Qual é a língua que mais se fala em casa? (assinale a resposta correta / as respostas corretas) (please accept multiple responses) Português A Xichangana B Xirhonga C 8. Os adultos da sua família sabem ler? 691 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 9 Sim, todos A Sim, pelo menos um adulto da família B Não C 9. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Português? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo A Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras C Leio raramente e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D E Não sei ler em Português 10 Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Xichangana /Xirhonga? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo A Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras C Leio raramente/nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D Não sei ler em Xichangana /Xirhonga E 11. Os seus filhos trazem livros de histórias da escola para ler em casa? Sim A Não (go to Q 13) B 12. Caso sim, com que frequência? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a situação): Todos os dias A Mais ou menos uma vez por semana B Mais ou menos uma vez por mês C Nunca D 13. Qual é a sua opinião sobre os métodos de ensino que os professores usam? Excelentes A Bons B Razoáveis C Maus D Muito maus E Não sei F 14. Qual e a sua opinião sobre as actividades sobre leitura e escrita que os sues filhos praticam? Excelentes A Boas B Razoáveis C Más D Muito más E Não sei F 692 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 10 15. Os sues filhos têm acesso à material didáctico suficiente e adequado para o ensino-aprendizagem? Sim A Não B C Não sei E. Perguntas sobre Covid-19 1. A escola conseguiu manter contacto com os seus filhos durante o período de emergência? Sim, com todos A Sim, com alguns B Não C 2. Caso sim, como manteve contacto com os seus filhos? Ligou para os encarregados dos alunos para os ajudar sobre certa matéria A Produziu e distribuiu fichas de apoio B De outra maneira (especifique) ________________________________ C If C, please ask “De que maneira?” 3. Que tipo de comunicação estabeleceu o professor/a ou a escola para continuar a interagir com os seus filhos? Contacto via telefone ou WhatsApp A Contacto durante os encontros na escola ou na comunidade B Visitas nas suas residências C De outra maneira (especifique) D If D, please ask “De que maneira?” 4. Tem rádio na sua casa? Sim A Não B 5. Tem televisão na sua casa? Sim A Não B 6. Teve conhecimento das aulas produzidas pelo projecto FFK e transmitidas via rádio e TV durante o encerramento das escolas? Sim A Não (go to Q 12) B 7. O professor/a ou a escola recomendou os seus filhos para escutarem as aulas? Sim A 693 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 11 Não B 8. Os seus filhos acompanhavam as aulas? Sim, todos A Sim, alguns B Não C Não sei D 9. O professor/a ou a escola acompanhou e deu suporte aos alunos em relação as aulas transmitidas via radio ou TV? Sim A Não B 10. Alguém na sua casa conseguiu dar o suporte necessário aos seus filhos para compreenderem a matéria das aulas transmitidas pela radio ou TV? Sim A Não B Não sei (Porquê ___________________________) C If C, please ask “Se não sabe, porquê?” 11. Qual é a sua opinião sobre as aulas dadas na radio e na TV ? Excelentes A Boas B Razoáveis C Más D Péssimas E 12. Alguma vez os seus filhos ficaram o dia inteiro sem comer durante o período do encerramento das escolas? Sim A Não B Não sei C 13. Durante os passados 7 dias, quantos dias alguém da sua família fez alguma destas coisas? (registe o número de dias que cada estratégia foi usada) (please give drop down menus from 0-7 in each case) Restringir o consumo de alimentos pelos adultos às pequenas crianças 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reduzir o número de refeições tidas 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pedir comida emprestada, ou contar com ajuda de amigos, familiares ou outros membros da comunidade 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Limitar a quantidade de comida na hora da refeição 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Já ouviu falar sobre o novo coronavírus/pandemia da COVID-19? Sim A Não B 15. Se sim, de quem ou donde ouve falar acerca da nova pandemia de coronavírus? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) (please accept multiple responses) 694 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 12 Membro da família A Membro da comunidade B Equipa do Projecto (Profissionais ou Facilitadores de leitura) C Meios de comunicação de massa (radio, TV) D Outro (Especifique ______________________________) E If E, please ask “Especifique” 16. O que sabe sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? (please accept multiple responses) Passos de protecção A Sintomas B Transmissão C Autocuidados D Acções governamentais E 17. Quais são os principais sintomas de COVID-19? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas)? (please accept multiple responses) Febre A Tosse B Falta de ar C Dificuldades de respiração D Dores musculares E Dor de cabeça F Diarreia G 18. Das medidas preventivas abaixo, quais são as que está usando? Porquê? Ou porque não (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) (please accept multiple responses) Medida Sim Não Porquê/ Porque não? Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão/cinza pelo menos por 20 segundos Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. Evitar grandes reuniões (reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc.) 695 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 13 Outras medidas 19. O que mais gostaria de saber sobre esta pandemia? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) Como se proteger desta pandemia A Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus B Como é que é transmitido C O que fazer se tiver os sintomas D Grupos de maior risco E Qual é o seu tratamento F Outros (Especifique ___________________________________________________) G If G, please ask “Especifique” 20. Você sente que pessoas em Moçambique sabem (o suficiente) sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? Sim A Não B Não sei 21. Porquê ou porque não? ________________________________________________________________________ 22. Como é que as restrições de movimento da COVID-19 afectaram o seu sustento? (teste cada ponto abaixo) (please ask each question) Impacto na Agricultura A Impacto na venda de produtos agrícolas B Impacto na gestão de gado C Impacto no tralho diário assalariado D Outro (Especifique __________________________________________) E If E, please ask “Especifique” 23. Como é que o encerramento das escolas afecta a educação dos seus filhos? (é possível seleccionar uma ou mais respostas) A educação dos filhos foi interrompida A Os filhos não recebem mais comida na escola B Outras consequências sociais por não irem a escola C Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com os professores D Os filhos sofrem por falta de contacto com outras crianças E Outro (Especifique _____________________________________________) F If F, please ask “Especifique” Quer acrescentar mais alguma informação? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 696 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 14 Agradecemos a sua disponibilidade e tempo para as respostas. “Esteja seguro e cumprindo as medidas de prevenção no tempo do Covid-19: Lava sempre as mãos com água e sabão ou cinza, usa máscara em locais públicos e nos aglomerados de pessoas, mantenha a distância física entre outras pessoas de 1,5m ou mais” Muito obrigado pela sua participação na avaliação. O projecto de Alimentação Escolar é financiado pelo Departamento da Agricultura dos Estados Unidos da América (USDA) e é implementado pela Planet Aid e seus parceiros ADPP Moçambique e Cambridge Education em colaboração com o Ministério da Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano.” 697 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 1 Questionário para estudantes nas EPFs Introdução Estimados formandos da EPF/Professores estagiários Esta é uma sondagem sobre as Escolas de Professores do Futuro (EPFs), no âmbito duma avaliação das actividades de ADPP Moçambique. A sondagem está a ser conduzida pela empresa Apolowil. Foi escolhido(a) aleatoriamente para participar nesta avaliação porque faz parte dos professores estagiários que estudam nas EPFs este ano. Folha de consentimento informado A sua participação é voluntária e pode decidir não continuar com a sondagem a qualquer momento. Porém a sua participação seria muito valiosa para a avaliação. A informação que irá fornecer destina-se exclusivamente para esta avaliação e não será partilhada com nenhuma outra entidade que esteja fora da avaliação. Isto significa que não será partilhada com a direcção e formadores da sua EPF ou com autoridades de Educação. Os dados serão anonimizados e serão protegidos num sistema seguro e depois da avaliação serão destruídos. Pode solicitar a remoção dos seus dados, da avaliação, a qualquer momento bastando, para tal contactar o número a baixo. A razão deste modelo de entrevista por via desta plataforma deve-se ao estado actual imposto pela COVID-19, o que não permite entrevistas físicas. Em caso de dúvida esteja livre para contactar os responsáveis pelo estudo nos seguintes contactos: Apolowil (consultora responsável pela recolha de dados): Ernest Chimuka – 840108960 Email: apolowilconsultants@gmail.com www.apolowilconsultants.com Aceita participar na avaliação? Sim A Não (end survey) B “Esteja seguro e cumprindo as medidas de prevenção no tempo da Covid-19: Lava sempre as mãos com água e sabão ou cinza, usa máscara em locais públicos e nos aglomerados de pessoas, mantenha a distância física entre outras pessoas de 1,5m ou mais” Dados pessoais Nome da EPF / Em que EPF estuda? (drop down menu) Cabo Delgado A Chimoio B Gaza C Inhambane D Macuse E Maputo F Nacala G Nhamatanda H Nametil I Niassa J Tete K 698 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 2 Nome do estudante / Qual é o seu nome completo? ____________________________ Sexo do estudante (drop down menu) Masculino A Feminino B Idade do estudante / Quantos anos tem? (drop down menu) 17 A 18 B 19 C 20 D 20+ E Província de origem /De que provincial é? (drop down menu) Cabo Delgado A Gaza B Inhambane C Manica D Maputo Cidade E Maputo Província F Nampula G Niassa H Sofala I Tete J Zambézia K A. Questões gerais sobre a EPF 1. No geral, gosta de estudar na EPF? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C 2. Acha que a formação que está a ter na EPF para ser professor é de boa qualidade? Sim, muito boa A Sim, um pouco. B Não C 3. Acha que a EPF está a prepará-lo(a) para a realidade prática de ser professor em Moçambique? Sim, muito bem A Sim, um pouco B Não C 4. Porquê ou porque não ___________________________________________________________________ 5. Está a ser bem preparado(a) para ensinar crianças com deficiência ou necessidades educativas especiais? 699 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 3 Sim, muito bem A Sim, um pouco B Não C 6. Acha que os seus formadores têm bons conhecimentos das disciplinas que lhe estão a ensinar? Sim, muito bem A Sim, um pouco/Sim, muitos deles B Não C 7. Acha que os seus formadores estão comprometidos com o seu trabalho e a sua formação? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco / Sim, muitos deles B Não C 8. Acha que os seus formadores estão motivados? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco/sim, muitos deles B Não C 9. Está satisfeito(a) com as metodologias usadas para ser formado(a) na EPF?” ? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C 10. Sente-se incluso nas aulas? Sim, muito A Si, um pouco B Não C 11. Das afirmações a seguir qual é que descreve melhor as lições conduzidas? O formador fala todo tempo e escreve apontamentos no quadro A O formador faz introdução do tema e permite que toda turma debata o assunto B Um formando tem preparado o tema, a turma debate em grupos e apresenta-se em plenária C 12. As lições incluem debates, para que os formandos possam formar as suas conclusões sobre as disciplinas (individualmente ou juntos)? Sim, frequentemente A Sim, as vezes B Não C 13. As licções incluem trabalho em grupos? 700 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 4 Sim, sempre A Sim, as vezes B Não C 14. Das afirmações a seguir qual é que melhor descreve a aprendizagem na EPF? Aprendo somente com o meu formador A Aprendo com os meus colegas formandos B As aulas estão organizadas para aprender tanto com o meu formador e com os outros formandos C 15. Tem alguma experiência pessoal de ter actuado como explicador/ensinar os seus colegas formandos? Sim, isto acontece regularmente tanto comigo tal como com outros formandos A Sim, tem acontecido, mas não frequentemente B Não C 16. Está satisfeito com a vida no centro internato? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C 17. Existe alguma coisa que gostaria de ver mudada a respeito da vida da EPF e/do treinamento que lá recebe? Sim A Não (go to 19) B 18. Em caso afirmativo, o que gostaria de ver melhorado? ______________________________________ 19. Gostaria de acrescentar algo sobre a EPF? _____________________________________________ B. Motivação e função do professor 1. Porque decidiu estudar numa EPF: (por favor escolha todas as que se aplicam) (allow multiple answers) Quero ser professor e a EPF oferece a melhor preparação para o ensino A Quero ser professor e não consegui entrar num IFP B Quero ir a universidade, mas não consegui melhores resultados C Os meus pais quiseram que eu fosse a EPF D Outra (especifique) (please go to Q2) E 2. Outra _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Qual das afirmações a seguir descreve melhor a sua escolha de querer ser professor(a)? (por favor seleccione) Sempre quis ser professor(a). Esta é a profissão que sempre sonhei. A Quero ser professor(a) e talvez tornar-me director(a) da escola ou gestor(a) de educação ao andar de tempo. B 701 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 5 Não estava interessado(a) em ser professor(a), mas desde que estou na EPF estou mais entusiasmado(a) com a leccionação. C Não estava tão interessado(a) em ser professor(a) e continuo não muito entusiasmado(a) com a leccionação D Não quero ser professor(a). O mais cedo que eu conseguir mudar de carreira, o farei. E 4. Quanto tempo acha que irá permanecer na leccionação depois da sua graduação na EPF? (por favor escolha a resposta mais próxima) Quero ser professor(a) toda a minha vida profissional A Quero ser professor(a) ou trabalhar em alguma área de educação toda a minha vida profissional B Vejo que serei professor(a) durante muitos anos, mas talvez não toda a minha vida profissional Pretendo permanecer na leccionação até aumentar as minhas qualificações académicas C Pretendo permanecer na leccionação até conseguir outro emprego D Não pretendo trabalhar como professor(a) E 5. Considera-se um(a) estudante motivado(a)? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C 6. Considera os(as) outros(as) professores(as)que graduaram das EPFs motivados? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C Não conheço nenhum professor que graduou da EPF D 7. Gostaria de acrescentar algo relacionado com a sua motivação? _____________________________ 8. Considera que os seus estudos na EPF prepararam-no(a) para empreender o desenvolvimento comunitário dentro da comunidade onde a sua escola estará localizada, logo que se tornar professor(a)? Sim, muito mesmo A Sim, até certo ponto B Não C 9. A EPF tem uma relação forte com a comunidade local? Sim, muito mesmo A Sim, até certo ponto B Não C 10. Pode dar mais detalhes ou alguns exemplos? ___________________________________________________________________ 11. Quais das afirmações seguintes descrevem o papel do professor? (por favor escolha todas as que se aplicam) (allow multiple answers) 702 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 6 Educador das crianças A Educador de toda a comunidade B Agente do governo C Agente de mudança D Agente do desenvolvimento da comunidade E Fonte de bons conselhos na comunidade F Confidente dos seus alunos G C. Nutrição e higiene 1. Teve treinamento explícito em nutrição e higiene na EPF? Sim A Não (go to 6) B 2. Quais são os aspectos que aprendeu (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam)) (allow multiple answers) Limpeza e higiene A Grupos de alimentos B Higiene e conservação dos alimentos C Lavagem das mãos D Dieta equilibrada E 3. Com quem partilha estas informações? (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam) (allow multiple answers) Seus alunos (logo que começa a leccionar) A Pais e encarregados de educação B Sua família C Conselho da escola D Comunidade E Outros (por favor indique com quem) ___________________________________ F 4. Acha que a formação sobre nutrição criou mudanças na sua vida? Sim A Não (go to Q 6) B 5. Em caso afirmativo, quais são as diferenças notadas? _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Indique 2 exemplos de elementos de cada grupo de alimentos (please use the same formulation as for the teacher survey): Grupos de alimentos Exemplo 1 Exemplo 2 Alimentos de base Alimentos ricos em proteína (alimentos para crescer) Alimentos ricos em vitaminas/minerais (alimentos para proteger) 703 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 7 Alimentos ricos em energia (ricos em calorias) 7. Indique 3 passos para a lavagem das mãos (please use the same formulation as for the teacher survey): : 1. 2. 3. 8. Participa nas tarefas da EPF a seguir? (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam) (allow multiple answers) Planificação do menu A Compra de comida para a comunidade da EPF B Preparação de comida para a comunidade da EPF C Jardinagem/agricultura para a produção de comida para a comunidade da EPF D Criação de animais para o consumo da comunidade da EPF (galinhas, etc) E 9. Considera as refeições servidas na EPF com nutrição balançada e saudável? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não C 10. Gostaria de acrescentar algo relacionado com a nutrição e higiene na EPF? _____________________________ D. Perguntas em relação à literacia 1. Recebe aulas explícita em Metodologia de Ensino da Língua Portuguesa? Sim A Não (please go to 5) B 2. Como é que avalia as aulas de Metodologia de Ensino da Língua Portuguesa? Excelentes A Boas B Razoáveis C Más D Péssimas E 3. Por favor explica a razão da escolha dessa resposta _________________________________________________________ 4. Quais são as línguas que aprende para ensinar nelas? (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam) (connect with questions 5 and 6) Português A Outra (por favor indique qual é a língua) ___________________________________ B 5. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão em Português? (escolha a resposta que descreve melhor a sua situação) 704 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 8 Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo A Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras C Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D 6. Como avalia as suas próprias capacidades de leitura e compreensão (nas outras línguas indicadas na questão 4)? (assinale a resposta correcta conforme a sua língua de ensino) (please ask the question for all langauges selected in 4 above) Leio fluentemente e compreendo tudo A Leio fluentemente e tenho alguma dificuldade em compreender algumas palavras B Leio e tenho dificuldade em compreender muitas palavras C Leio raramente / nunca e tenho muita dificuldade em compreender as palavras D 7. Recebeu aulas de apoio extra em português falado e escrito durante os seus estudos na EPF? (please ask the question for all languages selected in 4 above) Sim A Não (please go to 9) B 8. Como avalia as aulas de suporte extras? (please ask the question for all languages selected in 4 above) Excelentes A Boas B Razoáveis C Más D Péssimas E 9. Perguntas ligadas à realidade dos alunos no ensino primário. Indique a afirmação que corresponde melhor à sua opinião (escolhendo a resposta A ou B)1 : # Resposta A Minha opinião Resposta B Minha opinião i É importante que os alunos usem regularmente, os seus livros encapados. Os livros devem ser usados de vez em quando, a fim de conservá-los para o futuro. ii É impossível para os alunos praticar a leitura em casa, porque a maioria dos pais não sabe ler. Os alunos devem praticar a leitura em casa, mesmo que os pais não saibam ler. iii Os alunos da primeira classe são demasiado novos para ter a responsabilidade de distribuir os livros. Os alunos da primeira classe podem aprender a distribuir os livros. iv Os alunos devem se sentar em filas voltadas para a frente, para participar no ensino-aprendizagem. É necessário mudar a forma como os alunos se sentam, consoante as diferentes actividades. v A preparação das aulas é essencial para melhor lidar com a gestão da sala de aulas. A preparação das aulas não ajuda muito com a gestão da sala de aulas. 1 Secção adaptada do Learning Gains Study no âmbito do EGRA desenvolvido no Malawi por USAID Malawi e RTI, 2016 705 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 9 vi Os alunos novos aprendem melhor a leitura em frente ao quadro. Os alunos jovens aprendem melhor a leitura quando têm um livro nas suas mãos e podem aprender ao seu próprio ritmo. vii A prática independente não é útil para os alunos jovens porque cometem erros Poder cometer erros durante a prática independente é uma parte importante da aprendizagem 10. Gostaria de acrescentar algo relacionado com as aulas de Metodologia de Ensino da Língua Portuguesa (ou outra indicada na pergunta 4) que recebeu? _____________________________ E. Perguntas sobre Covid-19 1. A EPF onde estuda esteve encerrada durante a crise de COVID-19? Sim A Não (go to Q 4) B 2. Onde esteve durante esse período? Em casa dos meus pais A Em casa doutros familiares B Na EPF C Noutro lugar (go to Q 3) D 3. Se a resposta for D, por favor especifique ________________________________________________________________ 4. Conseguiu manter contacto com os seus formadores durante o período de emergência? Sim, com todos (please go to 6) A Sim, com alguns (please go to 6) B Não (please go to 5) C 5. Por favor, explique porque não ___________________________________________________ (please go to 19) 6. Caso sim, como manteve contacto com os seus formadores? (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam) (allow multiple answers) Ligaram para mim via telefone ou Whatsap A Mandaram-me mensagem por SMS ou Whatsap B Enviaram trabalho para mim por email C Organizaram aulas usando plataformas digitais D De outra maneira (please go to 7) E 7. De que maneira ?_____________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Com que frequência teve aulas a distância com os seus formadores dessa maneira? (please ask this for each response chosen in Q 6) 706 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 10 Todos os dias úteis da semana (cinco vezes por semana) A 3-4 vezes por semana B 1-2 vezes por semana C Menos de uma vez por semana D Nunca (Por favor passe à questão 20) E 9. Teve aulas a distância com algum formador, junto com os seus colegas de turma? Sim A Não B 10. Teve algum contacto individual com formadores da EPF? Sim A Não B 11. O ensino a distância foi benéfico para si? Sim, muito A Sim, um pouco B Não (please go to Q 12) C 12. Se não, porquê__________________________________________________________________ 13. Qual é a sua opinião sobre o ensino a distância? Excelente A Bom B Razoável C Mau D Péssimo E 14. Recebeu material de aprendizagem para suportar o ensino a distância ? Sim A Não (go to 16) B 15. Qual é a sua opinião sobre o material de ensino? Excelente A Bom B Razoável C Mau D Péssimo E 16. Como é que acedia ao ensino a distância? No seu laptop ou tablet A No laptop ou tablet pertencente a outra pessoa B No seu smartphone C Num telefone celular que não é smartphone D 707 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 11 Por outro método (please go to Q 17) E 17. Por favor especifique ___________________________ 18. Como é que se conectava ao ensino a distância? Pelo sinal de celular A Por internet/wifi B Por outro método (please go to Q 19) C 19. Por favor especifique ___________________________ 20. Teve algum problema ao se conectar ao ensino a distância (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam) Estava disponível para conectar-me a qualquer momento que eu quisesse A Estava normalmente apto para conectar-me B Estava frequentemente apto para conectar-me C Nunca estive apto para conectar-me D Tive que me deslocar para um outro sítio para poder me conectar E A conexão tinha melhor qualidade F A conexão era normalmente boa G A conexão era frequentemente deplorável para o uso H A conexão nunca esteve boa I 21. Já regressou para a sua EPF? Sim (please go to Q 22) A Não (please go to Q 23) B 22. Se sim, em que data regressou? (please give date options) 23. Se não , por que não regressou? _____________________________________________ 24. Sente-se seguro na EPF? Sim A Não B 25. Acha que foram tomadas medidas suficientes para limitar a transmissão de Covid-19 dentro da EPF? Sim A Não (please go to 26) B 26. Por favor diga porquê __________________________________________________________________________ 27. Qual foi o impacto da COVID-19 no seu treinamento para ser professor? (por favor escolha a resposta mais próxima) Comprometeu bastante a minha formação de professorado A Comprometeu um pouco a minha formação de professorado B Teve um impacto mínimo na minha formação de professorado C Não afectou a minha formação de professorado E 708 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 12 28. Quais destas afirmações consideras verdadeiras? (por favor escolha todas as opções que se aplicam) (allow multiple answers) Lamento ter deixado a EPF durante COVID-19 por causa da perda de contacto social com os formadores e outros formandos A Lamento ter deixado a EPF durante COVID-19 porque não tive acesso aos mesmos recursos, como livros, material de aprendizagem, computadores, etc B Ter que deixar a EPF era inconveniente mas consegui recuperar parte do tempo perdido estudando sozinho C Ter que abandonar a EPF era inconveniente mas tenho conseguido recuperar parte do tempo perdido graças ao ensino a distância da EPF D Fiquei feliz em deixar a EPF ter passado tempo em casa/noutro lugar E 29. No geral, qual foi o seu nível de satisfação pelas medidas para o suporte dos formandos adoptados pela EPF durante o encerramento da mesma? Muito satisfeito(a) A Bastante satisfeito(a) B Nem satisfeito(a) e nem insatisfeito(a) C Bastante insatisfeito(a) D Muito insatisfeito (a) E 30. Qual é o nível de satisfação que tem com os arranjos financeiros (atrasos nas datas de pagamento das taxas) implementados pelo EPF após o encerramento? Muito satisfeito(a) A Bastante satisfeito(a) B Nem satisfeito(a) nem insatisfeito(a) C Bastante insatisfeito(a) D Muito insatisfeito(a) E 31. O que sabe sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? (por favor seleccione todas as opções aplicáveis) (allow multiple answers) Passos de protecção A Sintomas B Transmissão C Autocuidados D Acções governamentais E 32. Quais são os principais sintomas de COVID-19? Febre A Tosse B Falta de ar C Dificuldades de respiração D 709 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 13 Dores musculares E Dor de cabeça F Diarreia G 33. Das medidas preventivas abaixo, quais são as que está usando? Porquê? Ou porque não Medida Sim Não Porquê/ Porque não? Lavar as mãos regularmente usando água e sabão pelo menos por 20 segundos Evitar tocar seus olhos, nariz e boca com as mãos/dedos. Cobrir a boca e o nariz ao tossir ou espirrar e depois lavar as mãos. Evitar o contacto próximo com qualquer pessoa doente, especialmente com gripe ou resfriado, como febre, tosse ou espirros. Limpar e desinfectar objectos e superfícies tocados com frequência. Ficar em casa se estiver doente, excepto para obter ajuda médica. Evitar apertar as mãos de outras pessoas. Evitar grandes reuniões, reuniões da igreja, reuniões da comunidade, etc. Outras medidas 34. O que mais gostaria de saber sobre esta pandemia? Como se proteger desta pandemia A Sintomas da pandemia do novo coronavírus B Como é que é transmitido C O que fazer se tiver os sintomas D Grupos de maior risco E Qual é o seu tratamento F Outros G Especifique _____________________________________________________________________________________ 35. Sente que pessoas em Moçambique sabem (o suficiente) sobre a pandemia da COVID-19? Sim A Não B 36. Justifique a sua resposta: ________________________________________________________________________ Quer acrescentar mais alguma informação? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agradecemos a sua disponibilidade e tempo para as respostas. “Esteja seguro e cumprindo as medidas de prevenção no tempo do Covid-19: Lava sempre as mãos com água e sabão ou cinza, usa máscara em locais públicos e nos aglomerados de pessoas, mantenha a distância física entre outras pessoas de 1,5m ou mais” 710 Avaliação final do Projecto de Alimentação Escolar Fase 2 (FFK2) 14 Muito obrigado pela sua participação na avaliação. O projecto de Alimentação Escolar é financiado pelo Departamento da Agricultura dos Estados Unidos da América (USDA) e é implementado pela Planet Aid e seus parceiros ADPP Moçambique e Cambridge Education em colaboração com o Ministério da Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano.” 711 Introdução Estimado/a director(a) da escola, Esta é uma sondagem para a avaliação final do projecto de alimentação escolar (FFKII). Obrigado por ter aceitado participar nesta avaliação, que visa avaliar o impacto assim como a sustentabilidade do projecto nas escolas e comunidade abrangidas pelo mesmo. A sua escola foi escolhida para participar nesta avaliação porque faz parte das escolas que participaram na avaliação intermédia. Folha de consentimento informado A sua participação é voluntária e pode decidir de não continuar com a sondagem. Porém a sua participação seria muito valiosa para a avaliação. A informação que irá fornecer destina-se exclusivamente para esta avaliação e não será partilhada com nenhuma outra entidade que esteja fora da avaliação. Os dados serão anonimizados e serão protegidos num sistema seguro e depois da avaliação serão destruídos. A razão deste modelo de entrevista por via desta plataforma deve-se ao estado actual imposto pelo COVID-19, o que não permite entrevistas físicas. Em caso de dúvida esteja livre para contactar os responsáveis pelo estudo nos seguintes contactos: Apolowil (consultora responsável pela recolha de dados): Ernest Chimuka – 840108960 Email: apolowilconsultants@gmail.com www.apolowilconsultants.com Aceita participar na avaliação? Sim A Não (end survey) B By-line at the end of the survey Agradecemos a sua disponibilidade e tempo para as respostas. “Esteja seguro e cumprindo as medidas de prevenção no tempo do Covid-19: Lava sempre as mãos com água e sabão ou cinza, usa máscara em locais públicos e nos aglomerados de pessoas, mantenha a distância física entre outras pessoas de 1,5m ou mais” Muito obrigado pela sua participação na avaliação. O projecto de Alimentação Escolar é financiado pelo Departamento da Agricultura dos Estados Unidos da América (USDA) e é implementado pela Planet Aid e seus parceiros ADPP Moçambique e Cambridge Education em colaboração com o Ministério da Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano.” 712 ID 1.1.    Distrito ___________________________________________ 1.2.    Posto Administrativo ___________________________________________ 1.3.    Nome da Escola ___________________________________________ 1.4 Codigo da Escola  1.6.    Data da entrevista  1.7.    Tempo do início  Hrs: Min : MANHÃ 1 DE TARDE 2 1.8.    Tempo do término Hrs: Min : MANHÃ 1 DE TARDE 2 1.9.       1 SIM 2 NÃO 1.10. Entrevista completa? 1 SIM 2 NÃO 1.11 Quantos Professores tinha a escola no inicio do ano 2019? 1.12 Quantos Professores tinha a Escola no final do ano lectivo 2018? 1.13 Quantas Turmas tem a escola? Avaliacao Intermedia do Projecto Alimentação Escolar - Fase 2 Informação sobre a Escola Consentimento informado escrito providenciado?   Esta parte do questionário deve ser respondida pelo Director da Escola ou Director Pedagógico da Escola apenas O questionário deve ser respondido na Escola, a onde as respostas podem ser verificadas. QUESTIONÁRIO DA PARTICIPANTE - 2020 Secção 1: Informações sobre o Participante ( DIRECTOR DA ESCOLA) 1 713 1.14 a) (não incluir turmas mistas!) 1.14 b) A Escola tem turmas mistas? 1 SIM 2 NÃO 1.14 c) Exemplo 1. turma mista 2. turma mista 3. turma mista 1.15 Quantos turnos tem a Escola ? Quantas turmas esteve a lecionar a Escola no  final deste ano lectivo em cada classe? Qual é o  numero de alunos em cada classe? Preenche a  tabela! Turmas mistas  de que classes? 1+2 classe 4ª 5ª 6ª 7ª Numero de  turmas da cada  classe Se SIM, turmas mistas de que classes? Preenche  a tabela! 12 Nr. de  turmas  mistas 1 Nr. de alunos  em cada  turma mista Nr. total de alunos  da cada classe Classe 1ª 2ª 3ª 714 2 SECÇÃO 2: Manutenção da infraestrutura 2.1 Com que frequencia se faz a limpeza da cozinha? Diaria 1 Semanal 2 Bi semanal 3 De Vezes em Qando 4 Outra _____________________ 5 2.2 Quem faz a limpeza da cozinha? As cozinheiras voluntarias 1 Os alunos da escola 2 O professor gestor 3 Membro do Conselho da Escola 4 Outra _____________________ 5 2.3 Com que frequencia se faz a limpeza do armazem? Diaria 1 Semanal 2 Bi semanal 3 De Vezes em Qando 4 Outra _____________________ 5 2.4 Quem faz a limpeza do armazem? As cozinheiras voluntarias 1 Os alunos da escola 2 O professor gestor 3 Membro do Conselho da escola 4 Outra _____________________ 5 2.5 SIM 1 Não sabe = 999 NÃO 2 2.6 O Conselho de Escola 1 ( Escolha todos os que satisfazem a resposta) Os Professores da direcção apenas 2 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola 3 A escola tem um plano de manutenção para infraestrutura (cozinha, armazém, fogão)? Quem conhece o plano de manutenção das infrastruturas feito pela escola (cozinha, armazém, fogão)? 1 715 O Director da escola 4 O Director Pedagógico 5 Não Sei 6 Outra___________________________ 7 2.6 O plano de manutenção é seguido? SIM 1 NÃO 2 As vezes 3 SECÇÃO 3: ÁGUA E SANEAMENTO DO MEIO 3.1 A escola tem um sistema de abastecimento de água? Sim 1 Não 2 3.2 Em que condições se encontra este sistema de água? 1 2 3 Não funciona 4 Outro___________________________________ 5 3.3 SIM 1 Não sabe = 999 NÃO 2 3.4 O Conselho de Escola 1 ( Escolha todos os que satisfazem a resposta) Os Professores da direção apenas 2 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a escola 3 O Director da escola 4 O Director Pedagógico 5 Não sei 6 Outra___________________________ 7 3.5 Existe um comite/ pessoas que cuidam do sistema de água? SIM 1 Não sabe = 999 NÃO 2 3.6 Quais os membros da escola que fazem parte dele ? O Professor gestor do lanche escolar 1 ( Escolha todos os que satisfazem a resposta) Todos professores da escola 2 Funciona de vezes em quando (menos que 10 dias por mes) Funciona maioria das vezes (não todos dias, mais de 11 dias por mes) Funciona 100%, temos tido água todos os dias deste ano Existe um plano de manutenção de rotina e limpeza para os sistemas de água? Quem conhece o plano de manutenção dos sistemas de água elaborado pela escola? 702 2 O Director da Escola 3 O Director Pedagógico 4 Não sei 5 Nenhum 6 Outra___________________________ 7 3.7 Quem cuida do sistema de água? O Conselho de Escola 1 2 ( Escolha todos os que satisfazem a resposta) Os Professores da direção apenas 3 O Pessoal do Projecto não ligado a Escola 4 Os alunos da Escola 5 Não sei 6 Outra___________________________ 7 3.8 Qual é a frequência da limpeza do sistema(s) de água? Diaria 1 Semanal 2 Bi-semanal 3 De Vezes em Quando 4 Outra _____________________ 5 SECÇÃO 4: ALIMENTAÇÃO ESCOLAR 4.1 Nos últimos dois meses de aulas algum dia não se preparou o lanche escolar? SIM 1 NÃO 2 4.2 Quantos dias ficaram sem CSB ( stock no armazém)? 4.3 Qual foi a razão para não preparar o lanche escolar? routura de CSB na escola 1 ( Escolha todos os que satisfazem a resposta) falta de lenha 2 Se não, salta para 4.3.1 A comunidade circunvizinha atraves do Comite de água 3 703 falta de água 3 falta de utencilios 4 ausência de cozinheiras 5 Outras ____________________ 6 4.4 Os utencilios existentes na escola são suffciente para preparação e distribuição de lanche escolar? SIM 1 NÃO 2 4.5 Se não, quais são os utensilios em falta: SIM NÃO 4.5 a panelas 4.5 b tijelas 4.5 c colheres 4.5 d copos 4.5 e bacias 4.5 f baldes 4.5 g jarras 4.5 h balança 4.5 i Outro______________ SECCÃO 5: HORTAS E MACHAMBAS ESCOLAR 5.1 A escola tem horta ou machamba escolar? horta 1 machamba 2 não tem 3 5.2 O que se produz na horta/machamba? SIM NÃO 5.2 a Legumes 5.2 b Horticolas 5.2 c Tuberculos 5.2 d Oleaginosas 5.2 e Cereais 5.2 f Fruteiras 704 4 5.2 g Outro______________________________ 5.3 Qual é a frequnecia da produção da horta/machamba? Na epoca chuvosa 1 Produzimos todo ano 2 Produzimos apenas uma vez por ano 3 Produzimos duas vezes por ano 4 Produzimos trez vezes por ano 5 5.4 Menos que 25 x 25m 1 Mais que 25m ha e menos de 1 ha 2 Mais que 1 ha menos que 2 ha 3 Mais de 3 ha e menos que 5 ha 4 Mais de 5 ha 5 5.5.1 Qty em Kg 5.5.1 a Legumes Kg 5.5.1 b Horticolas Kg 5.5.1 c Tuberculos Kg 5.5.1 d Oleginosas Kg 5.5.1 e Cereais Kg 5.5.1 f Fruteiras Kg 5.5.1 g Outro______________________________ Kg 5.5.2 Que quantidade foi destinada para: 5.5.2 a Kg 5.5.2 b Kg 5.5.2 c Kg 5.5.2 d Outro_______________________ Kg 5.5.3 Existem evidências do consumo registado? SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.5.4 Que tipo de evidência? Livro de registro da Escola 1 Formulario fornecido pelo SDEJT 2 Registrado no Relatorio de distribuição de CSB 3 Consumo escolar em dias festivos Consumo escolar/como lanche escolar Venda na comunidade Cultura Desde que iniciou se a produzir qual é a dimensão da área de produção? Qual foi a quantidade produzida nos últimos dois anos incluindo neste 2020 705 5 No caderno/livro da horta 4 Outro_______________ 5 5.6.1 A escola recebeu insumos de produção (sementes)? SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.6.2 Se sim, quantos tipos? um tipo 1 dois tipos 2 tres tipos 3 mais de tres tipos 4 5.7.1 A escola recebeu instrumentos de produção (catanas, enxadas, ancinhos etc.)? SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.7.2 Se sim, quantos tipos um tipo 1 dois tipos 2 Tres tipos 3 mais de tres tipos 4 5.8.1 água do Rio 1 água da chuva 2 água da fontenaria 3 Outro______________________________ 4 5.8.2 SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.8.3 SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.9 A horta/machamba esta vedada? SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.10 A escola ja tem DUAT ? SIM 1 NÃO 2 5.11 Qual é envolvimento da comunidade na horta/machamba escolar? ajudam algumas vezes por ano, quando tem grande acções não estão envolvidos outro__________________ ajudam regularmente (semanalmente) na preparação e produção Se não, quando não está disponivel continuam a fazer horta/machamba ? Esta fonte de irrigação está disponivel todo o ano? Qual e a fonte de irrigação da horta/machamba? 706 6 SECÇÃO 6: NUTRIÇÃO HIGIENE E SAUDE ESCOLAR 6.1 O(s) professor(es) formado(s) em educação nutricional já fez/fizeram algo das seguintes afirmações para a difusão da materia 1 2 SIM NÃO 6.1 a Já fez replica para os professores 6.1 b Organizou um encontro de inclusão de materia de nutrição nos planos de aulas 6.1 c Incluiu a materia de nutrição nas suas aulas para os alunos 6.1 d Introduziu a materia de nutrição durante a formatura dos alunos 6.1 e Organizou jornada de limpeza e saude na escola 6.1 f Outro_________________ 6.2 Voluntarias receberam treinamento em higiene e nutrição feito pelo profissional do Projecto durante o ano passado? Sim, receberam 1 Não, não receberam 2 Não sei 3 6.3.1 A escola recebeu materiais de nutrição do projecto? cartazes 1 manuais 2 panfletos 3 não recebeu 4 6.3.2 Os materiais estão sendo usados? SIM 1 NÃO 2 6.3.3 Como é que os materiais recebidos estam a ser usados ? SIM NÃO 6.3.3 a Professores usam nas sala de aulas 6.3.3 b Estão colados nos paredes de cozinha, armazém ou sala dos professores 6.3.3 c Foram distribuidos para alunos 6.3.3 d Foram distribuidos para comunidade 6.3.3 e Outro__________________ SECÇÃO 7: CLUBES EXTRA-CURRICULARES 707 7 7.1 Quantos clubes existem na escola? 7.2 Que tipos de clubes existem na escola? 7.2.1 Clube de leitura SIM 1 NÃO 2 7.2.2 Clube da matemática SIM 1 NÃO 2 7.2.3 Clube de hortas SIM 1 NÃO 2 7.2.4 Clube de ciencias sociais SIM 1 NÃO 2 7.3.1 Notam se algumas mudanças nos alunos que participam nos clubes? SIM 1 NÃO 2 Não sei 3 7.3.2 Quais a mudanças que se notam? 1 2 SIM NÃO 7.3.2 a Os alunos são mais activos nas aulas regulares 7.3.2 b Melhoria no desempenho dos alunos 7.3.2 c Melhoria na comunicação e expressão dos alunos 7.3.2 d Outro: ___________________________________ 7.4.1 Que desafios encontram na implementaçao dos clubes? 1 2 SIM NÃO 7.4.1 a fraca participação dos alunos 7.4.1 b dificuldade encontrar tempo para realização dos clubes 7.4.1 c falta de interesse dos professores em implementação dos clubes 7.4.1 d falta de informação sobre metodologias/actividades que podem ser realizadas nos clubes 7.4.1 e falta de material para implementação dos clubes 7.4.1 f Outro_______________________________ 8. Impacto da COVID-19 SIM NÃO 8.1 Como e que a COVID-19 afectou a sua escola? 8 708 8.1.a Pupils' education was interupted 8.1.b Pupils did not receive food at school 8.1.c Other social consquences of not going to school 8.1.d Pupils suffer from lack of contact with other children 8.1.e Pupils suffer from lack of contact with teachers 8.1.f Other (especifique _____________________ 8.2 Quais são as medidas tomadas para enfrentar estes desafios? SIM NÃO 8.2.a Work was sent to pupils at home 8.2.b Teachers contacted pupils by telephone 8.2.c Other (especifique _____________________ 8.3 A liderança da escola providenciou material para facilitar a aprendizagem em casa? 1 2 Sim Não 8.4 Se sim, que tipo de material_____________________________________________________________________________ SIM NÃO 8.4.a Text books 8.4.b Written exercises and activities 8.4.c Other (especifique _____________________ 8.5 Se não, o que esteve por de tras disso?___________________________________________________________________ 8.6 O que devia ser melhorado nas medidas tomadas para combater a COVID-19 e para dar face a continuidade das aulas? SIM NÃO 8.6.a Calibio, please suggest 8.6.b Calibio, please suggest 8.6.c Other (especifique _____________________ 9. O Respondente - tem algum comentário sobre esta visita/entrevista? 9 709 Page 1 of 24 USDA/FAS Grant: FFE-656-2015/009-00 Planet Aid Inc. Mozambique McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGD-FFE) Request for Proposal (RFP) STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: All information within this RFP, regardless of the communication form, is given in confidence and may not be disclosed without written permission from Planet Aid Inc. I. Introduction Planet Aid Inc. (PAI) is seeking a consultant to perform the Scope of Work (SOW) outlined in Attachment to complete a Final Evaluation of their MDG-FFE in Mozambique to be submitted to Planet Aid, Inc. and further to the donor. Data provided for evaluation, project intermediate results, and project frameworks are provided for context in Annexes A, B, and C. II. Proposed Timeframe Activity Dates Release of RFP document March 20, 2020 Questions due to PAI (Response within 3 days) April 1, 2020 Proposals in English due to PAI April 20, 2020 PAI Proposal Review Period April 20 – May 1, 2020 Consultant Selection Notification by PAI May 1, 2020 Contracts Finalized May 15, 2020 Period of Performance June – October 2020 III. Instructions for RFP Questions/Responses a. The PAI point of contact regarding questions on this RFP process is Kelly Vaena, Senor Grants Manager at Planet Aid, Inc. Contact via email at kvaena@planetaid.org. b. Any questions associated with the requirements of this RFP process should be sent via email to Kelly Vaena, Senior Grants Manager at kvaena@planetaid.org. Questions will be answered within three (3) business days via email to all applicants. c. Applicants are encouraged to contact PAI as instructed above for a copy of the Midterm Evaluation. The same materials will be provided to all applicants requesting supplemental information. d. Proposals may be submitted via email (one soft copy in PDF format) to kvaena@planetaid.org. IV. Conditions for RFP Responses a. Proposal responses and supporting documentation shall become the property of PAI and will not be returned. b. PAI ultimately reserves the right throughout this process to select any servicing option that best meets its business requirements, regardless of this process. c. Respondent agrees to the following conditions in participating in this process:  Neither issuance of this RFP nor receipt of proposals represents a commitment on the part of PAI.  PAI will not be responsible for any costs incurred by respondents in the preparation of any materials or presentation relating to this process. d. This document is provided for the exclusive use of your organization and copies shall not be made available to any other party without written consent from Kelly Vaena at Planet Aid, Inc. 710 Page 2 of 24 e. Neither party shall use the name of the other in publicity releases, referrals, advertising, or similar activity without the prior written consent of the other. V. RFP Response Please provide a cover letter and written proposal. The cover letter should explain the organization’s reasons for application, including a brief statement of qualifications, and interest in conducting the Final Evaluation. The proposal should address each of the areas in the tables below, be submitted in English, and be no more than 15 pages, including all annexes and appendices. In addition, please include a cover letter explaining reasons for application and interest in conducting the Final Evaluation. 5.1 Organizational Overview # Description 5.1.1 Provide your (or your organization’s) full name, corporate address, and telephone number and preferred point of contact (including name, position, email, and phone number). 5.1.2 If applicable, provide a list of any subcontractors that you (or the organization) will use to provide the services requested in Attachment. Include a description the work that each proposed subcontractor will perform and how it will be consolidated into a Final Evaluation document and product. 5.1.3 Describe any conflicts of interest that you or your organization or subcontractors may have in performing the work described in Attachment. 5.1.4 Provide a capacity statement for your organization and each subcontractor that supports the ability to adequately and completely undertake this project. 5.2 Relevant Experience # Description 5.2.1 List each person (aka key personnel) who will be performing work described in Attachment under this contract. Please include title, email address, and phone number for each individual. 5.2.2 Please provide a Resume/Curriculum Vitae and biographical data sheet for each person that will perform work in Attachment. 5.2.3 Please describe similar work experience of each person that will perform work described in Attachment. Include examples of past projects of similar scope. 5.2.4 Please provide three references for work performed by the key personnel that is similar to the work described in Attachment. Include company, contact name, email address, phone number, and the role the key personnel member performed. 5.2.5 Please state the estimated percentage of a full-time equivalent (FTE) each is person expected to spend on this project? 5.3 Technical Proposal # Description 5.3.1 Describe the proposed approach including the process, methodology, and timeline to address the requirements in the Scope of Work included as Attachment. 711 Page 3 of 24 5.3.2 Specifically outline the approach to the literacy assessment, including the administration of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), training of enumerators and methodology, equipment and software for data collection. 5.3.3 Include a description of sampling, data collection, and data analysis methods to be used and address management considerations for producing the required deliverables on schedule. 5.3.4 Include a schedule of specific deliverables demonstrating progress towards completion of the evaluation. Deliverables must include a work plan (which will be approved by PAI), a draft evaluation report, a final evaluation report and a Summary of Key Findings document. Other deliverables should be proposed to demonstrate progress, including trip reports, data sets, and/or presentation of preliminary results. All deliverables should allow time for PAI review and response and any revisions; the final report additionally requires donor review. Include a communications plan for tracking progress and problem solving during the project. 5.3.5 Include a description of any pertinent activities or expectations involving PAI program personnel, including meetings, review of existing records, field activities, and other activities. 5.4 Pricing and Pricing Methodology # Description 5.4.1 Include a detailed budget for the work described proposed. Include a breakout of the level of effort (LOE), daily rate(s), travel and other direct costs and all applicable indirect cost rates. Daily rates and indirect cost rates not included in your proposal cannot be accepted after the fact. 5.4.2 Please include a proposed payment schedule by deliverable. VI. Evaluation PAI will evaluate proposals according to the criteria below and select a consultant at its discretion. PAI reserves the right to modify its evaluation criteria at their sole discretion prior to evaluating responses. PAI will evaluate all proposals received that demonstrate alignment with PAI goals and requirements as described in this RFP and Attachment. Number Description Weight 1 Experience and technical proficiency in monitoring and evaluation processes, and evaluating large USDA, USG, or similar programs 25 2 Technical proposal, work methodology, and proposed work plan in line with consultancy objectives 35 5 Writing and presentation skills (communication) 20 6 Proposed consultancy cost 20 VII. Profile of Evaluator Applicants may apply as individuals or as a consortium of partners. In either case, applicants must present clear roles of all individuals and/or consortium members and one individual must be named as the lead evaluator with overall responsibility for the management and coordination of the evaluation. The profile of the lead evaluator should meet the below requirements: 712 Page 4 of 24  Masters degree or equivalent in areas of international development, economics or social science or other relevant field and more than 7 years of managerial experience in a relevant field.  Over 10 years of experience in research, strategy/organizational development/project management and program evaluations  Extensive experience working with international organizations globally and specifically in complex environments in the fields of education, literacy, nutrition and/or institutional development.  Excellent attention to detail and evidence of quality outputs from previous assignments  Fluent, professional-level oral and written English and Portuguese  Excellent reporting and presentation skills  Punctuality and availability to complete the work on time Issuance of this RFP, the preparation and submission of proposals by respondents, and the subsequent receipt and evaluation of proposals by PAI shall not commit PAI to award a contract to any respondent. Furthermore, in no event shall choosing a consultant for presentation, negotiations, or otherwise be construed to create any legal obligations on the part of PAI. 713 Page 5 of 24 ATTACHMENT FINAL PROGRAM EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK (SOW) Planet Aid Inc USDA Food for Education FFE-656-2015/009-00 Food for Knowledge Phase 2 (FFK2) Project March 2020 I. Background The 2015-2020 Planet Aid Food for Education project (phase 2 of the 2012-2016 project of the same name) is a comprehensive school-feeding project with child health, nutrition education, teacher training, water and sanitation components, complemented by a literacy component. It is funded by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the total value of the project is US$31.8 million. The project is implemented in Mozambique by Planet Aid (PAI) and Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para o Povo (ADPP), Planet Aid’s local partner in Mozambique, in partnership with the World Initiative for Soy in Human Health program (WISHH) of the American Soybean Association (ASA) and Cambridge Education (CE). The project’s overarching goals are to improve literacy of school-age children in Mozambique and to increase the use of health and dietary practices. To this end, the project takes a holistic, multi-faceted approach to promote the health, wellbeing and education of school-aged children, combining a straightforward school feeding program with health, water, sanitation, literacy and nutrition education components. The government of Mozambique has made considerable progress in improving access to education, but major challenges remain in improving the quality of education and the ability to commit transitioning responsibility for the school feeding program. The rapid expansion has placed intense pressure on school management, teaching personnel and the ability to deliver effective classroom instruction, resulting in a large number of overcrowded multi-shift schools, growing student:teacher ratios, resulting in plummeting reading and mathematics test scores. According to the project’s theory of change, improving the quality of literacy instruction by providing intensive, targeted literacy instruction to teachers in project schools, thereby increasing the skills and knowledge of primary school teachers and giving learners improved access to school supplies and materials, is expected to contribute to improving child literacy. Improving students’ attendance, through a combination of improved school infrastructure and increased enrolment, brought about by increased access to food as a result of the school feeding program and other interventions to increase enrolment, is expected to further contribute to improving child literacy and learning capacity. The project aims to increase the use of health and dietary practices through a combination of increased knowledge of nutrition, increased access to clean water and sanitation services, and increased access to preventative health interventions, such as deworming. The approach recognizes the importance of both increased engagement of local organizations and community groups and increased capacity of government institutions to the achievement of the project goals. The project depends on building community support for school feeding and related activities through School Feeding Committees based at each targeted school. Finally, the project is intended to serve as a model for the national school feeding program being developed by the Government of Mozambique (GOM) with collaboration and assistance from the World Food Program (WFP). 714 Page 6 of 24 The project consists of three major components: 1. School feeding, water supply development, school gardens, infrastructure and related activities The project aims to improve the health and nutrition of 74,000 students in 271 target schools in 4 districts of Maputo Province, Mozambique (Moamba, Magude, Manhiça, and Matutuine), through a daily meal, the development of school gardens, the provision of a safe and adequate school water supply, building and maintenance of school infrastructure, and the implementation of a deworming campaign. 2. Early grade reading and writing intervention Children in the beneficiary districts speak one of several local Mozambican languages when they enter school, but they have traditionally been taught to read in Portuguese, the official national language. This creates an obstacle in their acquisition of reading and writing skills as well as in their wider education. In 133 out of the 271 beneficiary schools the program has provided materials to reinforce reading and writing skills for 1st-3rd grade children; 111 of these schools received materials in local languages (either Rhonga or Changana) and 22 received materials in Portuguese. The teachers receive training in how to use the new methods and reading coaches provide follow up support to the trained teachers in the form of school-based coaching and professional development. After-school clubs and kits of educational and recreational materials are provided in the 271 schools benefiting from school feeding, in order to promote an improved learning environment, enrolment and attendance, with a focus on ensuring gender parity in these areas. 3. Nutrition education program The project also produces nutrition and health education materials and information and, in partnership with Planet Aid’s implementing partner, WISHH, implemented a comprehensive nutrition campaign in the four beneficiary districts of Maputo province for the first four of the five project years. Within this component, primary school teachers currently teaching in primary schools are trained as nutrition educators/trainers (Coaches) and, in turn, they each train other primary school teachers as nutrition educators in the respective schools in which they work. By the end of the project, 10,300 teachers, government officials, and other personnel will be trained as educators. In addition, curriculum developed to introduce and maintain nutrition education for primary schools will benefit all primary school students enrolled in targeted schools. II. Previous Evaluations During the first phase of the Food for Education project (2012-2016), a baseline study was conducted by project staff with support from an external evaluator. The first phase was then evaluated by an external evaluator at mid-term and end point. The baseline, mid-term and final reports of the first phase of the project are available on request. Prior to the commencement of the second phase of the project (2015- 2020), a baseline study was designed and supervised by an external evaluator and the project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) coordinator. Baseline data were collected by project staff. The baseline study included a quasi-experimental cohort study of a sample of 6,318 pupils from intervention schools and control schools, based on a stratified sample drawn by experts in statistical analysis. The results of this study are available in the phase two baseline study report. In 2019, a mid-term evaluation was completed by an external evaluation team to measure progress against the baseline outcomes and formulate recommendations for the remainder of the project. The midterm evaluation utilized the indicators and methods used in the baseline study and evaluated the progress of the cohorts of intervention and counterfactual pupils studied at baseline. The Final Evaluation will consider the previous evaluations to determine the improvements made based on evaluation results and recommendations. III. Management of the Final Evaluation The Final Evaluation will be carried out during the final year of implementation and after the third year of literacy intervention at the beneficiary schools. Planet Aid will take overall responsibility for organization 715 Page 7 of 24 and administration of the Final Evaluation. In order to ensure the objectivity and validity, the Final Evaluation will be carried out by an external evaluator, who is independent of the implementing organizations and has no role in the implementation of the project. The external evaluator will be recruited using a public, competitive bidding process; all qualified applicants will be considered. Organizational and logistical aspects of the evaluation will be coordinated by the project M&E Coordinator, who will also ensure existing project monitoring data and other project information and records are made available to the external evaluator. The project M&E Coordinator will work with the project staff to include appropriate input into the evaluation processes, such as ensuring project records are complete and readily consultable, supporting the logistical planning of field work and collecting staff comments on the draft report. However, neither the project’s M&E Coordinator, nor any other member of the project staff will be involved in the gathering or analysis of data beyond assisting to make arrangements for the external evaluator activities. The independent evaluator holds ultimate responsibility for all information gathering and analysis and for the findings of the evaluation, including preparing the evaluation report. The USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) will be invited to participate in the evaluation. IV. Purpose and Scope of the Final Evaluation The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess the extent to which the project has achieved the expected results as outlined in the results framework. The final evaluation should assess areas of project design, implementation, management, lessons learned and replicability. It should seek to provide lessons learned and recommendations for USDA, program participants and other key stakeholders for future food assistance and capacity building programs. The evaluation will likely use mixed methods approaches as outlined in the agreed upon evaluation plan. Based on the project results framework and overall theory of change, included in ANNEX C, the evaluation will attempt to test causal linkages within these and respond to the following key questions:  Does increased access to food lead to reductions in short-term hunger and improved attentiveness among target learners?  Do reductions in short-term hunger and improved attentiveness lead to increased literacy outcomes amongst school-aged children?  To what extent do the provision of literacy materials and teacher training lead to increased quality of literacy instruction and increased literacy outcomes among school- aged children? The Final Evaluation will assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and potential for sustainability as defined in the USDA FAS Monitoring and Evaluation Policy1 . The evaluation will assess what has changed in the lives of the project beneficiaries, in addition to whether the project objectives have been 1 Relevance-The extent to which the project interventions met the needs of the project beneficiaries and is aligned with the country’s agriculture and/or development investment strategy and with USDA and US Government’s development goals, objectives, and strategies. Relevance should also address the extent to which the project was designed taking into account the economic, cultural and political context and existing relevant program activities. Effectiveness-The extent to which the project has achieved its objectives. Effectiveness should also assess the extent to which the interventions contributed to the expected results or objectives. Efficiency-The extent to which the project resources (inputs) have led to the achieved results. An assessment of efficiency should also consider whether the same results could have been achieved with fewer resources or whether alternative approaches could have been adopted to achieve the same results. Impact-Assessment of the medium and long-term effects, both intended and unintended, of a project intervention. Effects can be both direct or indirect and positive or negative. To the extent possible, the evaluation should assess the extent to which the effects are due to the project intervention and not other factors. Sustainability-Assessment of the likelihood that the benefits of the project will endure over time after the completion of the project. Sustainability should also assess the extent to which the project has planned for the continuation of project activities, developed local ownership for the project, and developed sustainable partnerships (USDA FAS Monitoring and Evaluation Policy). 716 Page 8 of 24 achieved. In doing this, it will assess the project in three areas: 1) internal validity (Is the project doing what it set out to do?), 2) initial impact (Is it making a difference?), and 3) strategic relevance regarding effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and potential for sustainability (Were these the right things to do? What can be learned from what was done?) Literacy Assessment The final evaluation will also assess the status of literacy levels of the learners in intervention and control schools, in both the bilingual and Portuguese language cohorts to establish the impact of program interventions. The evaluation will include classroom observations and the administration of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) to a sample of students from all 4 districts that have completed grades 2 and 3 (current grade 3 and 4 learners). The assessment of students that have completed year 2 (current grade 3 learners) will inform the evaluation of MGD SO1, specifically, while the assessment of students that have completed grade 3 (current grade 4 learners) will permit the comparison of longitudinal data for the same cohort from baseline through midline and to endline. The evaluator will generate the student sample based on those used in previous evaluations in order to allow comparison and to determine improvements. The evaluation plan should include how the EGRA will be administered, including who will administer the testing and how enumerators will be trained to administer the testing as needed. The evaluation team will collect literacy data with equipment and software as defined in their evaluation plan and agreed upon with the project team. The sampling frame utilized to date includes five categories of schools:  FFE+literacy (local language  FFE+literacy (Portuguese)  FFE+literacy (local language and Portuguese)  FFE only  Comparison Evaluation Questions The Final Evaluation will seek to respond to the following evaluation questions and compare results to previous evaluations on phase one and two of the project to include evaluation of responses to lessons learned and recommendations made in previous independent evaluations: Activities and processes  Did each activity achieve its target?  To what extent were activities carried out effectively, according to principles of good practice and to the satisfaction of different stakeholders?  What could have been improved regarding these activities/processes?  What were the main problems and constraints?  Were improvements made based on recommendations from previous evaluations and lessons learned? Results  Did the project achieve its intended results?  What was the initial impact on the direct beneficiaries?  What was the initial impact on their families (and other indirect beneficiaries)?  To what extent, if any, did the activities carried out begin to improve direct and indirect beneficiaries’ wellbeing? 717 Page 9 of 24  Were there any unintended effects on people, including undesirable effects?  Did any factors external to the project change the situation of the project and/or its beneficiaries?  Were any changes observed due to the project interventions?  Were any changes observed due to factors external to the project? Project staff and partners  Were different project roles performed effectively?  Did project staff feel motivated, committed to project objectives and able to carry out their functions effectively?  If not, what could have been improved?  Were implementing partners contributing to the project as planned?  If not, what could have been improved?  Did the capacity of the project staff increase since the beginning of the project?  If so, what factors led to improved staff capacity?  Did the capacity of the project partners increase since the beginning of the project?  If so, what factors led to improved partner capacity? Sustainability  Were the project plans designed to produce sustainable change after the conclusion of the project?  What are the perspectives of the interventions being continued by government and/or other partners after the conclusion of the project?  What was the level of ownership of and commitment to the project by implementing actors and beneficiaries at national, provincial, district and local level?  To what extent has the project built sufficient capacity to ensure sustainability after the duration of the project?  What elements or components are most likely sustainable beyond the life of the project? What elements or components are unlikely to be sustained and why? Collaboration and coordination  What was the level/quality of collaboration between the project and its implementing partners?  What was the level/quality of collaboration and coordination between the project and national, provincial and district government?  What was the level/quality of collaboration and coordination between the project and local and community leaders, including traditional leaders?  What was the level/quality of collaboration and coordination between the project and other organizations implementing school feeding programs in Mozambique?  How is the project working with the Government of Mozambique, World Food Program and other school feeding implementers to share lessons learned and good practices to help inform a national school feeding policy and program environment?  How has collaboration with the MINEDH and INDE supported sustained implementation of literacy interventions in Mozambique?  How relevant is the project to the local and national school feeding policy and program environment?  How relevant is the project to the cultural and social environment?  To what extent has the project fit within existing policy and program contexts, both those planned and/or implemented by the Government and those implemented by projects supported by other donors? 718 Page 10 of 24 Budget and cost  Was the project within its budget?  Were there unforeseen expenses?  Were resources used as effectively as possible?  Could project activities have been more cost-effective? In addition to the general questions above, specific evaluation questions will be formulated for each activity through consultation between PAI, ADPP, and the external evaluator. In doing this, the evaluation should address the impact of key project components, including but not limited to school feeding, literacy and nutrition interventions. The evaluation of school feeding activities will range from questions regarding food storage, handling, distribution, safeguarding and preparation to the effectiveness of school feeding committees. Nutrition and literacy should assess the long-term impact of specific interventions. Specific to literacy, for example, the evaluation should assess the impact of offering literacy programming in both Portuguese and bilingual (Portuguese and local language) modalities and comparative learning outcomes achieved between the monolingual and bilingual interventions. V. Methodology of Information Collection A mixed method approach combining quantitative and qualitative information is needed in order to answer the general and specific evaluation questions. The overall approach for data collection should take into account the methodology and software used in previous evaluations in order to allow comparability and consistency. The external evaluator is responsible for overseeing data collection and will collect data with equipment and software as defined in their evaluation plan and agreed upon with the project team. Organizational and logistical aspects of the data collection processes will be supported by the project M&E coordinator and staff following principles agreed with the external evaluator. A preliminary list of data to be collected by the evaluator is included in ANNEX A. Data collection methods will include some or all of the following:  Review and collation of information from project documentation, inventory records, project monitoring documents, records and reports, literacy test scores, attendance records, reports and observations of ADPP field staffs, district health center data, literacy training materials, nutrition training materials, nutrition test scores, tests of government officials;  Internal self-review by the project implementation team, facilitated by the external evaluator;  Literacy testing of the cohort of target learners (intervention group) and non-target learners (control/counterfactual group) tested at baseline and midterm. This includes separate intervention and control groups for monolingual and bilingual literacy interventions;  Interviews with the cohort of target learners (intervention group) and non-target learners (control/counterfactual group) tested at baseline and midterm;  Weighing and measuring of the cohort of target learners (intervention group) and non-target learners (control/counterfactual group) tested at baseline and midterm;  Surveys of project beneficiaries and other stakeholders (learners, teachers, parents, food preparers, school-feeding committee members, government officials, etc.);  Focus groups with project beneficiaries and other stakeholder groups (learners, teachers, parents, food preparers, school-feeding committee members, government officials, etc.);  Semi structured interviews with a small number of key stakeholders, including MINEDH, INDE and other relevant ministries;  Field visits and observations using a standardized observation framework and photographic recording of infrastructure; 719 Page 11 of 24  Case studies that showcase examples of positive change and/or lessons learned;  Review workshop to validate findings;  Statistical modelling to account for measured background differences between target learners and the comparison group such that changes associated with the project will be measured. Prior to the evaluation, ADPP will ensure that the accuracy and completeness of the samples provided, and will provide individual record level data in unanalyzed, non-tabulated form to the external evaluator for analysis. Information from project records and documents and government sources will be made available. A list of data to be provided by ADPP is included in ANNEX A. VI. Data Quality Assurance The external evaluator will hold ultimate responsibility for the overall quality and validity of the information gathered and its analysis. This includes ensuring the quality of the evaluation methodology and instruments, quantitative and qualitative data collected for the purposes of the evaluation and for the training and supervision of data gatherers. Suitable quality assurance processes must be in place during fieldwork: these may include but are not limited to: spot checks during the data gathering processes, quality assurance of at least 10% of all data collected, systematic double checking of all data entry and ongoing inter enumerator checks to ensure consistency and validity of the data gathered. All interviews and focus groups shall be conducted by researchers with the requisite research skills, thus minimizing risks such as bias in questioning. The evaluation will include different types and sources of data to allow triangulation of the information provided. VII. Specific Indicators, Data Types and Collection Methods The indicators against which the project Outputs (Intermediate Results) are to be measured form part of the project’s evaluation plan: many of the indicators used are standard McGovern-Dole indicators used in other Food for Education projects supported by the FAS of the USDA. Information regarding each project indicator was collected and analyzed in the baseline study and midterm evaluation. In order for the Final Evaluation to allow accurate measurement of progress against each project Intermediate Result, the same indicators will be used and the information will be collected in an appropriate and comparable manner to allow a meaningful measurement of progress against the Baseline and Midterm. ANNEX B includes each of the project Intermediate results with their respective associated indicators, the characteristics of the data needed for the Final Evaluation, and the suggested responsibility for data collection and analysis. VIII. Evaluation Products and Deliverables Evaluation products and deliverables are listed below. Each deliverable will be reviewed and approved by PAI. The Final Evaluation Report will be reviewed and approved by both PAI and the donor.  A final evaluation work plan will be agreed between the external evaluator and PAI to ensure continuity and comparability with the baseline and midterm evaluations, as well as with the evaluations conducted during the previous FY 2012-16 project. The work plan should include the timeline, schedule of deliverables, methodology/approach, budget, and place(s) of performance. The work plan will be submitted, reviewed and approved by PAI.  Status deliverables, as outlined in the work plan, will include trip reports, provision of data sets, and summaries of preliminary findings.  A draft evaluation report written in English according to the requirements outlined will be submitted for PAI and selected project personnel for review; 720 Page 12 of 24  The final data set will include one electronic file of the cleaned and final qualitative and quantitative data collected.  A Summary of Key Findings document should concisely summarize key outcomes by component and the key findings of the evaluation.  A Final Evaluation Report should address the issues and questions of this SOW and correspond to the evaluation objectives outlined. The final evaluation report should contain (but is not limited to) the following: - Executive Summary presenting the major findings and recommendations - Evaluation aims, objectives, and scope - Assessment of the project’s underlying impact logic - Description of the methodology used - Limitations of the evaluation or methodology - Description of the assessment context and process, including constraints and challenges - Detailed findings (related to the objectives and structure, considering evaluation criteria and questions) - Analysis of the findings (following the key questions in this SOW and as established with PAI) - Conclusions - Lessons learned and recommendations for the project approach - Recommendations for sustainability of program outcomes, including transfer of ownership to the GOM. Note that the working language of the evaluation is Portuguese, while the reporting language is English. 721 Page 13 of 24 ANNEX A: DATA TO BE COLLECTED I. Data to be provided by ADPP ADPP will collect the following information and provide it to the external evaluator in individual record, non-analyzed form. ADPP will ensure the accuracy and completeness of samples and data provided. a. Project records i. Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions ii. Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions iii. Number of teachers/educators/ teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance iv. Number of teachers/educators/ teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance v. Number of after-school learning clubs active in project schools vi. Number of school children participating in clubs vii. Number of awards given to students viii. Number of schools receiving school supplies and materials as a result of USDA assistance. ix. Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance x. Number of 1-3 Grade children receiving literacy books xi. Number of supplementary literacy materials produced and distributed to project schools xii. Number of teachers trained xiii. Number of teachers anticipated to graduate as a result of USDA assistance xiv. Number of teachers/educators/ teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance xv. Number of awards given to teachers xvi. Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance xvii. Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance xviii. Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance xix. Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance xx. Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance xxi. Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance xxii. Number of kitchens, storerooms and firewood saving stoves maintained as a result of USDA assistance xxiii. Number of local leaders and school council members attending school feeding project management trainings xxiv. Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance xxv. Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance xxvi. Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance xxvii. Number of food preparers at target schools trained in hand washing, safe food preparation and storage practices 722 Page 14 of 24 xxviii. People trained in good hygiene practices xxix. Number of cooks tested for TB xxx. Number of volunteer cooks receiving health and hygiene training xxxi. Number of Home-Grown School Feeding Gardens established xxxii. Number of school children benefiting from Home-Grown School Feeding Gardens xxxiii. Number of school gardens further developed and maintained xxxiv. Number of school children benefiting from school gardens xxxv. Number of people trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance xxxvi. Number of latrines & hand washing facilities constructed xxxvii. Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (latrines) xxxviii. Number of hand washing facilities rehabilitated xxxix. Number of school children benefiting from latrines and hand washing facilities xl. Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities xli. Number of water tanks secured xlii. Number of school children benefiting from clean water solutions xliii. Number of schools using an improved water source xliv. Number of students receiving deworming medication xlv. Number of community volunteers receiving laundry soap xlvi. Number of schools receiving dish washing soap xlvii. Number of participants in school feeding conferences (district, province and national) xlviii. Number of seminars and meetings conducted at the local, regional and national level xlix. Number of government officials trained in nutrition b. Trainee teacher test scores, collected by 5 EPFs, using a tool developed by the external evaluator in collaboration with EPF trainers c. DPEDH enrolment data for 2016 - 2019 for basic education in the 4 intervention districts (Magude, Manhiça, Matatuine, Moamba) and the 4 control districts (Boane, Marracuene, Matola and Namaacha); d. DPEDH attendance data for 2016 - 2019 for basic education in the 4 intervention districts (Magude, Manhiça, Matatuine, Moamba) and the 4 control districts (Boane, Marracuene, Matola and Namaacha); e. DPEDH drop-out data for 2016 and 2017 for basic education in the 4 intervention districts (Magude, Manhiça, Matatuine, Moamba) and the 4 control districts (Boane, Marracuene, Matola and Namaacha); f. WISHH project/monitoring information for all WISHH nutrition education interventions. g. Project scope of work, results framework, list of indicators and previous evaluations. II. Data to be collected by the external evaluator using tools developed by the external evaluator a. Individual interviews with a sample of learners in Grades 3 and 4 (having completed grades 2 and 3, respectively) including a measurement of their weight and height (intervention and control groups). b. Survey of teachers who were studied at the midline evaluation. c. Visits and observations at sample schools using standardized observation sheet d. A literacy assessment of a sample of students who have completed Grade 2 in all 4 districts, using the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). e. Classroom observation of literacy interventions (bilingual and Portuguese) f. Observation of nutrition training sessions g. Focus groups with parents, food preparers, teachers, learners, parents, EPF teachers, Food For Education Field Officers h. Focus group/interviews with school council heads/members i. Interviews with head teachers 723 Page 15 of 24 j. Interviews with district education officers k. Interviews with district health officers l. Interviews with EPF directors m. Interviews with Planet Aid representatives n. Interviews with Food for Education project managers or team representatives: o. Interviews with WISHH representatives/employees p. Interviews with USDA/FAS representatives: q. Interviews with Government of Mozambique representatives: r. Interviews with other key stakeholders: s. Results of internal self-review by the project implementation team t. Case studies which showcase examples of change and lessons learned u. Results of review workshop to validate findings 724 Page 16 of 24 ANNEX B – Project Intermediate Results Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting 1 MGD 1.3 Improved Student attendance Outcome Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools Project records based on school registers Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N N Biannual 2 MGD 1.1.2 Better Access to School Supplies and Materials Output Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance Project records with evidence of materials distributed Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 3 MGD 1.1.5 Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators Outcome 1. Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Survey and/or interviews with school administrators Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 4 MGD 1.1.5 Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators Output 2.Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance Project records￾Participants’ list of individuals who attended such trainings Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 5 MGD 1.1.4 Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers Outcome 1. Number of teachers/educators/teachin g assistants in target schools who demonstrate 1.Project records Supplied by ADPP; N Number Annual 725 Page 17 of 24 Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 2. Visits and observation at sample schools Analyzed by external evaluator Collected and analyzed by external evaluator 6 MGD 1.1.4 Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers Output 2. Number of teachers/educators/teachin g assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance TTC records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 7 MGD 1.3.3 Improved School Infrastructure Output Number of kitchens, storerooms and firewood saving stoves maintained as a result of USDA assistance 1.Visits and observation at sample schools 2.Project records Collected and analyzed by external evaluator Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 8 MGD 1.3.4 Increased Student Enrolment Outcome Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance Project records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Annual 9 MGD 1.4.4 Increased Engagement of Local Output Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance 1.Project Records 2.Focus group/interviews Supplied by ADPP; N Number Biannual 726 Page 18 of 24 Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting Organizations and Community output structures supported as a result of USDA assistance with school council heads/members/ teachers/parents/ot her stakeholders Analyzed by external evaluator Collected and analyzed by external evaluator 10 MGD 1.4.4 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups Output Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance Project Records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator Y Number Biannual 11 MGD 1.4.3/ 1.4.4 Increased Government Support/ Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups Outcome Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance Project Records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N US Dollar Annual 15 MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food (school feeding) Output Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-a age children as a result of USDA assistance Project Records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 16 MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food (school feeding) Output Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, Project Records Supplied by ADPP; N Number Biannual 727 Page 19 of 24 Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance Analyzed by external evaluator 17 MGD 1.2.1.1/2. 5 Increased Access to Food (school feeding)/ Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions Output Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance Project Records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator Y Number Annual 19 MGD SO 2 Increased Use of Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices Outcome Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance Project records￾Participants’ list of individuals who attended such trainings Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Annual 20 MGD 2.2 Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices Output Number of food preparers at target schools trained in hand washing, safe food preparation and storage practices Project records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 22 MGD 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services Output Number of schools using an improved water source 1.Visits and observation at sample schools 2.Project records Collected and analyzed by external evaluator Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 728 Page 20 of 24 Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting 23 MGD 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services Output Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities 1.Visits and observation at sample schools 2.Project records Collected and analyzed by external evaluator Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 24 MGD 2.5 Increased access to preventative health interventions Output Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) 1.Focus groups and interviews with teachers and learners 2.Project records Collected and analyzed by external evaluator Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 26 MGD SO1 Improved literacy of school-age children Outcome Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text Results from EGRA - the same or of comparable level to that used at baseline and midline Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Percent Baseline, Midterm and End Line 27 MGD SO1 Improved literacy of school-age children Output Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions Project records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Annual 729 Page 21 of 24 Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting 28 MGD SO1 Improved literacy of school-age children Output Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions Project records Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Annual MGD 1.2 Improved attentiveness Outcome 1.Percentage of teachers who report increased attentiveness of students in the classroom Survey of teachers Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Percent Baseline, Midterm and End Line MGD 1.2 Improved attentiveness Outcome 2.Percentage of students in project schools who report increased attentiveness in the classroom Interviews with learners Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Percent Baseline, Midterm and End Line MGD 1.2.1 Reduced Short￾term hunger Outcome 1.Percentage of teachers who report reduced short￾term hunger of learners in the classroom Survey of teachers Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Percent Baseline, Midterm and End Line MGD 1.2.1 Reduced Short￾term hunger Outcome 2.Percentage of students who report reduced short￾term hunger in the classroom Interviews with learners Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Percent Baseline, Midterm and End Line MGD 2.1 Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practice Outcome Percentage of students that demonstrate acceptable knowledge of health and hygiene practices Interviews with learners Collected and analyzed by external evaluator N Percent Baseline, Midterm and End Line 730 Page 22 of 24 Standard Indicator # Result # Title in M G D Results Framew ork Indicator type Indicator Data characteristics/ collection method Who performs collection/ analysis Feed the Future? Unit of Measure Frequency of Reporting MDG 2.6 Increased access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment Output Number of schools receiving dish washing soap 1.Visits and observation at sample schools 2.Project records Collected and analyzed by external evaluator Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual MGD 2.7.1 Increased capacity of government institutions Output Number of government officials trained in nutrition 1.Focus groups and interviews with government officials 2.Project records Collected and analyzed by external evaluator Supplied by ADPP; Analyzed by external evaluator N Number Biannual 731 Page 23 of 24 ANNEX C: PROJECT FRAMEWORKS Planet Aid Inc. Mozambique FY15 McGovern-Dole Results Framework #1 732 Page 24 of 24 Planet Aid Inc. Mozambique FY15 McGovern-Dole Results Framework #2 733 FINAL PROGRAM EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK (SOW) Amendment, August 2020 Planet Aid Inc. USDA Food for Education FFE-656-2015/009-00 Food for Knowledge Phase 2 (FFK2) Project This document outlines adjustments made to Planet Aid’s Final Program Evaluation Scope of Work (SOW) for the Food for Knowledge Phase 2 (FFK2) project in Mozambique, as presented to and approved by USDA in March 2020. FFK2 is implemented by Planet Aid and local partner ADPP Mozambique, with a current end date of December 29, 2020. I. Background and COVID-19 Since USDA’s approval of the SOW for the final evaluation of FFK2 in March 2020, COVID-19 has emerged as an international pandemic, resulting in restrictions in activities globally in order to contain its spread. In Mozambique, the government closed schools on March 23, 2020 and President Nyusi declared a state of emergency on March 31 that has been extended through September 6, 2020. Although the prevalence of COVID-19 in Mozambique remains low compared to other countries, the number of cases is rising, with 2,120 confirmed cases to date. In a televised address to the nation on August 5, President Nyusi outlined a 3-phase plan to ease restrictions related to the disease. This plan includes the reopening of higher education institutions in late August and the resumption of face-to-face classes for final year secondary students (grade 12) in October as a part of the 3rd phase. A date has not been announced for the reopening of elementary schools, categorized as a high-risk activity, pending the assessment of sanitary conditions at schools. It should be noted that the traditional school year ends in November and that public surveys currently suggest a lack of public support to send children back to school (O Pais, June 22, 2020), such that any reopening is likely to be very limited in both time and attendance prior to the new school year in February 2021. II. Final Evaluation Contingency Planning Planet Aid conducted a procurement process via public tender to select a vendor to conduct the final evaluation process of FFK2, resulting in the selection of a consortium led by Dr. Simone Doctors, based in the UK, and including two local partners in Mozambique. Given the spread of COVID-19, Planet Aid’s discussions with Dr. Doctors in April 2020 immediately included contingency planning to consider the potential impact of the virus on the evaluation. Specifically, the work plan developed in May 2020 outlined 2 scenarios: Scenario 1 consisted of a traditional final evaluation, as described in the initial SOW, while Scenario 2 defined a detailed plan for a mainly remote evaluation, in the case that travel and in-person work with beneficiaries were not possible or recommended. The scenarios were identical in the initial phases, May-July 2020, and consisted of planning, tool development, gathering of existing data and some key informant interviews and focus groups, conducted using video calls, with a deadline to assess and select the appropriate scenario in the first week of August. III. Selection of Remote Evaluation After careful consideration and discussions with the project team, the evaluation consortium and USDA, Planet Aid has concluded that Scenario 2, a largely remote evaluation, represents the best choice to ensure the safety of beneficiaries, evaluators and project staff, and to provide a thorough program evaluation in a timely manner given the uncertainly of schools reopening. Importantly, this approach, 734 though modified in its implementation, will respond to all evaluation questions within the original SOW, and to all project indicators. This remote evaluation prioritizes distanced data gathering and the analysis of existing information. The evaluator will develop data working through tools including mobile surveys and remote interviews and focus groups. While data will not be collected directly from students or control groups, meaning the cohort study begun at baseline will not be completed, the project is fortunate in having a large amount of data available from past evaluations and assessments, including internally conducted EGRAs that provide student data. The last full EGRA was conducted in November 2019, and can be used to assess student progress in reading since the midterm evaluation. The remote approach additionally allows the opportunity to broaden the number of respondents and to add surveys of community members, parents and teacher training college (TTC) students. This revised evaluation will include:  Analysis of existing project and provincial data, including project monitoring data, enrolment and retention data, EGRAs, and TTC data  Interviews with key stakeholders using video calls; in-person interviews to be held as possible  Focus groups using video calls  Remote surveys of 500 teachers, an expanded sample to include the 200 teachers interviewed at baseline and midterm)  Remote surveys of 170 school directors  Assessment of COVID-19 impact and the mitigation measures by the project  Remote surveys of community members and parents  Remote survey of 200 TTC students IV. Evaluation Timeline The proposed timeline of this revised evaluation is as follows: Activities Dates Evaluation design and work plan June 2020 (completed) Preparation/updating of instruments June –July 2020 (completed) Gathering and review of project documentation June-August 2020 Training and testing of instruments August 2020 Fieldwork and interviews August-September 2020 Data gathering, cleaning and analysis October - November 2020 Draft evaluation report December 2020 Submission of final evaluation report to USDA December 2020 V. Conclusion The selection of the remote evaluation, “Scenario 2,” will allow Planet Aid and its partners to complete a quality, thorough evaluation of the project on time and in a manner that prioritizes the safety of all evaluation participants in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Planet Aid is confident that this modified approach will provide an informative program evaluation that accurately represents the project’s results and impacts, and that responds to all project indicators and evaluation questions. By focusing on distanced data collection and tools, the approach additionally allows the evaluation to expand its scope and to capture data from additional respondents that will supplement data collected thus far and strengthen the analysis and conclusions presented. The remote approach further allows the opportunity to develop and hone distanced data collection tools and skills for use in the future, in both Mozambique and by USDA. 735