Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chicago State University U.S. Agency of International Development
TEXTBOOKS (TEACHING) AND LEARNING MATERIALS PROGRAM
(TLMP) GHANA
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
Funded by
March 2011
ii
CSU/USAID TEXTBOOKS (TEACHING) AND LEARNING
MATERIALS PROGRAM - GHANA
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
March 2011
Under USAID Cooperative
Agreement RLA-A-00-09-0003600
Carol O. Carson-Warner, Ed. D., TLMP-Ghana
Executive Director, Chicago State University
Prepared by:
Research Coordinator
Athanase Gahungu, Ed. D., Chicago State University
Researchers
Karen A. Freeman, Ph.D., Chicago State University
Angelique S. Jackson, Ed. D., Chicago State
University
Ruby Avotri, Ph.D., Ghana Education Service
Curriculum Research Development Division
Contributors
Joseph Ghartey-Ampiah, Ph.D., University of Cape
Coast, Ghana
Bernard B.B. Bingab, University of Education-
Winneba, Ghana
The views expressed in this report, developed under Cooperative Agreement to the U. S. Agency for International
Development, do not reflect the position or policy of the Agency, and no official endorsement by the Agency should be
inferred.
ii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….……………vii
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 1
Objectives of the Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Objectives of the Partnership ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Descriptive Data ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
Extent of Use of TLMP ................................................................................................................................................. 12
Training of Teachers in the Use of TLMP .................................................................................................................... 23
Parent Involvement and Impact on the Community .................................................................................................. 29
Impact of TLMP on Achievement ................................................................................................................................ 30
Recommendations for Changing Materials’ Contents and Expanding TLMP ................................................................. 35
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, REMARKS ......................................................................................................................... 41
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX A. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ............................................................................................. 54
APPENDIX B. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION APPROVAL ....................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX C. LETTER TO DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION: DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES ........................... 58
APPENDIX D. TLMP USE: PERIODS PER WEEK ................................................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX E. TLMP DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................................. 68
iii
Table of Tables
Table 1. Assessment Participants by District and Assessment Form ........................................................................... 10
Table 2. Questionnaire Respondents’ by Years of Experience in the Teaching Profession and Years Spent in their
Current Positions ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Profile of the Beneficiary School Districts (2008/2009) ................................................................................. 12
Table 4. TLMP Workbooks and Teacher Guides Distributed to Districts by the End of the First Three Months of
Distribution (Oct. 27, 2008-Dec. 28, 2008) ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 5. Per Public KG2 Pupil Workbooks, for the 2008/09 and 2009/10 School Years, by District ........................... 15
Table 6. TLMP Recorded during Class Observations by School - District .................................................................... 17
Table 7. Reasons for Insufficient Materials ................................................................................................................. 20
Table 8. Frequency Distribution of Teachers in Whose Classrooms TLMP and Non-TLMP Materials
are Used 25 Periods per Week or More ............................................................................................................ 22
Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Teachers in Whose Classrooms TLMP and Non-TLMP Materials
are Used 0 Periods Week ................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 10. Frequency Distribution of Teachers Who Received In-SET in the Use of TLMP .......................................... 24
Table 11. Administrators’ Estimates of Teachers who Received in Usage of TLMP .................................................... 25
Table 12. Criteria for Selecting Teachers to Training of Trainers (TOT) by Types of Respondents ............................. 26
Table 13. Percent Distrib. of Teachers Who Attended TOT Workshops and Found Them Effective .......................... 29
Table 14. Recommendations for Materials’ Content Changes by Respondents ......................................................... 36
iv
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Percent Distribution of TOT Trainees who Trained Others ........................................................................ 28
Figure 2. Percent Distribution of Administrators by Allowing Children to Take Books Home .................................. 30
Figure 3. Percent Distribution of Teachers by How Effective they Feel at Using TLMP ............................................ 32
Figure 4. Percent Distribution of Teachers and Administrators who Want to Expand the TLMP.....…………….……… 38
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The core aspect of partnership is “voluntary collaboration between two or more entities where the parties
have agreed to cooperate to achieve mutually desirable objectives.” The Chicago State University/U.S Agency of
International Development Textbooks (Teaching) and Learning Materials Program-Ghana (CSU/USAID TLMP-Ghana)
partners that include the Ghana Ministry of Education, the USAID Ghana, the TLMP Program Advisory Committee
(PAC), the University of Cape Coast (UCC), and the University of Education, Winneba (UEW) exemplified a balanced
partnership in conducting this assessment. We acknowledge the significant efforts made by individuals from each of
these entities.
Consensus was the key element needed from the beginning in order to conduct the assessment. The success
of the project was due largely to the belief of Robert Davidson, Education Officer, USAID-Ghana that
evaluation/assessment is essential to improving the program. We also acknowledge the support and guidance
provided by Sarah Agyeman-Duah, PAC Chairperson and Director, Ghana Education Service/Curriculum Research and
Development Division. We also owe a debt of gratitude to each member of the PAC (Program Advisory Committee)
for their counsel and encouragement.
The very nature of the objectives and methodology of this study meant that many people were involved
throughout the process. We acknowledge the support and encouragement of individuals in the College of Education
at Chicago State University; Dean, Dr. Sylvia Gist; our Research Coordinator, Associate Professor Dr. Athanase
Gahungu for his vision, persistence and commitment to the project; along with Assistant Professors Dr. Karen A.
Freeman and Dr. Angelique S. Jackson. For their passion for CSU-TLMP-Ghana and additional support
acknowledgements are due to Mohamad Jalloh, Research Assistant, Ganiyu Saheed, Team Leader and the six CSU
field researchers — Shalome Broadway, Pamela Grant, Contessa Houston, Sakile Ramir, Cordell Smith, and Shacarra
Westbrooks.
Cross cultural context and cultural sensibility enhanced this study and with the inputs and assistance of our
Ghanaian partners. Acknowledgements and thanks to Dr. Ruby Avotri, Director of Research, Ghana Education
Service/Curriculum Research and Development Division, Vice Chancellor Naana Opoku-Agyemang, the University of
Cape Coast (UCC), and Vice Chancellor Akwasi Asabere-Ameyaw, the University of Education, Winneba (UEW), for
vi
their direct involvement, scholarly insights, human and material resources, and hospitality. We also thank the field
researchers representing the University partners: from UEW, Vincent Adzahlie-Mensah, Edem Botchway, and
Bernard B. Bingab; and from UCC, Freda Owusu-Ansal, George Maxwell Essel, and Richard Asomah Kyere.
Mrs. Ewura-Abena Ahwoi, the in-Country Coordinator, Jerald Knox, Financial Manager, and the support
teams in Chicago and Ghana are being acknowledged for providing unstinting administrative, intellectual and
logistical support for the project.
The two by-products of this study were a brochure and a video entitled, I See Me in You, which extols the
training, field and cultural experience of the field researchers. Many thanks to CSU’s Communication and Media Arts
and Theatre department staffer, Monique Smith, and a special note of praise to Jamille Watkins-Barnes, TLMP
Assistant Director for a job well done, and for her attention to detail in finalizing this report.
The CSU/USAID Textbooks and Learning Materials-Ghana Assessment Report dated March 2011 has been
submitted to the USAID Africa Bureau, Education Division as required. The report and other working documents of
the study are available on the TLMP-Ghana website at www.csu.edu/tlmp.
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June-July 2010, nine researchers and 10 student interns from Chicago State University, Chicago,
Illinois, and Ghana, West Africa conducted an assessment of the Chicago State University Textbooks and
Learning Materials Program (TLMP) in Ghana. The TLMP, a partnership among (1) Chicago State University,
(2) the Ghana Ministry of Education and Ghana Education Service, and (3) the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), was established in 2005 to produce and reprint teaching and learning
materials for Ghanaian schools. From October 2008 to November 2009, pupils’ workbooks and other
materials that were developed or reprinted by the program were distributed to schools in 14 deprived
districts in the 10 regions of Ghana. The materials included Kindergarten pupils’ workbooks, teacher
guides and wall charts in Environmental Studies, Literacy and Numeracy. Prior to the distribution of the
materials (September 2008), two national Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops—one in Sunyani, Brong-
Ahafo Region, and the other in Koforidua, Eastern Region—were conducted to create a nucleus of teachers
who would in turn train others.
The purpose of this assessment was therefore to investigate the extent of use of the materials
produced and the impact the program has had on teaching and learning at the Kindergarten level in the 14
beneficiary districts in Ghana. Classroom observations and interviews with 40 Kindergarten 2 level
teachers, and interviews with 41 Kindergarten 2 level parents were conducted in all 14 beneficiary districts.
Two to four teachers and parents, per district, participated in those observations and interviews. In
addition, survey questionnaires were administered at the same time as the assessment teams visited the
districts. One hundred fifty-nine teachers, 39 head teachers, 24 circuit supervisors, 13 district early
childhood coordinators, and 12 district directors of education returned the questionnaires. The following
strengths of the program were noted:
1. The Teaching and Learning Materials Program (TLMP) produced and distributed enough copies
of the Environmental Studies 2, My Second Numeracy, and My Second Literacy workbooks to
viii
assure two years of supply for all Kindergarten 2 enrollments in the 14 beneficiary school
districts.
2. In all 39 schools visited, TLMP materials were available for teachers and pupils. In 56 of the 159
classrooms (39%) visited, the TLMP textbooks were the only books to which the children had
access. Likewise, in 62 classroom visited (39%), teachers had access to no other textbooks
beside the TLMP materials.
3. The majority (81.1%) of participating teachers had received district facilitated in-service training
in the use of the TLMP materials. In addition, among the 73 teachers who had attended the
“Training of Trainers” (TOT) workshops at the on-start of the program (September 2008), the
majority (73%) had provided training to other teachers. Because of the in-service training and
the TOT, the teachers reported that they had improved their teaching techniques, from teacher-
centered to student-centered methodologies, and were thirsty for additional, ongoing training.
The impact of the TLMP on the community was positive. Although the children in most districts
were not allowed to take the workbooks home and some parents were still not familiar with the
TLMP materials, all administrators reported that they had implemented strategies for improving
the involvement of the parents. The majority of respondents identified parent-teacher
association (PTA) meetings and school management committee meetings as events they use to
inform the parents about their roles in assisting their children.
4. Although the assessment was based on only two years of the TLMP program (2008/2009 and
2009/2010 school years), parents, teachers and administrators had observed improvement in
pupils’ achievement. Thanks to the attractive layout and the culturally sensitive contents,
children’s learning appeared to be improving. The children related to the materials learned, and
could retain the information better. The majority of respondents reported that the TLMP
materials were better than other materials used in the Basic Education curriculum, and they
wanted the TLMP program to be expanded to the upper elementary grades (P4-P6) and the rest
of the country.
Despite the positive impact of the program, and the enthusiasm that participants expressed in the
program’s expansion to upper elementary grades and the rest of the nation, several issues were raised.
First, the materials were not evenly distributed to all schools in a timely manner. To address this issue, a
better production and distribution schedule must be jointly developed by all three partners to ensure that
ix
materials are timely and evenly distributed. In particular, the partnership must ensure that adequate
logistical, administrative, and technical resources are committed to storing and distributing all workbooks,
teachers’ guides, and other learning materials developed under the Textbooks and Learning Materials
program (TLMP) and ensuring effective utilization of TLMs by educators and learners.
Second, parental involvement and pupils’ ownership of the materials, as well as adoption of the
materials at the national or regional level must be clearly articulated as components of the partnership.
The assessment team recommended that the voices of the teachers, parents and administrators be heeded
so that the TLMP materials become part of the basic education curriculum at the national scale. In
addition, the TLMP materials’ community outreach must become part of the larger national literacy
campaign, in the context of Education for All (EFA) and Ghana’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG)
initiatives.
Third, while the role and responsibilities of the Program Advisory Committee are clear in the
program’s Cooperative Agreement, the expectations of administrators at the regional, district, circuit and
school level must be better delineated in the Work Plan. Articulating their responsibilities—training
teachers, storing the materials, sensitizing parents, etc.—will insure that the materials are not viewed as an
ephemeral partnership initiative they can drop at the end of the funding period.
Fourth, the sustainability of the program requires the involvement of other parties—notably
colleges of education in Ghana—so that the materials can be incorporated into teacher training and other
aspects of Ghana’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG).
x
Fifth, participants’ suggestions for improving the contents and layout of the materials, as well as for
expanding the program to the upper elementary grades (P4-6) and to the rest of the nation, must be
accorded due consideration. Notably, the materials must be designed to cover all three school terms of
the Kindergarten (KG) curriculum, and must be durable and resistant to withstand the playfulness of
Kindergarten children.
1
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT
Achieving quality basic education is an ambitious goal that few developing countries can reach in the
current global economic crisis. As Lewin (2009) reported, “the countries furthest from the goals of
universalizing educational access were mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa (p. 154). Lewin explained that even
when it appears that the majority of children are enrolled in the primary level of education, many of those
children were not enrolled in the appropriate grade for their age. In addition, daily attendance was still low
in Sub-Saharan many countries; entire schools could lose half their enrollments during harvest seasons, for
instance. What is more, while education is becoming equitably distributed at the elementary school level,
acceptable staffing, learning materials and facilities still have to be implemented, and sharp disparities persisted in
access to secondary and tertiary education. In all, more still needs to be done in Sub-Saharan Africa for
quality education to be achieved and to have an impact on society.
According to USAID’s report on Education for All, “Education Strategy: Improving Lives through
Learning” (USAID, 2005), quality education is improved when the following is true.
The teacher understands the subject matter, knows how to teach it effectively, and is motivated
to come to school every day and work to help children learn;
The curriculum includes specific knowledge and skills relevant to students’ current environment
as well as the more general knowledge and skills that students will need to deal with new
challenges created by economic and social change; and
All learners have access to appropriate workbooks and other learning materials that
complement and reinforce teachers’ efforts (USAID, 2005, p. 8).
The third condition, above—allowing learners access to appropriate workbooks—is particularly
problematic for developing countries such as Ghana. In these countries, teacher salaries absorb the great
majority of education spending, leaving fewer funds for instructional materials such as textbooks, teacher’s
2
guides, and other learning materials (USAID, p. 5). This shortage of funds, compromises the overall quality
of the educational experience children receive.
Efforts to make basic education more accessible, notably by abolishing school fees (The World
Bank, 2009), has had positive effects. School enrollment has increased exponentially (Lewin, 2009).
According to the World Bank, in Ghana, enrollments of girls in Kindergarten increased from 316,176 in
2004/05 to 551,784 in 2006/07, or a 74.5% increase. During the same period, boys’ enrollment numbers
increased from 320,939 to 552,995, or a 72.3% increase. Kindergarten net enrollment rates rose from
34.4% in 2003/2004 to 55.8% in 2006/2007.
It is in this context that USAID, under former President Bush’s Africa Education Initiative, made an
8-year $600 million commitment to supporting a number of developing countries in reaching their
Education for All (EFA) goals. This commitment included “supporting partnerships between minority
serving institutions in America and African institutions to provide 15 million textbooks and other learning
tools for children in Africa (http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sectors/ed/index.html).
Chicago State University (CSU) was thus provided an opportunity to collaborate with the Ministry of
Education of the Republic of Ghana to develop the Textbooks and Learning Materials Program.
The CSU-TLMP/Ghana developed, reprinted and distributed over 2.5 million colored teaching and
learning materials, which included Numeracy, Literacy and Environmental Studies workbooks and teachers’
guides, as well as, over 300,000 wall-charts for use in the Kindergarten classrooms. These materials were
distributed in 14 districts within the 10 regions in Ghana that were identified as "deprived and had not
attained the Gender Parity Index." Approximately 159, Kindergarten teachers participated in the fall 2008
CSU-TLMP facilitated workshops to become trainers of other teachers in the use of the materials
distributed, specifically in the use of Numeracy, Literacy and Environmental Studies teaching and learning
materials.
3
In July 2009, the Ministry of Education, Ghana, published a country study report entitled, “An
Outcomes and Impacts Evaluation of the President’s African Education Initiative.” In the report, (Sarah
Agyeman-Duah, Director, CRDD (Curriculum Research and Development Division), Ghana Education
Service, Ministry of Education) commended the TLMP partnership on its efficiency. She stated,
“The Teaching and Learning Materials Program (TLMP) was one of the most successful USAID
programs ever run in Ghana with the MoE’s Ghana Education Service. Most projects don’t yield
lasting desirable effects for Ghana after the end of the activity. This time, TLMP was part of CRDD
activities and we are continuing the work.”
However, the report also noted that the partnership budget had not included monitoring the
materials’ usage in classrooms or their impact on the community. The report’s authors commented,
“The U.S. TLMP partner budgets did not initially include these activities, but in order to ensure that
the program impacts are achieved, it is important to evaluate the processes and procedures for
effective distribution and utilization of materials. When books are scarce resources, research
findings indicate the emergence of the following two issues: 1) head teachers and teachers may
keep them in storage, and 2) teachers may restrict their use, limiting children’s access and
ultimately their overall learning outcomes. The report’s authors also believe that teachers’
effective use of curriculum materials (teacher’s guides and children’s workbooks) is based on four
key elements: 1) access to curriculum materials; 2) development of content knowledge; 3)
appropriate use of age-appropriate teaching strategies and methodologies; and 4) ongoing
monitoring of curriculum implementation. Application of funds to monitor the use of curriculum
materials is an important element in determining TLMP’s overall effectiveness.
This recommendation for a new assessment of the TLMP partnership was incorporated in the
renewed grant awarded in September 2009. The methodology adopted by the new partnership includes
the following:
4
Conducting a “new needs assessment” in collaboration with the Ministry of Education (MOE),
Ghana Education Service (GES), and the Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD).
Evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of achieving specified results through the Program
Monitoring Plan (PMP) process.
Evaluating strategies or providing TLMs for selected deprived Ghanaian primary schools that have
not reached the gender parity index in order to enhance the teaching and learning materials
process.
Training 2,000 teachers in the use of the newly developed teaching and learning materials (TLMs)
and Teacher Guides, as well as the use of participatory and interactive methods of teaching
Kindergarten (KG) and primary 1-3 pupils.
Objectives of the Assessment
This assessment was guided by both the recommendation from the July 2009 Outcomes and
Impacts Evaluation of the President’s African Education Initiative to evaluate how well books were “actually
distributed and utilized” and the current partnership’s objective to conduct a “new needs assessment” in
collaboration with the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ghana Education Service (GES), and the Curriculum
Research and Development Division (CRDD).”
The TLMP teaching and learning materials were first distributed in October 2008. The pupils who
were in Kindergarten 1 had moved to Kindergarten 2 by the end of this assessment—June-July 2010.
Those children would have started with the TLMP materials and continued using them in Kindergarten 2.
That is why this assessment targeted Kindergarten 2 pupils and their teachers. Therefore, the purpose of
this assessment was to investigate the extent to which, based on the Kindergarten 2 experience, the
following five key objectives of the partnership were achieved:
1) The pupils’ workbooks, teacher guides and other materials were actually distributed.
2) The teachers and pupils actually utilized the materials.
3) The teachers were provided professional development in the use of the materials.
4) The partnership had an impact on parents and the community.
5
5) The partnership had an impact on pupils’ achievement.
In addition, participants were asked to make suggestions for changing the contents of the textbooks and
other teaching materials, and expanding the partnership to the rest of the country and to the upper
elementary grades (P4-P6).
Objectives of the Partnership
When the Chicago State University Ghana Textbooks and Learning Materials Program (TLMP) was
initially approved in October 2005, the target was to produce at least 600,000 textbooks and learning
materials by October 2008. To achieve this objective, the CSU TLMP would, notably
Establish partnerships with primary schools, higher education institutions and universities;
and
Develop additional education and private partners as required through the assessment,
identification, and design processes for high quality printing and cost-effective publication.
In September 2007, USAID approved a “Technical Application for Modification of the initial
Cooperative Agreement.” The following three objectives of the funding supplement for 2008/2009
specifically addressed the purpose of this assessment:
1) In partnership with the MoE, Chicago State University will provide a total minimum of 3,000,000, color
copies of high quality, cost-effective workbooks and Teacher’s Guides and TLMs in
Numeracy/Mathematics, Environmental Studies and English/Literacy, for grade levels Kindergarten 1
through Kindergarten 2 that are responsive to age and gender norms. This will add to the 900,000
workbooks, teacher’s guides and TLMs that have already been developed, printed and distributed in
the 13 districts within the 10 regions identified as “deprived and have not attained Gender Parity
Index.” In addition, CSU will continue to write materials for Primary 1 in the Natural Sciences.
6
2) Continue to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of achieving specified results in the 13 districts
within the 10 regions originally adopted by the TLMP in order to enhance the effectiveness of the
teaching process.
3) MOE and CSU will train 1,000 teachers in the use of the newly developed Teacher Guides and TLMs, as
well as in the use of participatory and interactive methods of teaching KG1 and KG2 pupils.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent of use and impact of the materials
(Numeracy, Literacy and Environmental Studies) in Kindergarten 2 level classes in randomly selected
schools in all of the 14 beneficiary districts. Other teaching and learning materials that were re-edited by
the Ghana Education Service, although reprinted with the partnership funds, were not included in the
assessment. The impact of the project was assessed through questionnaires, classroom observations,
interviews, and analysis of documents.
Researchers from Chicago State University were paired with Ghanaian researchers, and travelled to
all 14 beneficiary districts in teams of three to four. From Chicago State University, there were three lead
researchers, two researchers from the TLMP office and six student interns. On the Ghanaian side, there
were the following researchers: a lead researcher from the Curriculum and Research Development Division
(CRDD) of the Ghana Education Service, a lead researcher from the University of Education, Winneba, a
lead researcher from the University of Cape Coast, two researchers and one student intern from the
University of Education, Winneba, and three student interns from the University of Cape Coast.
Before field researchers started class observations and interviews, they distributed questionnaires
in sealed envelopes with the help of District Education Offices. Each questionnaire was distributed with a
stamped return-mail envelope to be returned to the USAID/CSU In-country office. A letter addressed to
7
the District Director (Appendix A) described the project, and requested assistance in sending the
questionnaires to the following employees in each district:
District Director of Education: 1 questionnaire
District Early Childhood Coordinator: 1 questionnaire
Circuit Supervisors : 2 questionnaires
Head Teachers: 3 schools X 1 head teacher X 1 questionnaire = 3 questionnaires
KG2 Teachers: 9 schools X 2 KG 2 classes X 1 teacher = 18 questionnaires
Drs. Athanase Gahungu, Karen A. Freeman and Angelique S. Jackson randomly selected the names of
questionnaire respondents from lists provided by the TLMP-Ghana In-country office. Interviews of
teachers and parents as well as classroom observations took place in June-July 2010.
The data collected were returned to the TLMP Ghana In-country office and then copies were sent to
Chicago State University, where they were analyzed. Another complete set of the interview transcripts and
completed questionnaires were left in Ghana for Ghanaian researchers to analyze. The two teams
conducted the analysis simultaneously.
TLMP Assessment Timeline
August 2009: Two lead researchers from CSU met with GES-CRDD and CSU to revise assessment
instruments. Final version of instruments submitted to CSU, MoE, GES and USAID.
September-October 2009: The research team applied for the Chicago State University Institutional
review Board approval.
December-January 2010: The team submitted a request to Ghana Minister of Education to
conduct the study in schools.
Spring 2010 semester: Chicago State University student interns enrolled in an orientation course
taught by the TLMP instructors.
April-May 2010: Researchers and student interns participated in a 9-day orientation workshop in
observation and interview techniques at Chicago State University.
8
June 2010 (one week): Ghanaian researchers participated in five intensive days of training in
observation and interview techniques.
June 2010 (three days): Ghanaian and CSU researchers participated in a joint workshop on field
work and cross-cultural sensitization.
June 2010: Two questionnaires were distributed directly to the Ministry of Education in return-
mail envelopes addressed to the TLMP in-country office in Accra.
CRDD-GES: one official from the Curriculum Research and Development Division of
Ghana Education Service.
National ECD: one national Early Childhood Coordinator.
June 2010: The remainder of the questionnaires were distributed with the assistance of district
education offices.
June-July (Third Term of School in Ghana) 2010: Researchers traveled in teams of three or four
members to schools in all 14 districts where they observed classrooms and interviewed teachers
and parents of KG 2 pupils:
KG 2 Teachers interviewed and observed: 14 districts X 3 schools per district X 2
teachers per school= 84 Teachers.
Parents interviewed: 14 districts X 3 parents per district= 42 parents.
9
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
Findings from the assessment are presented in six main sections: (1) descriptive data, (2) extent of
use, (3) training in the use of TLMP materials, (4) impact of the program on parents and the community, (5)
the impact of the partnership on pupils’ achievement, and (6) suggested changes. The researchers
collected data from interviews with parents, observation of classrooms and interviews with Kindergarten 2
level teachers and responses to survey questions by teachers and administrators.
Descriptive Data
Descriptive data were used to summarize the characteristics of the study participants, the profiles of
the 14 TLMP beneficiary school districts, and the numbers of TLMP workbooks and teachers’ guides that
were distributed as of November 2009. The attempt was to establish, from the start, an association
between the supply of materials and their extent of use and impact.
Study Participants
As Table 1 shows, in some districts, assessment teams were only able to interview two parents or
two teachers, instead of 3 parents and six teachers, respectively. Regarding teachers, the assessment
teams soon found out that the schools only had one main teacher for Kindergarten 2; the second teacher,
if there was one, was a teacher’s aide who did not have teaching experiences related to the assessment.
Similarly, not all questionnaires distributed were returned. Only one district—Nadowli—returned all
18 questionnaires for teachers. However, some districts also returned more administrator questionnaires
than the assessment team had requested. For instance, from Garu-Tempane, seven head teachers, instead
of three, returned the questionnaires. In that district, not only did they use all the extra questionnaires,
but also they requested other questionnaires from the CSU-TLMP Ghana in-country office in Accra.
Besides respondents at the school and district levels, the Early Childhood Coordinator and one
official from Ghana Education Service were invited to participate in the study. The national Early Childhood
10
Coordinator returned the questionnaire; however, because of issues of anonymity and confidentiality, the
responses the administrator provided were only used to supplement those of other administrators.
Table 1: Assessment Participants by District and Assessment Form
District Interviews and Observations
Questionnaires Returned
Teachers Parents Interviewed
Teachers Head Teachers
Circ Super
Distr ECD
Distr Director
National ECD
Accra Metro 2 3 17 2 2 1 1
1
Amansie West 3 3 4 3 1 1 1
Assin North 3 3 17 3 1 1 1
Bia Western 3 3 6 3 1 1 1
Birim North 3 3 6 1 2 1 1
Chereponi 3 3 16 2 2 1 1
Ga East 3 2 13 1 2 -- --
Garu-Tempane 3 3 12 4 2 1 1
Ho 3 3 -- -- -- 1 --
Krachi West 2 2 13 5 2 1 1
Nadowli 3 3 18 3 2 1 1
Pru 3 4 15 7 3 1 1
Saboba 3 3 10 3 2 1 1
Sawla-Tuna Kalba 3 3 12 2 2 1 1
Total 40 41 159 39 24 13 12 1
Table 2 provides a breakdown of questionnaire respondents by the number of years they had been
in the teaching profession and in their current position. Of special mention is the sharp contrast between
the short amount of time teachers have been in the profession and the long length of time that their
administrators have. The majority of teachers—80 out of 159 (50.3%)—had only been in teaching for five
years or a shorter period; only 14 (8.8%) teachers had been in the teaching profession for 16 years or a
longer time. By contrast, staggering numbers of administrators have been in the profession for 16 years
and more. Twenty-six of the 39 head teachers (66.2%), 17 of the 24 circuit supervisors (70.8%), 12 of the
13 district early childhood coordinators (92%), and 10 of the 12 district directors of education (83.3%) had
been in the teaching profession for 16 years and more. Moreover, not including participants who did not
answer the question about years of experience, 100% of district early childhood coordinators have been in
the profession for 16 years or more, while an astounding 100% of the district directors of education have
11
been in the profession for 31 years or longer. The median number of years of experience for the district
directors is 34.5, which ranges from 32 to 38. However, they have not been very long in their current
positions. The district directors’ median number of years in the current positions was only 2, with a range
of one to eight years.
Table 2: Respondents by Years of Experience in the Teaching Profession and Years Spent in their Current
Positions
Teacher (N = 159) Head Teacher (N = 39)
Circuit Supervisor (N =24)
D Early Childhood Coord. (N= 13)
District Director (N = 12)
Experience Position Experience Position Experience Position Experience Position Experience Position
N/A No Response
35 -- 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 2
0-5 yrs 80(50%) -- 1 22(56%) 18(75%) 10(62%) 8(67.7%)
6-10 yrs 25 -- 5 7 3 1 2
11-15 yrs 5 -- 6 4 4 1
16-30 yrs 11 -- 22(56%) 4 15(62.5%) 7(54%)
31 & over 3 4(10.2%) -- 2(8.3%) 5(38%) 10(83.3%)
TLMP Distribution
The following three tables summarize the number of TLMP materials that were distributed to the
14 beneficiary school districts. It must be noted, that, in 2008/2009, Saboba and Chereponi were counted
as one district. Therefore, 13 districts are shown in the three tables. First, some key vital statistics related
to Kindergarten education in the TLMP beneficiary districts are cross-tabulated alongside the TLMP
workbooks and teachers’ guides distributed for the corresponding 2008/2009 school year (Table 3). As the
table shows, the training of KG teachers is a serious problem. Only the Accra Metropolitan, Abokobi (Ga
East), and Ho municipalities had more than half of their KG teachers trained. In the Bia district, for
instance, only one percent of teachers were trained.
By comparison, in the rest of the country, of 29,411 teachers in public Kindergartens and 8,302
teachers in private Kindergartens, 31.3% and 6.8%, respectively, are trained. It must be noted that, except
for the three districts with more than 50% of their KG teachers trained, the rates of trained female
teachers at the Kindergarten level is far below the national rate.
12
According to the data provided by the Ministry of Education, regarding the availability of core
textbooks, only two districts had a ratio of one textbook to one pupil—Nadowli and Sawla-Tuna-Kalba. The
question to ask is whether TLMP workbooks are considered core textbooks, and whether they were
counted during the 2008/2009 school year. If they had been counted, the ratio would have been higher.
In addition, all 14 districts are close to achieving gender parity, or have already achieved it.
Table 3: Profile of the Beneficiary (Public) School Districts (2008/2009)
District KG Enrollment Trained KG Teachers KG Core Textbooks KG TLMP Distributed
Total Girls %Girls %Male %Fem. Total Per Pupil Env Stu Liter Num
Accra Metro 11,877 6,001 50.5 76.5 87.5 6,196 0.5 36,273 30,732 30,732
Amansie West 10,597 5,222 49.3 26.5 5.0 7,811 0.7 18,116 12,237 12,237
Assin North 9,413 4,507 47.9 17.1 25.4 5,046 0.5 16,211 10,833 10,833
Bia 13,000 6,443 49.6 0.0 1.1 7,695 0.6 20,094 14,221 14,221
Birim North 8,857 4,509 50.9 32.3 26.4 4,429 0.5 15,352 10,807 10,807
Ga East* 4,842 2,359 48.7 100.0 84.8 1,612 0.3 18,877 13,346 13,346
Garu Tempane 7,179 3,563 49.6 6.3 10.0 4,857 0.7 10,939 7,613 7,613
Ho 10,436 5,114 49.0 73.9 82.9 4,606 0.4 17,386 14,431 14,431
Krachi West 9,349 4,514 48.3 25.9 11.5 7,332 0.8 15,625 9,586 9,586
Nadowli 4,999 2,631 52.6 22.2 26.9 4,886 1.0 6,214 4,078 4,078
Pru 9,243 4,621 50.0 30.3 11.5 3,757 0.4 13,593 9,314 9,314
Saboba-Chereponi 4,497 2,272 50.5 9.1 2.0 2,475 0.6 6,395 3,988 3,988
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 3,597 1,835 51.2 36.4 10.9 3,866 1.1 5,509 3,940 3,940
Nation 1,078,973 537,859 49.8 29.2 31.7 78,407 0.1
Source: CRDD TLMP Distribution; Ministry of Education Basic District Profile 2008/2009. *Ministry of Education Publications refer to Abokobi District *Chereponi is now a separate district
Extent of Use of TLMP
This section is about the extent of use of the TLMP workbooks, teacher guides and other materials.
The report attempts to answer the questions of whether the TLMP are indeed used in classrooms, are in
sufficient numbers for children and teachers, why some children do not use them, and how many periods
TLMP and non-TLMP materials are used during the week.
Slow Start of the Distribution of the TLMP: First Three Months of the Distribution Process
A question about the planning of the timely distribution of TLMP workbooks can be asked based on
this table. As Table 4 highlights, by the end of December 2008, that is, after three months of TLMP
distribution, six districts had not received TLMP workbooks and/or teachers’ guides—Garu-Tempane, Ho,
13
Krachi West, Nadowli, Saboba-Chereponi, Sawla-Tuna-Kalba. Further discussion may be needed to
understand the reasons for late distribution of materials and the impact such a situation may have on
teachers program coordinators, and ultimately child outcomes.
Table 4: TLMP Workbooks and Teacher Guides Distributed to Districts by the End of the First Three
Months of Distribution (Oct. 27, 2008-Dec. 28, 2008)
District KG1 Enroll
KG2 Enroll
Type Environ. Stud1
My 1st Literacy
My 1st Numeracy
Environ. Stud2
My 2nd
Literacy
My 2nd
Numeracy
Accra Metro 6202 5675
Wkbk 14,895 14,895 14,895 15,847 15,837 15,837
TG 537 537 537 537 537 537
Amansie West
6028 4569 Wkbk 6,717 6,717 6,717 5,520 5,520 5,520
TG 142 142 142 142 142 142
Assin North 4952 4461
Wkbk 6,059 6,059 6,059 4,774 4,774 4,774
TG 101 101 101 101 101 101
Bia 7799 5201
Wkbk 8,372 8,372 8,372 5,849 5,849 5,849
TG 151 151 151 151 151 151
Birim North 5294 3563
Wkbk 6,192 6,192 6,192 4,615 4,615 4,615
TG 116 116 116 116 116 116
Ga East 2487 2355
Wkbk 5,536 5,536 5,536 7,810 7,810 7,810
TG 205 205 205 205 205 205
Garu-Tempane 3961 3218
Wkbk 4,753 -- 4,753 -- -- 2,860
TG 54 -- 54 54 -- 54
Ho
6213 4223 Wkbk 6,638 -- 6,638 -- -- 4,793
TG 172 -- 172 171 171 171
Krachi West
5376 3961 Wkbk 5,402 -- 5,402 -- -- 4,184
TG 66 66 66 66 66 66
Nadowli
3115 1884 Wkbk 2,523 -- 2,523 -- -- 1,555
TG 37 -- 37 37 -- 37
Pru-Yeji
5449 3794 Wkbk 5,439 5,439 5,489 3,875 3,875 3,875
TG 83 83 82 82 82 82
Saboba Chereponi 2375 2122
Wkbk 2,117 -- 2,117 -- -- 1,871
TG 30 -- 30 30 30 30
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 2136 1451
Wkbk 2,441 -- 2,441 -- -- 1,499
TG 35 -- 35 35 -- 35
Source: Ghana Education Service. TLMP Distribution. Ministry of Education Basic School Report 2008/2009
Availability of TLMs after Two Years of Distribution: 2008/2009 and 2009/2010
This assessment was conducted during the 3rd Term of the 2009/2010 school year. The data
summarized in Table 5 attempted to answer the question of availability of materials for two consecutive
years in Kindergarten classrooms. The top part of the table looks at pupils in “public” Kindergartens alone.
The bottom part summarizes data for all Kindergarten pupils for the 2008/2009 school year—public and
private combined. The table also provides net enrollment rates for all 4-5 year-old children during the
14
2008/2009 school year. Pupils who were enrolled in Kindergarten 1 during the 2008/2009 school year
would be promoted to Kindergarten 2 during the 2009/2010 school year. By combining 2008/09
Kindergarten 1 and Kindergarten 2 children, one can examine whether pupils had had enough workbooks
for two consecutive years.
As Table 5 shows, in all the 14 public school districts, except Nadowli, the TLMP workbooks were
supplied at a ratio of at least one workbook per pupil. In other words, all public KG2 classrooms in the 14
districts, except Nadowli, were assured enough copies of the Environmental Studies 2, My Second Literacy,
and My Second Numeracy, at a ratio of at least one workbook per pupil, for two consecutive years—
2008/2009 and 2009/2010 school years. In Nadowli, copies of My Second Literacy and My Second
Numeracy workbooks fell short of the combined number of 4,999 pupils; only 4,977 copies were
distributed. By comparison, other districts such as Accra Metropolitan and Ga East received at least 4
copies of the workbooks for each pupil enrolled in public Kindergarten.
The same calculation was done by combining public and private kindergarten enrollments. With
the exception of Nadowli, there was at least one workbook for each pupil. These ratios must be taken with
caution because of low “net enrollment rates” (NER) in such districts as Accra Metropolitan and Sawla-
Tuna-Kalba, Garu-Tempane, Nadowli, Saboba-Chereponi where fewer than 50% of 4-5 year-olds were
enrolled in Kindergarten. In those districts, especially at the Kindergarten 1 level, planners must take
possible increases in enrollments into account as they request materials.
Several questions may need to be posed. First, what enrollment data were used to distribute the
materials? Second, was there a plan for monitoring how the surpluses would be used? Finally, how did a
district such as Nadowli manage the shortage of workbooks? Did the district officials have an opportunity
to coordinate their enrollment data and projections, including distribution maps, timetable, and criteria
with the TLMP partnership?
15
Table 5: Per Public KG2 Pupil Workbooks, for the 2008/09 and 2009/10 School Years, by District
District KG1+KG2 NER* Environ Stud2
My 2nd Literacy
My 2nd Num.
Env Stud2 Per Pupil
My 2nd Lit Per Pupil
My 2nd Num. Per Pupil
Public Kindergarten
Accra Metro 11877 27.5 48,617 50,679 50,679 4.1 4.3 4.3
Amansie West 10597 91.4 20,298 17,664 17,664 1.9 1.7 1.7
Assin North 9413 73.1 18,074 15,278 15,278 1.9 1.6 1.6
Bia 13000 92.5 24,269 18,717 18,717 1.9 1.4 1.4
Birim North 8857 68.2 18,239 14,759 14,759 2.1 1.7 1.7
Ga East 4842 108.9 19,990 16,401 16,401 4.1 3.4 3.4
Garu-Tempane 7179 45.4 13,318 9,152 9,152 1.9 1.3 1.3
Ho 10436 58.5 19,397 15,339 15,339 1.9 1.5 1.5
Krachi West 9337 80.9 16,070 13,390 13,390 1.7 1.4 1.4
Nadowli 4999 44.2 7,107 4,977 4,977 1.4 0.999 0.999
Pru-Yeji 9243 76.3 17,039 12,401 12,401 1.8 1.3 1.3
Saboba Chereponi 4497 43.3 6,529 5,989 5,989 1.5 1.3 1.3
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 3587 32.5 6,871 4,797 4,797 1.9 1.3 1.3
Private and Public Kindergarten Combined
Accra Metro 31038 27.5 48,617 50,679 50,679 1.6 1.6 1.6
Amansie West 12044 91.4 20,298 17,664 17,664 1.7 1.5 1.5
Assin North 10855 73.1 18,074 15,278 15,278 1.7 1.4 1.4
Bia 14812 92.5 24,269 18,717 18,717 1.6 1.3 1.3
Birim North 10160 68.2 18,239 14,759 14,759 1.8 1.5 1.5
Ga East 11205 108.9 19,990 16,401 16,401 1.8 1.5 1.5
Garu-Tempane 7849 45.4 13,318 9,152 9,152 1.7 1.2 1.2
Ho 11552 58.5 19,397 15,339 15,339 1.7 1.3 1.3
Krachi West 9867 80.9 16,070 13,390 13,390 1.6 1.4 1.4
Nadowli 5054 44.2 7,107 4,977 4,977 1.4 1.0 1.0
Pru-Yeji 10042 76.3 17,039 12,401 12,401 1.7 1.2 1.2
Saboba Chereponi 4780 43.3 6,529 5,989 5,989 1.4 1.3 1.3
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 3776 32.5 6,871 4,797 4,797 1.8 1.3 1.3
Source: Ghana Education Service, TLMP Distribution. Ministry of Education District Level Enrollment Data Note: NER*: Net Enrollment Rate for 2008/2009, Based on 2000 National Population Census.
16
TLMP Used During Classroom Observations
During classroom observations, assessment teams were instructed to record all TLMP workbooks,
teacher’s guides, and wall charts they saw being used. The focus was on the three titles designed and
produced by Chicago State University—Environmental Studies II, My Second Literacy, and My Second
Numeracy. However, other reprinted materials seen in the classrooms were also reported. Teachers and
head teachers were informed, before the visits, that researchers would be observing a lesson in which one
of the three TLMP textbooks was used.
Table 6 shows the number of workbooks assessment teams observed, or of which the teacher
informed them. Five teachers did not have any TLMP textbooks available during the observation. In cases
where the textbooks were not used, but were stored in the (head teacher’s) office, as was the case in
Krachi West, the assessment team recorded the numbers. It would be worth returning to the schools and
districts where the TLMP materials were not observed, and further explore with the Teacher, Head
Teacher, Circuit Supervisor, Early Childhood Coordinator, and District Director of Education, where the
textbooks and wall charts are located and how they are used.
17
Table 6: TLMP Recorded during Class Observations by School and District
District School Children Environ Studies Literacy Numeracy Wall Charts
Comments
Children Boys Girls Work-book
T’s Guide
Work-book
T’s Guide
Work-book
T’s Guide
Accra Metro
Sch1 Numeracy
53 60 1 61 1 51 1 15 Environmental Studies workbooks looked barely used.
Sch 3 Literacy
42 48 1 49 1 48 1 4 Teacher made her own activity books with enough space for children to write.
Ga East
Sch 1 Env Stud
9 60 2 60 2 60 2 12 Teacher did not use posters during class observation.
Sch 2 Env Stud
5 31 1 30 1 0 1 13 Children shared books even though there were enough copies.
Sch 3 Env Stud
11 50 1 0 1 50 1 20
Assin North
Sch 1 Numeracy
27 24 1 54 1 56 2 0 Numeracy workbooks look barely used; other workbooks do look used.
Sch 2 Numeracy
26 38 1 48 1 43 1 13 Environmental Studies workbooks look barely used
Sch 3 Numeracy
57 60 1 63 1 63 1 5 Posters on the wall. Teacher extensively used teacher-created manipulatives.
Ho
Sch 1 Literacy
18/23 9/12 60 1 60 1 60 1 19 Teacher says “My Second Literacy” is better than “Let’s Read and Write” and other non-TLMP. It has color.
Sch 2 Numeracy
14 0 0 0 0 14 1 2 Teacher also has five NALAP posters.
Sch 3 Numeracy
31 60 1 64 1 55 1 13
Bia
Sch 1 Env Stud
26/37 31/34
60 1 60 1 60 1 0 Class outdoors; not possible to have/use charts/posters
Sch 2 23/33 12/14
60 1 60 1 60 1 16 Workbooks looked worn. Teacher says books not covered properly for home use.
Sch 3 Env Stud
8/15 10/15
63 1 40 1 56 1 0 KG2 has no permanent classroom; KG2 cannot have/use wall charts. Unused books
Amansie
Sch 1 Env Stud
17/19 20/31
60 1 60 1 60 1 0 No charts. Books look very used
Sch 2 22/34 8/22 60 1 60 1 60 1 -- No charts. Books almost finished. Extensive use of
18
Numeracy manipulatives.
Sch 3 Env Stud
8/15 3/8 29 1 35 1 28 1 40 Teacher says book covers are not fit for home use. Charts not on wall
Birim North
Sch 1 Env Stud
10/13 9/14 66 0 73 1 0 1 20 Posters not on wall
Sch 2 Env Stud
30/37 25/36
80 1 80 1 80 1 10
Sch 3 Env Stud
7 16 22 1 10 1 14 1 3 Teacher did not receive enough workbooks.
Nadowli
Sch 1 Literacy
20 35 -- 1 -- 1 1 1 -- Children had copies of “Let’s Read and Write*” books. Not enough TLMPs
Sch 2 Numeracy
43 14 -- 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- The teacher had a stack of “Kindergarten Mathematics*” books. Not used.
Sch 3 Literacy
15 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Teacher says children share TLMPs. No TLMPs seen during observation.
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba
Sch 1 Literacy
40 30 -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Teacher says there are not enough TLMP. No TLMP used/seen during observation.
Sch 2 Env. Stud
32 10 8 1 -- -- 14 1 Yes Teachers has wall charts, but not hung. Teacher says children are allowed to take books home.
Sch 3 Numeracy
21 11 -- 1 -- 1 -- 1 Teacher says she received 100 copies of Environmental Studies workbooks, 70 copies of Literacy and 70 copies of Numeracy, which were issued to pupils the previous year. Now, no copies left.
Garu-Tempane
Sch 1 nc/o nc/o Each child had a literacy workbook with a name on it 1 One wall chart rolled up on a desk.
Sch 2 125 No textbooks seen yes Teacher uses wall charts.
Sch 3 nc/o nc/o Children no TLMP books 1 Children have English books. There was one wall chart rolled up on a desk.
Chereponi
Sch 1 nc/o nc/o Children have workbooks, but no charts 0 The district has no wall charts.
Sch 2 nc/o nc/o Very limited amounts of workbooks; no teacher’s guides for Numeracy and Environmental Studies
0
Sch 3 nc/o nc/o No TLMP workbooks seen, but teacher had a teacher’s guide
0 A mixture of KG1 and KG2 children in the classroom.
Saboba
Sch 1 nc/o nc/o Not enough workbooks nc/o
Sch 2 nc/o nc/o Enough numeracy workbooks nc/o
Sch 3 nc/o nc/o Some children do not have workbooks nc/o
Krachi Sch 1 20/50 nc/0 nc/o nc/o nc/o 50 1 nc/o Wall charts kept in office.
19
Numeracy
Sch 2 Env Stud
38/52 52 1 0 1 nc/o nc/o nc/o Charts on wall, but not counted. Each child had an Environmental Studies Workbook.
Pru
Sch 1 Literacy
32 nc/o nc/o 40 1 nc/o nc/o nc/o Wall charts, environmental studies and literacy workbooks and teachers’ guides are kept in Head Teacher’s office. Wall charts were not used during observation.
Sch 2 Numeracy
56 -- -- -- -- -- 1 0 There were environmental studies books in the classroom, but not distributed to pupils.
Sch 3 Env. Stud
53/73 -- -- -- 1 -- -- 6 The teacher stated that all students have a book of their own in all subjects. No TLMP used during observation.
Notes: 1. The task of the field researchers was to count the number of Environmental Studies II, My Second Literacy, and My Second Numeracy. This table is about these three sets of teaching
and learning materials. Other GES textbooks produced by the TLMP such as Kindergarten Mathematics II were noted. Also noted were textbooks such as Let’s Read and Write. 2. nc/o = not counted or observed. The field researchers did not count the materials, or the number of children. 3. 38/52= 38 children were present in class; 52 children are enrolled in the class. 4. 4. Boys and girls. The number of girls and boys was counted at some schools. At other schools, only the combined number was recorded.
20
Teachers Report Inadequate Supplies of TLMP Materials
In all districts, except one, at least one participant was concerned that the TLMP materials were not
in sufficient numbers. The top reason provided for TLMP materials not been in sufficient numbers,
according to 56 teachers (35.2%), 12 head teachers (30.8%), 9 circuit supervisors (37.5%) and three district
early childhood coordinators (23%), was that the supply was inadequate (Table 7). The second reason was
that enrollments increased after the supply. A corollary question was asked why some children were not
using the materials. In addition to insufficient materials, children who were admitted late did not receive
the workbooks.
Some responses merit more investigation. They include suggestions that the TLMP materials may
be costly, or that TLMP were not used because of a lack of pencils to write and draw. Similarly, suggestions
that schools located far from the “store” did not receive materials, or districts that did not have storage did
not receive materials should be addressed to program coordinators. Most importantly, as shown above, in
Table 5, all the school districts “should” have had enough copies of the Kindergarten 2 pupils’ workbooks.
More questions could be about increases in enrollments at the KG2 level, and how those increases were
planned and managed.
Table 7: Reasons for Insufficient TLMP Materials
Problem Teachers Head Teachers
Circuit Superv
D. ECD Coord
Insufficient supply 56(35.2%) 12(30.8%) 9(37.5%) 3(23.1%)
Large or increased enrollments 7(4.4%) 1 1 1
Children admitted late 6(3.8%) 2(5.1%) 1
No TLMP supplied 2 2(5.1%) 1 1
Cost of some TLMP 2
Newly absorbed schools 2
Children admitted before TLMP were introduced 1
Children not registered with GES 1
Lack of pencils to write and draw 1
Lack of storage; they get spoiled easily 1
Only posters were supplied 1
TLMP not supplied to schools far from the store 1
21
Use of TLMP Materials during Periods of Instruction
The first set of questions in this section asked the teachers and their administrators to indicate how
often TLMP materials were used all the time, and for how many periods per week. Regarding the
frequency of use, all the teachers in five of the 13 participating districts indicated that they used TLMP
materials almost all the time: Accra Metro, Amansie West, Assin North, Bia, Birim North, Krachi West,
Nadowli, and Saboba. In the remaining five districts, at least one teacher used the TLMP materials rarely:
Chereponi, Ga East, Garu Tempane, Pru, and Sawla-Tuna-Kalba.
In response to how many periods per week TLMP and non-TLMP materials were used by teachers
and children, estimates varied by districts. Table 8 summarizes the frequency percentages for responding
teachers about whether they and their pupils used TLMP or non-TLMP materials for 25 periods per week or
more. Twenty-five periods per week would mean that the teacher or pupils used the materials for all five
periods per day for core subjects. Indeed, one teacher explained that s/he used the TLMP in the morning
with every core lesson and the non-TLMP in the afternoon for other lessons. Administrators’ responses are
provided in comments.
Using the materials for more than 25 periods would mean that the TLMP materials were used both
in the morning and afternoon. A more complete table is attached in Appendix D.
22
Table 8: Frequency Distribution of Teachers in Whose Classrooms TLMP and Non-TLMP Materials Are
Used 25 Periods per Week or More
Pupils Use TMLP
Teachers Use TLMP
Children Use Non-TLMP
Teachers Use Non-TLMP
Comments
Accra Metro (N=17) 16(94.1%) 14(82.3%) 1 1
Amansie (N=4) 4(100%) 4(100%) 0 0
Assin North (N= 17) 7(41.2%) 10(58.8%) 2 1 District ECD estimates 13 periods per week for TLMP use by Children and teachers.
Bia (N = 6) 5(83.3%) 5(83.3%) 1 1
Birim North (N=6) 5(83.3%) 6(100%) 0 0 Circuit supervisors estimate 20 periods of TLMP for pupils and 35 for teachers.
Chereponi (N = 16) 6(37.5%) 6(37.5%) 0 0
Ga East (N = 13) 2(15.4%) 2(15.4%) 0 0 Circuit supervisors estimate TLMP are used 12 or 6 periods.
Garu-Tempane (N=12) 4(33.3%) 4(33.3%) 0 0 District Early Childhood estimates 12 periods of TLMP use.
Ho District Early Childhood estimates 13 periods of TLMP use.
Krachi West (N= 13) 6(46.1%) 8(46.1%) 0 3
Nadowli (N = 18) 10(55.6%) 12(66.7%) 1 1
Pru (N= 15) 5(33.3%) 5(33.3%) 0 0 Circuit supervisors estimate 12 periods of TLMP for pupils and teachers.
Saboba (N = 10) 6(60%) 3(30%) 0 0 District Early Childhood Coordinator estimates 12 periods of TLMP for pupils and teachers.
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba (N=12)
9(75%) 8(66.7%) 2 2 Circuit supervisors estimate 12 periods of TLMP for pupils.
While using TLMP 25 periods per week, or all five days of the week, may mean that those materials
are essential for a class, not using TLMP or non-TLMP materials any period during the week, may mean
that the teacher does not have any, or cannot use them. Table 9 shows the number of teachers who never
used one type or both types of materials—TLMP or non-TLMP. As the table shows, TLMP seems to be used
for at least some “period” during the week. By contrast, quite a number of teachers in many districts
never use non-TLMP materials.
23
Table 9: Frequency Distribution of Teachers in Whose Classrooms TLMP and Non-TLMP Materials Are
Used 0 Periods Week
Pupils Do Not Use
TMLP
Teachers Do Not
Use TLMP
Children Do Not Use
Non-TLMP
Teachers Do Not Use Non-
TLMP
Comments
Accra Metro (N=17) 0 0 8(47.1%) 7(41.2%) 2 Head Teachers: Teachers use 0 periods of non-TLMP.
Amansie (N=4) 0 0 2 2
Assin North (N= 17) 0 0 6 12(70.6%) 1 Circuit Supervisor: teachers and pupils use 0 periods on non-TLMP.
Bia (N = 6) 0 0 4(75%) 5(83.3%) 1 Circuit Supervisor and 1 District ECD Coordinator: 0 periods of non-TLMP for teachers and pupils.
Birim North (N=6) 0 0 5(83.3%) 5(83.3%)
1 Head Teacher: 0 periods of non-TLMP for teachers and pupils. 1 Circuit Supervisor: 0 non-TLMP for teachers 1 D ECD Coordinator.: 0 non-TLMP for pupils
Chereponi (N = 16) 0 0 4 4 1 D ECD Coordinator: 0 non-TLMP for teachers
Ga East (N = 13) 0 0 0 0
Garu-Tempane (N=12) 0 0 6(50%) 6(50%) 1D ECD: 0 non-TLMP for teachers and pupils
Ho -- -- -- --
Krachi West (N= 13) 0 0 2 2
Nadowli (N = 18) 0 0 3 6
Pru (N= 15) 0 0 6 4 1D ECD: 0 non-TLMP for teachers and pupils
Saboba (N = 10) 0 0 4 5(50%) 1 Circuit Supervisor: 0 non-TLMP for teachers and pupils
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba (N=12)
0 0 6(50%) 6(50%) 2 Head Teachers: 0 non-TLMP for teachers and pupils
Total (N=159) 0 0 56(35%) 62(39%)
Training of Teachers in the Use of TLMP
This section summarizes the impact, if any, of professional development on the teachers’ use of
TLMP materials. Teachers, during interviews and on questionnaires, were asked whether they participated
in professional development. Professional development is of two types—in-service training (INSET)
sessions organized by the districts or schools, and TLMP-sponsored and facilitated Training of Trainers
(TOT) workshops. In 2008, two Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops were organized in Koforidua and
Sunyani.
24
In-Service Training in the Use of TLMP Materials
On the survey questionnaires, teachers were asked whether they participated in training in the use
of the TLMP materials. Of the 159 respondents, 129 (81.1%) participated in training sessions. Table 10
provides the frequency distribution of the teachers who participated in such training by district.
Table 10: Frequency Distribution of Teachers Who Received In-SET in the Use of TLMP
District Total Trained %Trained
Accra Metro 17 7 41.2%
Amansie West 4 4 100%
Assin North 17 17 100%
Bia 6 6 100%
Birim North 6 6 100%
Chereponi 16 11 68.7%
Ga East 13 12 92.3%
Garu Tempane 12 9 75.0%
Krachi West 13 9 69.2%
Nadowli 18 15 83.3%
Pru 15 12 80.0%
Saboba 10 9 90.0%
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 12 12 100%
Total 159 129 81.1%
Administrators were also asked to indicate whether the teachers in their jurisdiction had
participated in in-service training sessions. In contrast to responses provided by teachers, a number of
administrators reported that their teachers had not had any training. For instance, the district early
childhood coordinator in Bia estimated that no teacher in the district had been trained in the use of TLMP.
In the same district, the district director recalled that, initially, 10 teachers had attended the “train the
trainers” workshop, but they were no longer in the district. Special attention should be given to a district
like Saboba where, in one circuit, all teachers had received in-service training, but in another circuit, no
one had received such training (Table 11).
25
Table 11: Administrators’ Estimates of Teachers who Received in Usage of TLMP?
District Head Teachers Circuit Supervisors District ECD/District Director
Accra Metro School 1: 0 teachers School 2: 1 teacher
- Circuit 1: all teachers trained - Circuit 2: 0
ECD/DD: 8 out of 350
Amansie West School 1: 1 teacher School 2: 2 teachers School 3: 2 teachers
- Circuit 1: 0 ECD: 222 DD: 220
Assin North - School 1: 1 of 2 teachers - School 2: 4 teachers - School 3: 2 teachers
- Circuit 1: 10 % of trained teachers transferred out of circuit
DD: 360 were trained, but some have left the district/region.
Bia - School 1: 0 teachers - School 2: 0 - School 3: 2
- Circuit 1: 0
ECD: no KG teacher in the district has been trained in the use of TLMP materials
DD: 10 received TOT training at Koforidua, but never trained others.
Birim North - School 1: 3
- Circuit 1: 100% KG teachers trained - Circuit 2: 100% KG teachers trained
ECD/DD: 152
Chereponi - School 1: 3 - School 2: 1
- Circuit 1: 7 - Circuit 2: 60 trained in the second circuit, but they are not professional KG teachers
ECD: 10 teachers DD: 5
Ga East - School 1: 0 - Circuit 1: about 50% of the teachers - Circuit 2: 0 trained teachers
Garu-Tempane
- School 1: 2 - School 2: 2 - School 3: 1 - School 4: 0
- Circuit 1: 156 of 163 trained teachers - Circuit 2: 0 trained teachers
ECD/DD: 136 out of 156 teachers have been trained
Krachi West
- School 1: 0 - School 2: 0 - School 3: 4 out of 7 - School 4: 1 - School 5: 2
- Circuit 1: most teachers trained - Circuit 2: all teachers who use TLMP are trained
ECD: 9 out of 198 DD: 7 out of 600
Nadowli - School 1: 1 - School 2: 1 - School 3: 2
- Circuit 1: all KG teachers - Circuit 2: 2 teachers
ECD: 21 out of 87 DD: 120 teachers in attendance
Pru
- School 1: 0 - School 2: 0 - School 3: 1 - School 4: 1 - School 5: 1 - School 6: 2 - School 7: 5
- Circuit 1: all KG teachers have been trained, but they are not professional teachers - Circuit 2: all KG teachers trained - Circuit 3: 56% are trained
ECD: 90% DD: 87 out of 184
Saboba - School 1: 3 - School 2: 2 - School 3: 1
- Circuit 1: 100% - Circuit 2: 0 trained
ECD: 39 DD: 100
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba
- School 1: 1 - School 2: 1
- Circuit 1: 1 trained - Circuit 2: 0
ECD: all KG teachers DD: all 248 KG teachers
26
Teachers’ Participation in Training of Trainers (TOT) Workshops
Table 12 summarizes the criteria used by districts in selecting teaching for the Training of Trainers’
workshops. While the most prevalent criterion was that teachers have experience and qualifications, some
other suggestions may need further exploration. For instance, in Saboba, it appears that those teachers
who never had training in KG teaching were selected. Yet, elsewhere, “the district education office uses
the old KG teachers and experienced teachers.”
Table 12: Criteria for Selecting Teachers to Training of Trainers (TOT) by Types of Respondents
Criteria Head Teachers
Circuit Supervisors
District ECD District Director
Diploma in basic education, certificate, competency, qualifications, experience
10(25.6%) 8(33.3%) 5(38.5%) 3(25%)
District/ECD/Circuit supervisor appointed 3 2 1
At random 3 1 1 1
Trained teachers 2 4 1 2
Need of class/school 2
Old KG teachers 1 1 1
Two teachers per school 1 -- 1 1
Serious teachers 1
Great enrollment 1
One teacher per school 1
Number of years a KG school opened 1 1
Two teachers per circuit 1
All KG teachers 1 1
Sub-metro vs. metro
Teachers who never had training in KG teaching 1
Impact of Training of Trainers (TOT) Workshops
The assessment teams visited two to three schools in each of the 14 districts. The teams
interviewed one teacher at each school. A total of 40 teachers were interviewed. The teachers responded
to the following questions.
1. Were you involved in Training of Trainers (TOT) sessions that were designed to develop skills
among KG teachers so they could train other teachers to use the TLMP materials?
2. Were the sessions effective?
3. Have you trained other kindergarten (KG) teachers?
27
Nineteen (47.5%) of the 40 teachers interviewed stated that they had participated in the TOT
sessions. Eighteen (94.7%) of the 19 who attended the TOT stated that the TOT was very effective. In
response to the questions—“Were you involved in Training of Trainers (TOT) sessions that were designed
to develop skills among KG teachers so they could train other teachers to use the TLMP materials?,” “Was
the training effective,” and “Have you trained other kindergarten (KG) teachers?”—the interviewed
teachers made the following comments:
The participants were grouped in training (lectures) and then asked to teach as if the teacher were in
an actual classroom. The activities gave me more skills on how to handle books with the students.
I have not trained other teachers, but I would like to train other teachers in the future.
They taught us very well. They taught us as if we were children. We also got up and sang like the way
we ask the little children to sing and act in the classroom. I trained three other teachers who were
not at the training.
I attended a workshop. The sessions were very, very helpful. I trained other teachers in the TLMP.
The sessions were effective; they helped us prepare our lessons for the children. I trained other KG2
(Kindergarten teachers teaching children attending children for their second year in kindergarten.)
teachers as soon as I returned from TOT. I followed the procedures in the handbook.
I attended two sessions at Sunyani and Saboba and they were very effective. We trained teachers in
our school who could not participate at the Sunyani workshop.
The above statements were just a few of the comments from the teacher interviews. Nineteen
(48.7%) of the 39 interviewed teachers attended the TOT. Eleven (57.9%) of the 19 TOT trained teachers
along with one Head Mistress trained other teachers in using the TLMs. Sixteen (41%) of the 39 teachers
interviewed had not participated in the TOT training; however, most of them felt they would have
benefited from the TOT. They thought the training would have improved their teaching, and made them
more effective as teachers.
Of the 159 teachers who returned the questionnaires, 73 (45.9%) had attended one of the “Training
of Trainers” (TOT) workshops in Sunyani or Kofori in September 2008. Sixty-nine of the 73 (94.5%) thought
28
the workshops were effective—58 (79.5%) “a great deal” and 11 (15%) “somewhat.” Fifty-eight of the 69
teachers (84%) who thought the training was effective trained other teachers, in return (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Percent Distribution of TOT Trainees who Trained Others
The last question in the professional development section asked teachers to assess the
effectiveness of the TOT workshops. Table 13 summarizes the responses that the teachers provided. The
summary is based on 58 teachers who not only participated in TOT, but who trained other teachers.
Finally, whether teachers participated in TOT or other training sessions, respondents were asked if they
would like more training. One hundred twenty (75.5%) teachers responded that they would “definitely”
like to receive the TOT preparation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A Great Deal Somewhat Not at A
80%
15%
6%
70%
10%
Effective TOT Trained Others
29
Table 13: Percent Distribution of Teachers Who Attended TOT Workshops and Found TOT Effective
District Number % Comments (How TOT was Effective)
Accra Metro (N=17) 3 17.6% (Thanks to the TOT), I now can identify my faults and can correct them with the help of TLMP.
Amansie West (N = 4) 2 50%
Assin North (N = 17) 7 41.2% It (TOT) is effective because the resource persons did their best and the participants pay more attention.
Bia (N = 6) 1 16.7%
Birim North (N =6) 4 66.7% Yes (it was effective), I am able to teach with the TLMP for pupils to understand.
Chereponi (N = 16) 6 37.5% (It was effective), for it was well organized and structured.
Ga East (N = 13) 5 38.5%
Garu-Tempane (N = 12) 4 33.3% the workshop was very effective because preparation of lesson notes and materials. It (TOT) was effective because it has improved my teaching and delivery.
Krachi West (N = 13) 4 30.8%
Nadowli (N = 18) 10 55.6%
Pru (N = 15) 5 33.3% Because it has helped to teach or the method to teach the children. (I) help my fellow teachers with the knowledge acquired. The means of teaching has now improved.
Saboba (N = 10) 4 40.0% It (TOT) was effective because participants exhibited skills in usage of TLMP.
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba (N = 12) 3 25.0%
Parent Involvement and Impact on the Community
This section addresses the impact that the TLMP has had on parents and communities. Questions
related to community involvement aimed to investigate whether parents had exposure to the TLMP
materials and could help their children use the materials. Questions also addressed the home-school link
as it examined whether the children were allowed to take the books home, and about the steps the
schools had taken to involve the parents.
Twenty-two (53.7%) of the 41 parents interviewed were familiar with the TLMP materials. The
other 19 (46.3%) had not seen, or did not recall seeing the TLMP materials at home or at school. The main
reason for the parents’ limited exposure to TLMP materials seemed to stem from the fact that, after the
initial trial, most administrators stopped allowing children to take the books home. However, all
administrators reported that they had implemented strategies for improving the involvement of the
parents. The majority of respondents identified parent-teacher association (PTA) meetings and school
30
management committee meetings as events they use to inform the parents about their roles in assisting
their children.
Regarding whether children can be allowed to take books home to their families, most
administrators disagreed with this strategy that was recommended by the partnership (Table 15). Almost
all administrators who objected to sending books home with the children offered four main reasons:
The books are too big and heavy for the KG children to carry.
The KG children are too young to handle books.
The children’s parents are illiterate, and cannot assist their children or handle
the books carefully.
The children’s younger brothers and sisters would spoil them because they
ignore the use of the books.
Figure 2. Percent Distribution of Administrators by Allowing Children to Take Books Home
Impact of TLMP on Achievement
In the process of this investigation, another part of evaluating the extent and use of the TLMs was
in learning the effect/effectiveness of the materials on the students’ learning and the ease and usefulness
of the TLMs for the teachers. A number of contravening factors prevented the researchers from obtaining
quantitative, empirical evidence such as the level of learning improvement as reflected in standardized test
scores. Further, it is important to note that the assessment took place after the program had been in
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Head teachers Circuit Superv Dist ECD Dist Director
5.2% 12.5%
23.1%
8.3%
92.3%
70.8%
76.9% 91.7%
Yes
No
31
operation for only two years, and had only been introduced as a pilot in 14 districts. Even within the
beneficiary districts, some schools had only recently received the books or had not received them at all.
Despite these obstacles, researchers were able to obtain qualitative data through the interviews,
observations, and questionnaires, by asking questions such as the following:
1. What observable changes have you observed in the children’s achievement since the TLMP
Workbooks/Materials have been used?
2. (2) In using the TLMP Workbooks/Materials, what changes have you made in your teaching
techniques since the TLMP Workbooks/Materials were introduced?
3. How effective do you feel you are at using the TLMP Workbooks/Materials?
4. How comfortable are the children in using the TLMP Workbooks/Materials?
5. Why (or why not) do you think that some children in your classroom are more receptive to
TLMP workbooks/materials than others?
6. How useful is the Teacher Guide in planning and teaching the lessons?
Responses to these questions depict the teachers’ perception of the children’s improved academic
achievement as well as the teachers’ comfort with using the TLMs.
Usefulness of the Teacher’s Guide in Planning and Teaching the Lessons
All 40 teachers interviewed thought that the Teacher’s Guide was very useful both in preparing and
delivering lessons. The following is a list of sample comments made by respondents to assess the
usefulness of the guides:
1. The Guide gives more knowledge and helps with material that is in the lesson (background
knowledge).
2. Before using the TLM’s, it was difficult to prepare lessons. Lessons were abstract. Using the
TLM’s has made it easy to prepare lessons and stay focused.
3. Apart from giving steps to take, it gives the correct method of approaching the subject. It
gives ideas on how to engage the children. In the planning, I write how to teach the lesson.
32
4. I study the book first before teaching, at the end of the day, the goal is met and I feel
comfortable.
5. The books help in planning lessons and it helps me to teach in both Kusal and the English
language.
Teachers’ Effectiveness at Using the TLMP Workbooks/Materials
Teachers were asked how effective they felt in using TLMP materials. One hundred and fifty-nine
teachers returned the questionnaires. One hundred five teachers (66%) thought they were very effective;
eight (5%) felt “somewhat” effective (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Percent Distribution of Teachers by How Effective they Feel at Using TLMP
Differences in the Way Pupils Use TLMP vs. Non-TLMP
One hundred thirty-six (85.5%) of the 159 participating teachers perceived a positive impact of the
TLMP workbooks and teaching materials on the teaching and learning in KG. They reported that children
were more comfortable with the TLMP materials, and appeared to acquire more academic knowledge and
life skills than they did with other teaching and learning materials. Examples of responses included the
following:
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
A Great Deal Somewhat Not at All No Response
66%
5% 17%
12%
Effective at Using TLMs
33
1. With TLMP children can grasp the concept faster and work quickly as compared to the other
non-TLMP workbooks.
2. They (the pupils) rejoice each time they use the materials. They refer to your wall charts
more than any other TLM available.
3. KG children with TLMP workbooks do better than those without workbooks.
4. The TLMP workbook is child-centered while non-TLMP workbook is teacher-centered.
5. Children respond better to the TLMP material than the non-TLMP because the books from
which we are teaching are available to the pupils.
Teachers Have Made Changes in their Teaching Techniques
Teachers (N = 159) were asked if they had received in-service training in the use of TLMP, and if
they could identify changes they had made in their teaching technique as a result. Among those who
attended in-service training, 31 (64.8%) teachers had improved their teaching techniques “a great deal.”
Thirty-one (19.5%) teachers had “somewhat” improved their techniques. By combining “a great deal” and
“somewhat” responses, 84.3% of teachers self-reported having made positive changes in their teaching
techniques. These same teachers reported making the following changes in their teaching techniques:
1. Prior to using the TLMs, teaching was difficult because teacher had to explain everything at
length. The lesson was not focused and the children found it difficult to follow it. Using the
TLMs has reduced that significantly. Now, I do not have to explain so much and the pupils
understand better.
2. Prior to TLMP, the teacher had to prepare own materials to teach and topics took too long
(up to 4 weeks) due to explanation. Now, the TLMP provides everything, makes teaching
straightforward and lessens the teacher’s work.
3. At first, I had to explain the concepts over and over. The teaching plans were abstract. With
the TLMs I do not have to explain as much and the children understand better.
4. The activities in the teacher’s guide help you teach your lesson. The Teacher’s Guide is very
effective. The Teacher Guide is very helpful because it gives you the activity.
34
5. Very, very effective. The books reduce stress on teaching like talking too much in addition,
children understand the lessons. The Teachers’ Guide is very useful. All information need to
teach is in it.
6. There was no curriculum for KGs for schools, now we have curriculum for them. First children were
not having books, but now they have.
Head teachers (N = 39) were asked the same question to identify changes in techniques they had
observed in their KG teachers as a result of participating in TLMP-related professional development.
Thirty four head teachers (87.2%) who returned the questionnaires had seen such positive changes in their
teachers’ pedagogy. Teachers have more confidence, are bolder than before, and involve the children
more than they used to. The following are examples of changes head teachers have observed:
1. Teachers use methods that are easier to teach.
2. Since the introduction of the materials to the schools, teaching and learning is now moving
on smoothly in the school.
3. It (using TLMPs) decreases the teachers' workload; lessons are child-centered.
4. The teaching techniques of KG teachers have improved tremendously. They teach with
confidence and also involve the children.
Improvement in KG Pupils’ Achievement as a Observed by Teachers
During interviews and on survey questionnaires, teachers were asked whether the pupils were more
comfortable with TLMP than they were with non-TLMP. All 40 teachers interviewed and 144 of the 159
teachers who returned the questionnaires (91%) had observed positive changes in the children’s
achievement since the TLMP workbooks and materials have been used.
.
35
1. The children have improved tremendously in all areas.
2. The children’s behavior is improving. Some lessons show children how to go about doing
things in the home. They use the lessons in practical ways (i.e., toiletry and cleanliness).
3. The TLM’s have increased the children’s achievements because they are able to identify
the letters and numbers, 2 and 3 letter words and are able to read simple sentences.
Grades have improved also.
4. The children in the schools using the TLMP perform better on the national tests than the
children at the other schools that are not using TLMP materials. They see the pictures in
the TLMP books and they are helpful.
5. Seeing the pictures in the books helps children identify objects and learn to write the
words. For Environmental Studies, when children get home and look around, they come
to school and talk about what they saw at home. It is in the book. Children relate what
they see in the book with what’s at home.”
Recommendations for Changing Materials’ Contents and Expanding TLMP
Assessment participants were asked to make suggestions for improving the TLMP textbooks and
materials. The suggestions fell into three broad groups: 1) suggestions for improving the contents of the
textbooks, 2) suggestions for expanding the TLMP to the rest of the country, and 3) suggestions for
expanding the TLMP to grades P4-P6.
Changes to the Contents of the Materials
The majority of participants thought that the materials did not need changes. However, others made
suggestions for improving the materials. The suggestions range from strengthening the binding of the
textbooks, making the examples more culturally appropriate, increasing the number of examples,
improving the layout, to aligning the TLMP to the curriculum (Table 14). Below are suggestions provided
by respondents.
36
Below are sample suggestions for changes expressed by participants.
Improve the Bindings and Layout of the Textbooks
1. The TLMP materials should be made in a way that will suit the environment and socio-economic background of pupils. Pupils can destroy their books when they are not properly handled. Their covers must be very strong.
2. TLMP workbooks/materials should have reinforced binding for durability.
3. Words should be printed more boldly and big so that children can identify the words clearly and fast.
Table 14: Recommendations for Materials’ Content Changes by Respondents
Changes Teacher Head Teacher
Circuit Sup
Dist ECD District Director
More space, more exercises, more examples
21(13.2%) 4(10.3%) 1 -- --
Enlarge pictures, bold drawings, better colors, label pictures, add headings, add footnotes, add numbering.
19(11.9%) 3(7.7%) 1 -- --
Topics should be aligned to the curriculum.
15(9.4%) 1 2(8.3%) 2(15.4%) 2(16.7%)
Bold, legible, large words and letters 6(3.8%) 2(5.1%) -- -- --
Strengthen binding. 6(3.8%) -- -- -- --
Add more charts. 2 -- -- -- --
Materials should be in local language. 2 -- 2(8.3%) -- --
Materials should depict the environment of the pupils.
2 -- -- 1 1
Provide supplies such as crayons, colored chalks, felt pens, cardboard, and art sheets.
2
Al subjects should have their own books.
1 1 -- -- --
Add holes to posters for hanging. 1 -- -- -- --
Change math formulas -- 1 -- -- --
Materials should be gender-friendly, age-appropriate.
-- -- 1 -- 1
Align TLMP to the Curriculum
1. A lot of the TLMP depict the southern regions of Ghana and there is the a need to bring on
board crops and other things of the North to ensure that the KG children's experience at
home is made to bear, as children learn from known to unknown.
37
2. Additional units could be added so that the books could be used to cover the 3 terms; the
current activities are not enough to cover the whole year's work.
3. Need to have the Literacy and Environmental Studies to contain three separate school terms
like the Numeracy has. Need a pacing chart to guide and teach for each of the three terms
in the school year.
4. Physical education books and science books need to be developed. There should not be any
changes in the current books. Books on good manners, leisure, creative arts, physical
education, music and movement should be added.
5. TLMP workbooks/materials should be put in the GES syllabi to enable every child from KG1
to primary 6 have access to the program which is helping the KG's involved profitably.
Improve the Pictures and Drawings
1. Include more 3-4 letter words (word families) that match the pictures. Provide more
activities in the Numeracy to last the school year and make the vocabulary more on the
instructional level of the children.
2. The names of objects drawn should be indicated and label pictures for better identification.
The changes will be necessary because the pupils have never seen certain pictures on the
materials because of the environment and background. For example, there is one chart
which has rooms in the house.
3. Provide posters for Literacy and Numeracy and add more content and exercises to the
Numeracy.
4. Some drawings were not painted in their natural colors so they should be painted in their
natural colors. Some pictures especially environmental studies were not appealing to KG
children.
5. TLMP posters and wall charts are too smooth to hang on walls. Some drawings are too
difficult to be understood by KG children.
38
Add more Space, Exercises and Examples
1. Add more pages for more practicing of pupils.
2. Include more examples. Examples and working space should be placed at opposite sides.
The name should appear on the other cover of the book. These are necessary since the
detailed examples that appear on all aspects help to form a mental picture and to engage
the children to cover up some number of periods and give a clue as well.
3. Make a copy of the book so students can work on handwriting.
4. The books should have more space for repeated examples that the children can trace. It
will help the children to practice with more examples of the same thing than on just one
example.
5. The examples should be improved. Because if you are teaching fruits, some areas in Ghana
do not have some fruits such as oranges, pineapples etc.
6. We need creative materials, i.e. crayons, colored chalks, felt pens, cardboard, and art sheets.
Suggestions for Expanding the TLMP to the Rest of the Country
After suggesting changes to improve the contents of for TLMP materials, respondents were asked to
make recommendations for expanding the partnership to the rest of the country. According to the
majority of the respondents, the materials should be expanded to the rest of the country: 114 (71.7%) of
the 159 teachers, 34 (87.2%) of the 39 head teachers, 17 (77.3%) of the 24 circuit supervisors, 11 (84.6%)
of the 13 district early childhood coordinators and 10 (83.3%) of the 12 district directors of education.
Below are examples of participants’ suggestions:
1. TLMP workbook/materials should be made more adequately and in abundance (sic) to meet
not only public KG but private KG schools as well.
2. It will help bridge the gap between schools in urban and rural areas.
3. TLMP workbooks/materials must be provided for other subjects: e.g., Physical Education,
Creative Arts.
4. It will be welcome news to the country since all the children will now be on the same scale.
5. When expanded, it will assist pupils to learn on their own and reduce the work load of
teachers.
39
Expanding the TLMP to Upper Elementary Grades P4-P6
These suggestions were formulated to propose that the TLMP be expanded to grades P4-P6. Although
there were slightly fewer teachers who suggested that the TLMP program cover upper grades P4-P6 as
compared to those who recommended the program’s extension to the rest of the country, more head
teachers, circuit supervisors and district directors of education thought the program should be expanded
to the upper elementary grades P4-P6 (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Percent Distribution of Teachers and Administration who Want to Expand the TLMP
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Teachers Head Teachers
Circuit Supervisors
District ECD District Directors
71.7%
87.2%
70.8%
84.6% 83.3%
60.4%
92.3% 91.7% 84.6% 91.7%
Expand to P4-6 Expand to Country
40
Below are examples of reasons provided for expanding the program to upper grades:
1. (If expanded to P4-P6), it will help with BECE exams.
2. My suggestions are that the TLMP workbooks and materials should be given to the
additional grade levels to make the teachers work a bit easier and help the children also to
learn in that every child can receive a workbook.
3. It will help build a solid foundation for that level because this is where the problem is: TLMP
for basic schools in the country as a whole.
4. If the TLMP is developed to cover other levels/classes, it will help improve standards as well.
5. Textbooks in P4-P6 are not enough; therefore if TLMP is extended to these levels, it will
benefit the children and teachers will teach well.
6. We suggest that TLMP materials be developed for P4 to P6 to ensure continuity and to avoid
divergence to learning by rote which in the short term the child forgets of material learned.
41
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, REMARKS
Summary of Findings
The assessment was conducted in June and July 2010, during the 3rd term of the 2009/2010 school
year. As explained earlier, the first supply of materials took place in October 2008. Prior to the
distribution of the teaching and learning materials, selected Kindergarten teachers participated in training
of trainers workshops during the month of September 2008. The workshops targeted three titles produced
by the partnership—Environmental Studies I and II, My First Literacy and My Second Literacy, and My First
Numeracy and My Second Numeracy. All three workbooks included teacher guides, and were also
accompanied by wall charts. The teachers who participated in the workshops were expected to return to
their schools and train other teachers. Following the workshops, the materials produced or reprinted by
the Chicago State University Textbooks and Learning Materials Program in Ghana were distributed to the
14 districts. The distribution ended in November 2009.
This summary covers:
1. the distribution and adequacy and extent of use of materials distributed,
2. training of teachers in the use of the materials,
3. the impact of the partnership on parents and communities,
4. the impact of the partnership on pupils’ achievement and
5. suggestions for change and expansion of the TLMP.
The discussion will review the findings in light of the roles and responsibilities of the three partners
in the TLMP, as well as the overall meaning of the TLMP in Ghana’s achieving quality education.
Adequacy of TLMP Materials
According to data from the Ministry of Education, all 14 districts received enough copies of the
TLMP Kindergarten 2 workbooks in the three subjects covered by the assessment, at least for the first year.
In fact, even by combining all private and public Kindergarten enrollments for the 2008/2009 school year,
42
there would have been a surplus of KG2 workbooks. However, the results revealed that some schools did
not receive the full complement of books. Therefore, five issues were noted. First, the distribution was not
timely. Some districts still missed the materials by the end of the first term; others did not have the
materials by the end of the 2008/2009 year.
The second issue is about the availability of the materials during the second year. When the
assessment was conducted—June and July 2010—all the schools were expected to have received at least
two full years worth of materials. However, based on the data from the Ministry of Education, some
districts had received several times more workbooks than they had children, but at least one district—
Nadowli—did not have enough to cover two years of Kindergarten 2. It appeared necessary to draw the
attention of the partnership to the discrepancies.
The third issue was that of the actual utilization of TLMP materials in classrooms. On one hand, the
survey of teachers and administrators showed that the TLMP materials in some cases were the only
materials used in some classrooms. Indeed, many classrooms used the materials for 25 periods per week,
and often more. However, not all the classrooms were using them. On the other hand, given that some
schools did not receive all the copies of the materials until November 2009, was the expectation unrealistic
that all classrooms would be using the materials?
The fourth issue is that of the status of the TLMP materials. In its 2008/2009 report, the Ministry of
Education provided per pupil ratios of core textbooks. Except in insignificant cases, the ratio of core
textbooks per child was less than 1. Yet, the number of TLMP materials that had been distributed to the
pupils by that period would have made that ration much higher in the beneficiary districts. Given that
TLMP materials may be the only textbooks available to pupils, would not they be considered core
textbooks?
43
The fifth issue is that of oversight in the distribution and utilization of the products of the
partnership. Although the logistics of the distribution were not investigated in this study, it appears
appropriate to suggest that there is a need to understand how the extra materials were managed, and the
reasons for discrepancies in materials distribution. It seems necessary that better plans and activities of
the partnership be reviewed and updated to account for surpluses and “ensure effective utilization of
TLMs.”
Professional Development and TOT
Information collected covers two different perspectives—training and qualifications of Kindergarten
teachers and training of teachers in the use of TLMP. Regarding the training of Kindergarten teachers in
general, data from the Ministry of Education showed lack of training. Only three districts—Accra
Metropolitan, Ga East, and Ho—had at least 50% of their teachers trained. In other districts, the majority
of teachers were not trained. For instance, in the Bia district, only 1.1% of female teachers and 0.0% of
male teachers were trained. In Saboba-Chereponi and Amansie West, only 2.0% and 5.0% of female KG
teachers were trained, respectively. There appears to be an urgent need for training. The renewed
partnership must address this need.
The second perspective concerns training of teachers in the use of TLMP materials. According to
both interviews and responses to questionnaires, the majority of teachers reported they had received
training in the use of TLMP materials. There were exceptions. For instance, in the Bia district, the Early
Childhood Coordinator reported that no KG teacher had been trained in the use of TLMP. In the same
district, according to the District Director of Education, a handful of teachers had attended the training of
trainers’ workshop, but had not trained other teachers. A situation such as that of the Bia district needs
immediate attention.
44
Overall, according to participants, training in the use of TLMP has had very positive impact on
teachers’ teaching techniques. In addition, the majority of teachers who attended the Training of Trainers
(TOT) workshops had participated in training their colleagues. Issues in this section were in areas of
criteria used in selecting teachers to participate in Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops. In at least one
district, teachers who never had training in the KG teaching were selected. In some other districts,
teachers who had been the longest in the districts were selected. If the intended purpose of Training of
Trainers was for those teachers to train others, further discussion with districts seems necessary to
determine both the qualities and qualifications that trainers of teachers should have, and district support
to enable the training to occur in a timely manner.
Finally, the quality of in-service training in the use of TLMP materials must be discussed. The issue
was not covered by this assessment. However, it seems necessary to explore how those in-service sessions
were, and should be, organized, and the skills and techniques they teach. More importantly, it appears
necessary to add a monitoring component to the training sessions. The addition of this critical component
will enable teacher/trainers to assess the effectiveness of their training, and provide ongoing support to
the newly trained teachers. In addition, it seems necessary establish the qualifications for facilitators of
the training sessions. Other queries include: Who is responsible for providing the sessions (i.e. districts,
and/or MOE)? How are the sessions monitored, and how are follow-up plans for the sessions developed
and coordinated?
Even though there are a number of issues to be addressed, teachers who had attended the Training
of Trainers workshops expressed a sincere interested in seeking additional training. This is a significant
indicator/measure of the program’s success.
45
Impact on Parents and Communities
One of the pillars of the TLMP partnership is community and parental involvement. Notably,
children are expected to take workbooks home and receive extra assistance from their parents. However,
unlike the other pillars, such as professional development and monitoring the distribution of materials,
neither the Cooperative Agreement nor other program documents clearly delineated responsibilities
pertaining to parental and community involvement. This omission should be an integral part of future
Agreements.
In spite of this omission, parents, teachers and administrators addressed the issue of parental and
community involvement. The majority of participants reported that parents are informed and sensitized
about their roles at School Management Committee (SMC) and Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings.
However, it is important to note that it is not typical behavior for parents to inject themselves into
teaching roles in most African cultures. The majority of participants also reported that children were not
allowed to take books home (see pp. 35-38 of this report).
The fifth reason (the supply of materials is too low, and must be shared among children. Therefore,
those textbooks cannot be taken home) does not seem to be consistent with the data provided by the
Ministry of Education regarding the distribution of TLMP materials. Except for the district of Nadowli, each
Kindergarten 2level child should be able to have his/her own copy of the three workbooks—
Environmental Studies 2, My Second Literacy, and My Second Numeracy.
In summary, these reasons raise a much larger question of community and adult literacy around the
country. A more global adult literacy campaign might offer the needed support for illiterate parents’
involvement in their children’s education, and a positive attitude of the community toward textbooks and
reading materials, in general.
46
Impact on Achievement
The majority of participants praised the TLMP partnership for the impact it has had both on
teaching and learning. Thanks to the Teacher Guides, teachers have seen their teaching change from being
teacher-centered and laborious to student-centered and more interesting. Most importantly, participants
(teachers) have observed quality improvement in pupils’ learning, and in their academic achievement. In
general, pupils’ retention has improved thanks to attractive illustrations and interest sustaining contents.
Pupils are reported to do better on national tests than pupils who do not use TLMPs. Pupils relate better
to the environment around them. The following quotes from participants summarize the impact the
program has had on students’ achievement:
1) It (the TLMP) enhances children's retention and enables the lesson to be interesting and enjoyable.
2) Children’s behavior is improving. Some lessons show children how to go about doing things in the
home. They use the lessons in practical ways (i.e., toiletry and cleanliness).
3) The children in the schools using the TLMP perform better on the national tests than the children at
the other schools that are not using TLMP materials. They see the pictures in the TLMP books and
they are helpful.
Suggestions for Change
Suggestions for content changes and expansion of the TLMP materials were collected. Suggestions
for changes to the TLMP were of four types.
1. Binding of the TLMP textbooks--Participants recommended binding must be strengthened and
made more durable to withstand the playfulness of young Kindergarten children.
2. Layout of the materials--There were two broad changes to the layout recommended. First,
participants recommended that the font size of the print be made bolder and larger. Second,
participants recommended improving such features as adding footnotes to the pages. Third,
suggestions for change included labeling pictures and drawings in the textbooks.
47
3. Improve the Activities--Participants recommended that more exercises be added to the textbooks,
and that more examples be provided. Regarding examples, some participants felt that the
examples provided seemed to target the southern regions. They want examples and exercises
more sensitive to the cultures and environments of the rest of the country. In addition, participants
recommended adding more spaces and pages for children to draw and write.
4. Alignment of the TLMP to the KG Curriculum-- For many participants, the teaching and learning
materials are not consistent with the span and depth of curriculum. According to them, the topics
in the TLMP materials should a) correspond to the topics covered in the KG curriculum, and b)
should be in enough quantity to cover all three terms of the year. In addition, many participants
requested that the program cover more than three subjects. Notably, they requested that all the
subjects taught in Kindergarten, including good manners, leisure, creative arts, physical education,
music and movement.
Expansion of TLMP materials to rest of the country: The majority of participants, during interviews
and in response to questionnaires, recommended that the partnership be expanded to the rest of the
country. According to participants the expansion would help bridge the gap between rural and urban
areas. In addition, they believe the program should be expanded to the rest of the country because the
TLMP materials are better than other teaching and learning materials used in schools.
Expansion of TLMP materials to grades P4-P6: Similar to suggestions provided to expand the TLMP
nationwide, participants recommended that, for the sake of continuity and quality, the program be
expanded to higher grades in the primary school level. As a participant stated, “It (expanding TLMP to P4-
P6) will help build a solid foundation for that level because this is where the problem is.”
Conclusions
The assessment showed that the TLMP materials are very effective for teaching and learning.
Pupils’ achievement has improved because of the program. However, all their success can be severely
compromised as a result of two key elements: lack of a monitoring system, and poor monitoring and
management of the distribution and utilization of TLMs. The quality of the program will be unsure until
48
the materials are accorded the status they deserve, that is, core materials that must be accounted for in
the basic education curriculum. At the same time, it might be unrealistic to expect teaching and materials,
by themselves, to make miracles. It is unrealistic to expect teachers to make effective use of the TLMP
materials when the teachers themselves are not trained. Most importantly, the effectiveness of the
program is compromised when its plan of operation and implementation is not clearly articulated to all
participating individuals, and it is further compromised when it is not adhered to.
Failure to follow the implementation plan endangers the original intent of the TLMP particularly
when these “core” materials are supplied several terms after other schools have received them. For
example, it was noted earlier in this report that in some cases, teachers and pupils do not use the TLMP
materials, not because these materials were not supplied, but because the pupils do not have such basic
supplies as pencils to write.
Teachers’ access to TLMP materials is in its infancy. The introduction of and effective use of new
learning materials is usually a developmental process, occurring over time. It is the hope of these
researchers that with recommendations made in earlier parts of this report (e.g., better distribution of
materials, more training, introduction of a system of monitoring) that adoption and implementation of
TLMs will occur with greater ease and facilitation.
However, some schools still do not have or use all three titles, teacher’s guides or wall charts after a
whole year. This assessment has shown that the discrepancy in distribution is not attributable to lack of
funding, but primarily to both poor execution of the plan of operation and other conjectural factors.
Similarly, if the teachers attended the TOT workshops, but failed to train others, all parties concerned must
study how the situation can be corrected. Most importantly, if it appeared that one key foundation of the
TLMP—that is, allowing each child in beneficiary school districts to own TLMP materials and use the
workbooks with parents at home—is taking a time to sell to teachers and school administrators. Tentative
49
responses to these issues will be provided as we formulate recommendations to the three TLMP partners,
district leaders, schools, and the community.
Recommendations
The implementation of the TLMP partnership seems to rely on several main pillars, some of which
include the concept that the development of a functional and efficient work plan and the establishments of
a dedicated partnership among the participants will ensure effective implementation of the TLMP. As
important, but not delineated in the governing documents, are specific ideas and conditions for sustaining
the work effort beyond the life of the grant. Those conditions include the availability of financial resources
and human resources consistent with each step of the work plan. Both Chicago State University and all of
the other partners in Ghana and Washington must address program sustainability so that the children of
Ghana will experience long-term benefits of the TLMP program.
Recommendations for Chicago State University
The work plan for the renewed 20009-2012 partnership awarded in September 2009 is spread over
23 pages. While the work plan follows guidelines provided by USAID, there are areas of responsibility that
should be clarified. For instance, one cannot see in the work plan, whose primary responsibility it is to
“store and distribute all workbooks and teachers’ guides and other teaching and learning materials
developed under the TLMP.” Problems related to timely distribution of the books to all the designated
schools would be minimized when program administrative roles n the work plan are specified more clearly.
Therefore, the assessment team recommends that, in addition, to the work plan as presented, and as
approved by USAID, functional plans of operations for each component of the partnership be developed,
including a plan for selecting and supervising professional development teams, collaboration with MOE
and GES in publishing TLMP materials, and etc.
50
The assessment team also recommends that Chicago State University develop a plan, jointly with
Ghana Ministry of Education and GES, for developing partnerships with colleges of education in Ghana to
share resources regarding training teachers and adopting the TLMP materials in their teacher preparation
programs. Such a plan will assure the sustainability of the program.
Finally, Chicago State University, as the recipient of the cooperative grant, must make efforts to
insure that continuity in training teachers in the use of TLM materials is assured. Notably, a spelled out
plan for facilitating Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops must be jointly developed with Ghana Education
Service. Follow-up plans must be also developed, including how the trained teachers will develop other
teachers. The assessment team recommends that Chicago State University avail supplementary funding
for developing and disseminating training kits that each teacher participating in the TOT workshops, and
each professional facilitator, would take with them, for use as subsequent in-service training within
districts. The kits would include compact discs, video recordings, portable presentation tools, and other
materials, that are adapted to the school environments in Ghana.
Recommendations for Ghana Ministry of Education and Ghana Education Service
Any plans to (1) ensure effective implementation of the TLMP, (2) “store and distribute all materials
produced by the program, and (3)”monitor effective utilization of the materials” cannot be accomplished
without the leadership and commitment of the Ghana Ministry of Education and Ghana Education service.
Effective utilization of TLMs goes hand in hand with competency to utilize the materials. Data from the
Ministry of Education show that only three of the 14 districts had at least 50% of the KG teachers trained.
Now that Kindergarten is an integral part of basic education, it appears necessary for the Ministry of
Education develop a plan for formally training KG teachers. While the majority of the teachers who
returned the questionnaires reported being trained in the use of TLMP, such training must be planned. In
addition, such training cannot be a substitute for formal specialization. For that, the Ministry of Education
must develop a plan for training its KG teaching staff.
51
Most importantly, it appears necessary that Ghana Ministry of Education and Ghana Education
Service recognize that the TLMP textbooks are not just supplementary materials in the 14 beneficiary
districts; they are core textbooks in the 14 beneficiary districts. Indeed, in many of the districts, the TLMP
materials were all the children and teachers had. Besides, all the districts had at least Kindergarten 2 copies
of each per pupil, or close, for children enrolled in 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. It is hoped that, by
acknowledging the core status of the materials, efforts will also be made to expedite the TLMP materials
delivery to the districts. It is also hoped that efforts will be made to effectively integrate the materials in
the communities.
Recommendations for Districts and Schools
For the TLMP to be effective, the schools’ infrastructure and the personnel must be ready. In some
districts, the materials were not available because there was no storage. At one district, schools that were
located far from “the store” did not receive the materials. The districts must make a commitment to
ensuring that the materials reach the children and their classrooms.
Criteria for selecting teachers who receive professional development must be well developed.
While it is fair to send teachers to “Training of Trainers” workshops who have never had training in KG
teaching, or those who had been the longest in the district, it is not clear how those teachers would return
and train others. Indeed, among teachers who answered the questionnaires and took part in interviews, a
good number had not taken the next step of training others. Therefore, it appears necessary for districts
to develop their professional development plans, including what the training entails, who will be trained,
what is expected of the trained personnel, and how the outcomes will be evaluated.
Finally, it appears that the involvement of parents and the community is not clearly integrated into
KG learning. Is the involvement of parents an isolated practice that will only last the life of the TLMP, or is
it part of a larger scale effort to enhance life-long learning and community development? If the latter is
52
the case, a simple visit to the school for a PTA or SMC meeting will not be enough, because this level of
parental participation is not part of typical practice in this culture. Efforts must be coordinated with other
national and regional developments in the accomplishment on EFA and millennium development goals.
These recommendations aim to ensure that all parties in the partnership are clearly identified and
empowered and supported to accomplish their part of the work. They also aim to optimize accountability
of each partnership team member.
This assessment acknowledges that TLMP materials have been produced as planned. Although
there are disparities, eventually all the designated beneficiary districts have received the materials. What
seems problematical is ensuring that the materials actually reaching the child and his/her family, and that
the materials are effectively incorporated into KG teaching and learning. As for any new program
adoption, two years is not enough time for an organization to have everything in place. As such, the need
for a jointly and clearly developed work plans that delineates all the pieces of the puzzle is necessary.
The TLMP program has experienced significant success in such a short period of time. The
enthusiasm and hope it has instilled in children, teachers and administrators must not be thwarted by
adoption glitches.
53
REFERENCES
Lewin, K.M. (2009, May). Access to education in sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, problems and
possibilities. Comparative Education, 45(2), 151-174. doi:10.1007/s11159-009-9149-9
Republic of Ghana, Ministry of Education. (2009), March). Report on basic statistics and planning
parameters for basic education in Ghana: 2008/2009. Accra, Ghana: Ministry of Education.
The World Bank (2009). Abolishing school fees in Africa: Lessons from Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi,
and Mozambique. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank.
United States Agency for International Development (2009, July). An outcomes and impacts evaluation of
the President’s African Education Initiative. Country Study Report: Ghana. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
United States Agency for International Development (n.d.). Sub-Saharan Africa: Education. Retrieved
from http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sectors/ed/index.html
United States Agency for International Development. (2005). Education strategy: Improving lives through
learning. Washington, D.C.: USAID
54
APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
55
56
APPENDIX B
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION APPROVAL
57
58
APPENDIX C
LETTER TO DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION: DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
59
29 June 2010
District Education Director
With the support of the Ministry of Education of Ghana and the United States Agency for International
Development, researchers from Chicago State University, the Curriculum and Research Development
Division of Ghana Education Service, the University of Education, Winneba, Winneba, Ghana; and the
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana are conducting a research study to assess the extent of use
and impact of the Teaching and Learning Materials Program (TLMP-Ghana).
In addition to interviewing KG2 teachers and parents, as well as observing a KG2 class on Environmental
Studies, Numeracy, or Literacy, the researchers are requesting your assistance in distributing
questionnaires to the following administrators and teachers, in the quantities indicated below:
District Education Director 1 questionnaire
District Early Childhood Coordinator 1 questionnaire
Circuit Supervisor 2 questionnaires
Head Teacher 3 schools X 1 head teacher X 1 questionnaire = 3 questionnaires
KG2 Teachers 9 schools X 2 KG 2 classes X 1 teacher = 18 questionnaires
Please return the completed questionnaires in the enclosed return-mail envelopes to the TLMP Office in
Accra in two weeks from today’s date. Your assistance in this matter will ensure improvement in bringing
quality educational materials to our pupils.
Thank you,
Dr. Athanase Gahungu Coordinating Researcher
60
APPENDIX D
TLMP USE: PERIODS PER WEEK
61
ACCRA METROPOLITAN
Teachers (N=17) Head Teachers
(N=2)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2
District Early Childhood
Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 17
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 16 20 periods: 1
25 periods: 2 25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 5 5 periods: 2 3 periods: 1 0 periods: 8
25 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 14 12 periods: 3
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 7 5 periods: 2 0 periods: 7
0 periods: 2 12 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
AMANSIE WEST
Teachers (N=4) Head Teachers
(N=3)
Circuit Supervisors
(N=1)
District Early Childhood
Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
Almost all the time: 4
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 4
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 --
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 2
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
12 periods: 1 12 periods
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 4
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 12 periods
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 2
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
12 periods: 1 12 periods
ASSIN NORTH
Teachers (17) Head Teachers (N=3)
Circuit Supervisors (N=1)
District Early Childhood
Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 17
62
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 7 12 periods: 10
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 13 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 6 6 periods: 1 3 periods: 2 0 periods: 6
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
0 periods: 1 7 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 10 12 periods: 7
25 periods: 1 12 periods:2
25 periods: 1 13 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 6 periods: 1 3 periods: 2 0 periods: 12
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
0 periods: 1 7 periods: 1
BIA
Teachers (N=6) Head Teachers
(N=3)
Circuit Supervisors
(N=1)
District Early Childhood
Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
Almost all the time: 6
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 5 12 periods: 1
35 periods: 1 25 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 0 12 periods: 1 0 periods: 4
15 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
0 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 5 12 periods: 1
35 periods: 1 25 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 1 0 periods: 5
15 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
0 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
BIRIM NORTH
Teachers (N=6) Head Teachers (N=1)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
Almost all the time: 6
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 5 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 20 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 5
0 periods: 1 15 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
Periods per Week 25 periods: 6 25 periods: 1 35 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
63
Teachers Use TLMP
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 5
0 periods: 1 0 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
CHEREPONI
Teachers (N=16) Head Teachers (N=2)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 13 rarely: 2 no response: 1
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 6 12 periods: 10
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
25 periods:1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 11 6 periods: 1 0 periods: 4
12 periods: 1 25 periods: 1
25periods: 1 0 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 6 12 periods: 10
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 11 6 periods: 1 0 periods: 4
12 periods: 1 25 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
0 periods: 1
GA EAST
Teachers (N=13) Head Teachers
(N=1)
Circuit Supervisors
(N=2)
District Early Childhood
Coordinator
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 12 rarely: 1
--
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 11
12 periods: 1 12 Periods: 1 6 periods: 1
--
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 11 8 periods: 1 6 periods: 1
6 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 6 periods: 1
--
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 11
12 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 --
--
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 11 8 periods: 1 6 periods: 1
6 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 6 periods: 1
--
GARU-TEMPANE
Teachers (N=12) Head Circuit District Early
64
Teachers (N=4)
Supervisors (N=2)
Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 10 rarely: 1 no response: 1
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 4 12 periods: 8
25 periods: 3 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 6 0 periods: 6
38 periods: 1 12 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
0 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 4 12 periods: 8
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 2
25periods: 2 12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 6 0 periods: 6
38 periods: 1 0 periods: 3
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
0 periods: 1
HO
Teachers (N= 0) Head Teachers
Circuit Supervisors
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N =1)
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
-- 13, according to the new timetable which includes language, literacy, creative activities, music and dance: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
7 periods
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
13 periods
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
6 periods
KRACHI WEST
o Years of experience as teachers: 8 between 10-30 (very old teaching staff)
Teachers (N =13) Head Teachers (N=5)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 13/13
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 6 12 periods: 7
25 periods: 3 15 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
65
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 10 5 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
12 periods: 3 5 periods: 2
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
6 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 8 12 periods: 5
25 periods: 2 15 periods: 1 12 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
19 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 3 12 periods: 7 5 periods: 1 0 periods: 1 no response: 1
12 periods: 4 5 periods: 1
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
6 periods: 1
NADOWLI
Teachers (N=18) Head Teachers (N=3)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 18/18
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 10 12 periods: 8
25 periods: 3 25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 14 0 periods: 3
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 12 12 periods: 6
25 periods: 3 25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 11 0 periods: 5 no response: 1
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
PRU
Teachers (N = 15) Head Teachers (N=7)
Circuit Supervisors (n=3)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 14 rarely: 1
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 5 20 periods: 3 14 periods: 2 12 periods: 5
25 periods: 3 20 periods: 1 14 periods: 1 12 periods: 2
12 periods: 3 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
13 periods: 3 6 periods: 1 5 periods: 3 3 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 20 periods: 1 13 periods: 1 5 periods: 1
12 periods: 3 0 periods: 1
66
0 periods: 6
4 periods: 1 3 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 5 20 periods: 3 14 periods: 2 12 periods: 5
25 periods: 2 20 periods: 1 14 periods: 1 12 periods: 3
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
13 periods: 3 12 periods: 2 6 periods: 1 5 periods: 3 3 periods:2 0 periods: 4
25 periods: 1 20 periods: 1 17 periods: 1 13 periods: 1 5 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
12 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
0 periods: 1
SABOBA
Teachers (N=10) Head Teachers (N=3)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 10/10
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 6 12 periods: 4
12 periods: 3 25 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 3 4 periods: 3 0 periods: 3 no response: 1
4 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 3 12 periods: 6 no response: 1
12 periods: 3 25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 2 4 periods: 3 0 periods: 4 1 no response
12 periods: 1 0 periods: 2
0 periods: 2 4 periods: 1
SAWLA-TUNA-KALBA
Teachers (N=12) Head Teachers (N=2)
Circuit Supervisors (N=2)
District Early Childhood Coordinator (N=1)
How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 10/12 no response: 2
-- -- --
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 9 12 periods: 3
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 4
0 periods: 2 25 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
67
TLMP 0 periods: 6
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 8 12 periods: 4
25 periods: 2 25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 4 3-5 periods: 1 0 periods: 5
0 periods: 2 25 periods: 1 12 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
68
APPENDIX E
TLMP DISTRIBUTION
69
All TLMP Workbooks and Teachers’ Guides Distributed to Districts (October 27, 2008 through November 18, 2009)
District Type Environ Stud1
My 1st Literacy
My 1st Numeracy
Environ Stud2
My 2nd
Literacy
My 2nd
Numeracy
KG Maths1*
KG Maths2*
Getting Ready for English 1a*
Getting Ready for English 1c*
Accra Metro Wkbk 53,196 49,737 47,665 48,617 50,679 50,679 4,392 4,392 4,392 4,392
TG 2360 1,128 2,310 2310 1,128 1,128 -- -- -- --
Amansie West
Wkbk 27,374 18,861 18,861 20,298 17,664 17,664 16,248 16,248 16,248 16,248
TG 663 613 613 613 612 612 -- -- -- --
Assin North Wkbk 24,737 16,563 19,359 18,074 15,278 15,278 15,810 15,810 15,810 15,810
TG 487 213 437 437 312 214 -- -- -- --
Bia Wkbk 32,665 21,240 26,792 24,269 18,717 18,717 12,591 12,591 12,591 12,591
TG 702 637 652 652 637 637 -- -- -- --
Birim North Wkbk 24,361 16,336 19,816 18,239 14,759 14,759 14,211 14,211 14,211 14,211
TG 545 244 500 500 244 244 -- -- -- --
Ga East/Abokobi Wkbk 23,247 14,127 17,716 19,990 16,401 16,401 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920
TG 926 431 886 886 431 431 -- -- -- --
Garu-Tempane Wkbk 18,537 11,045 15,211 13,318 9,152 9,152 6,453 6,453 6,453 6,453
TG 269 234 234 234 234 234 -- -- -- --
Ho Wkbk 27,197 17,184 21,242 19,397 15,339 15,339 511 511 511 511
TG 797 550 742 741 549 747 -- -- -- --
Krachi West Wkbk 23,327 14,608 17,288 16,070 13,390 13,390 11,696 11,696 11,696 11,696
TG 345 285 285 285 285 285 -- -- -- --
Nadowli Wkbk 10,211 5,945 8,075 7,107 4,977 4,977 3,528 3,528 3,528 3,528
TG 185 119 160 160 170 119 -- -- -- --
Pru-Yeji
Wkbk 22,882 13,965 13,965 17,039 12,401 12,401 10,741 10,741 10,741 10,741
TG 416 356 356 356 355 355 -- -- -- --
Saboba Chereponi Wkbk 9,182 6,235 6,775 6,529 5,989 5,989 5,189 5,189 5,189 5,189
TG 160 132 132 132 162 132 -- -- -- --
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba Wkbk 9,382 5,739 7,813 6,871 4,797 4,797 4,167 4,167 4,167 4,167
TG 171 152 152 152 152 152 -- -- -- --
Source: Ghana Education Service. TLMP Distribution
* KG Mathematics and Getting Ready for English were published by Allgoodbooks but were re-edited by CRDD before they were re-printed by Allgoodbooks for distribution in the schools in the beneficiary districts alongside CSU TLMP workbooks and teachers’ guides.
70
