Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TEACHING AND LEARNING MATERIALS PROGRAM (TLMP) GHANA
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared by
Athanase Gahungu, Ed.D., Coordinating Researcher, Chicago State UniversityKaren A. Freeman, Ph.D., Chicago State University
Angelique S. Jackson, Ed.D., Chicago State UniversityRuby Avotri, Ph.D., Ghana Education Service, Ghana
Joseph Ghartey-Ampiah, Ph.D., University of Cape Coast, GhanaBernard B. B. Bingab, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
funded by
March 2011
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….……………vi
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT 1
Objectives of the Assessment......................................................................................................................................3
Objectives of the Partnership......................................................................................................................................4
Methodology...............................................................................................................................................................5
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS8
Descriptive Data..........................................................................................................................................................8
Extent of Use of TLMP...............................................................................................................................................11
Training of Teachers in the Use of TLMP...................................................................................................................22
Parent Involvement and Impact on the Community.................................................................................................28
Impact of TLMP on Achievement..............................................................................................................................29
Recommendations for Changing Materials’ Contents and Expanding TLMP.............................................................34
Recommendations for Materials’ Content Changes by Respondents.......................................................................35
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, REMARKS 40
Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................................................40
Conclusions...............................................................................................................................................................47
Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................48
REFERENCES 52
APPENDIX A. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 53
APPENDIX B. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION APPROVAL 55
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
i
Table of Tables
Table 1. Assessment Participants by District and Assessment Form .......................................................................... 10
Table 2. Questionnaire Respondents’ 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 Sch Years, by District ................................ 15
Table 6. TLMP Recorded during Class Observations .................................................................................................. 17
Table 7. Reasons for Insufficient Materials................................................................................................................19
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
ii
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
iii
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 Textbooks and
Learning Materials Program-Ghana (CSU/TLMP-Ghana) partners that include the Ghana Ministry of Education, the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington and 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. Individuals from each of these entities have played significant roles and
they are being acknowledged in this report.
From the beginning, the key element needed to conduct the assessment was consensus as we proceeded.
The success of the project was due largely to the belief of Robert Davidson, Education Officer, USAID-Ghana that
evaluation/assessment is essential to learning and improving program; and to the knowledge of the proceedings
that led up to the assessment of and on the process itself of Sarah Agyeman-Duah, PAC Chairperson and Director,
Ghana Education Service/Curriculum Research and Development Division.
The very nature of the objectives and methodology of this study meant that many people were involved in
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 added 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.
Providing cross cultural context and cultural sensibility this study was enhanced, and without our Ghana
partners it would have been achieved. 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 and Vice Chancellor Akwasi Asabere-Ameyaw, the University of Education, Winneba, for
their direct involvement, scholarly insights, human and material resources, and hospitality. We also thank the field iv
researchers representing our 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.
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. Much thanks to Jamille Watkins-Barnes, TLMP
Assistant Director and to CSU’s Communication and Media Arts and Theatre department staffer, Monique Smith for
a job well done.
Lastly, but by no stretch of imagination the least, we greatly appreciate and acknowledge the following for
providing unstinting administrative, intellectual and logistical support for the project: Ewura-Abena Ahwoi, In-
Country Coordinator; Jerald Knox, Financial Manager; and the support teams in Chicago and Ghana.
This report has been submitted to the USAID Africa Bureau, Education Division as required. The report and
working documentation of the study are available on the TLMP-Ghana website at www.csu.edu/tlmp.
Carol O. Carson-Warner, Ed. D. Executive Director Textbooks and Learning Materials Program-Ghana
March 2011
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June-July 2010, nine researchers and 10 student interns from Chicago State University, Chicago,
Illinois, and Ghana conducted an assessment of the Chicago State University Teaching 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 re-print teaching and learning
materials for Ghanaian schools. From October 2008 to November 2009, pupils’ workbooks and other
materials that were developed or re-printed 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, in 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 teachers,
and interviews with 41 Kindergarten 2 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:
vi
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 assure two
years of supply for all Kindergarten 2 enrollments in the 14 beneficiary school districts.
2. In all the schools visited, TLMP materials were available for teachers and pupils. In many classrooms,
the TLMP textbooks were the only books to which the teachers and pupils had access.
3. The majority of participating teachers had received district facilitated in-service training in the use of
the TLMP materials. In addition, among the teachers who attended the “training of trainers” (TOT)
workshops at the on-start of the program, the majority 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
more, continued, training.
4. 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, administrators reported that they had implemented strategies for improving the
involvement of the parents.
5. 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.
6. 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.
vii
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 timely and evenly distributed to all schools. To address this issue, a better
production and distribution schedule must be jointly developed by all three partners to ensure that
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 and teachers’ guides and other teaching and learning materials developed under the Teaching 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—so that the materials can be incorporated into teacher training and other aspects of
Ghana’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG).
viii
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 in the rest of the nation, must be
accorded due consideration. Notably, the materials must be designed to cover all three terms of the
Kindergarten (KG) curriculum, and must be durable and resistant to withstand the playfulness of
Kindergarten children.
ix
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT
Achieving quality basic education is a lofty goal that few developing countries can reach in the current
global economic crisis. According to USAID’s report on Education for All, “Education Strategy: Improving
Lives through Learning” (USAID, 2005), quality education is improved when
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
problematical for developing countries. In these countries, “teacher salaries absorb the great majority of
education spending, leaving little for books and other learning materials” (USAID, p. 5).
Planning for meeting the needs of children and teachers in teaching and learning materials
becomes even more complicated. Efforts to make basic education more accessible, notably by abolishing
school fees (The World Bank, 2009), has had positive effects. School enrollment has exponentially
increased (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.
1
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 Teaching 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 through Primary 3 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." A large number of Kindergarten teachers
participated in 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.
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, the
Curriculum Research and Development Division, Ghana Education Service, commended the TLMP
partnership on its efficiency. She stated,
‘The Teaching and Materials Program (TMP) 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, TMP was part of CRDD [Curriculum
Research and Development Division] activities and we’re continuing the work’. (Sarah Agyeman-
Duah, Director, C.R.D.D, Ghana Education Service, Ministry of Education)
2
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 how well books are actually
distributed and utilized. When books are scarce resources, getting them to the districts or schools
may not be enough: principals and teachers may keep them in storage or use them only in limited
ways. Moreover, teachers’ use of books is not simply having them in hand, but understanding how
to make use of them during the lessons.
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:
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 and strategies of 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).”
3
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) 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 Teaching 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.
4
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.
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 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.
5
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
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.
6
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.
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.
o CRDD-GES: one official from the Curriculum Research and Development Division of Ghana
Education Service.
o 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:
o KG 2 Teachers interviewed and observed: 14 districts X 3 schools x 2 teachers= 84 Teachers.
7
o Parents interviewed: 14 districts X 3 parents= 42 parents.
8
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
teachers, and response 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 aide who did not have the type of teaching experience the assessment
wanted to explore.
Similarly, not all questionnaires distributed were returned. Only one district—Nadowli—returned all
18 questionnaires for teachers. However, some districts also returned to us more administrator
questionnaires as 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. 9
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
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
CircSuper
DistrECD
Distr Director
National ECD
Accra Metro 2 3 17 2 2 1 1
1
Amansie West 3 3 4 3 1 1 1Assin North 3 3 17 3 1 1 1Bia Western 3 3 6 3 1 1 1Birim North 3 3 6 1 2 1 1Chereponi 3 3 16 2 2 1 1Ga East 3 2 13 1 2 -- --Garu-Tempane 3 3 12 4 2 1 1Ho 3 3 -- -- -- 1 --Krachi West 2 2 13 5 2 1 1Nadowli 3 3 18 3 2 1 1Pru 3 4 15 7 3 1 1Saboba 3 3 10 3 2 1 1Sawla-Tuna Kalba 3 3 12 2 2 1 1Total 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 5
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 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
10
been in the teaching profession for 16 years and more. What is more, 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 been in the profession for 31 years or longer. By the numbers, 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 PositionN/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 1 211-15 yrs 5 -- 6 4 4 116-30 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.
11
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.
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 DistributedTotal 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 30,732Amansie West 10,597 5,222 49.3 26.5 5.0 7,811 0.7 18,116 12,237 12,237Assin North 9,413 4,507 47.9 17.1 25.4 5,046 0.5 16,211 10,833 10,833Bia 13,000 6,443 49.6 0.0 1.1 7,695 0.6 20,094 14,221 14,221Birim North 8,857 4,509 50.9 32.3 26.4 4,429 0.5 15,352 10,807 10,807Ga East* 4,842 2,359 48.7 100.0 84.8 1,612 0.3 18,877 13,346 13,346Garu Tempane 7,179 3,563 49.6 6.3 10.0 4,857 0.7 10,939 7,613 7,613Ho 10,436 5,114 49.0 73.9 82.9 4,606 0.4 17,386 14,431 14,431Krachi West 9,349 4,514 48.3 25.9 11.5 7,332 0.8 15,625 9,586 9,586Nadowli 4,999 2,631 52.6 22.2 26.9 4,886 1.0 6,214 4,078 4,078Pru 9,243 4,621 50.0 30.3 11.5 3,757 0.4 13,593 9,314 9,314Saboba-Chereponi 4,497 2,272 50.5 9.1 2.0 2,475 0.6 6,395 3,988 3,988Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 3,597 1,835 51.2 36.4 10.9 3,866 1.1 5,509 3,940 3,940Nation 1,078,973 537,859 49.8 29.2 31.7 78,407 0.1Source: 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.
12
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,
Krachi West, Nadowli, Saboba-Chereponi, Sawla-Tuna-Kalba. Further discussion may be needed to
understand the reasons for late distribution of materials and the consequences such a situation may cause
on teachers and program coordinators.
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
LiteracyMy 2nd
NumeracyAccra Metro
6202 5675Wkbk 14,895 14,895 14,895 15,847 15,837 15,837
TG 537 537 537 537 537 537Amansie West 6028 4569
Wkbk 6,717 6,717 6,717 5,520 5,520 5,520TG 142 142 142 142 142 142
Assin North4952 4461
Wkbk 6,059 6,059 6,059 4,774 4,774 4,774TG 101 101 101 101 101 101
Bia7799 5201
Wkbk 8,372 8,372 8,372 5,849 5,849 5,849TG 151 151 151 151 151 151
Birim North5294 3563
Wkbk 6,192 6,192 6,192 4,615 4,615 4,615TG 116 116 116 116 116 116
Ga East2487 2355
Wkbk 5,536 5,536 5,536 7,810 7,810 7,810TG 205 205 205 205 205 205
Garu-Tempane3961 3218
Wkbk 4,753 -- 4,753 -- -- 2,860TG 54 -- 54 54 -- 54
Ho 6213 4223
Wkbk 6,638 -- 6,638 -- -- 4,793TG 172 -- 172 171 171 171
Krachi West 5376 3961
Wkbk 5,402 -- 5,402 -- -- 4,184TG 66 66 66 66 66 66
Nadowli 3115 1884
Wkbk 2,523 -- 2,523 -- -- 1,555TG 37 -- 37 37 -- 37
Pru-Yeji 5449 3794
Wkbk 5,439 5,439 5,489 3,875 3,875 3,875TG 83 83 82 82 82 82
Saboba Chereponi2375 2122
Wkbk 2,117 -- 2,117 -- -- 1,871TG 30 -- 30 30 30 30
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba2136 1451
Wkbk 2,441 -- 2,441 -- -- 1,499TG 35 -- 35 35 -- 35
Source: Ghana Education Service. TLMP Distribution. Ministry of Education Basic School Report 2008/2009
13
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
2008/2009 school year. Pupils who were 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 2nd Literacy and My 2nd Numeracy
workbooks fell short of the combined number of 4,999 pupils. 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. The
ratio of workbooks to pupil still exceeded 1.0. , except in Nadowli. 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.
14
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?
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
LiteracyMy 2nd
Num.Env Stud2 Per Pupil
My 2nd Lit Per Pupil
My 2nd Num.Per Pupil
Public KindergartenAccra Metro 11877 27.5 48,617 50,679 50,679 4.1 4.3 4.3Amansie West 10597 91.4 20,298 17,664 17,664 1.9 1.7 1.7Assin North 9413 73.1 18,074 15,278 15,278 1.9 1.6 1.6Bia 13000 92.5 24,269 18,717 18,717 1.9 1.4 1.4Birim North 8857 68.2 18,239 14,759 14,759 2.1 1.7 1.7Ga East 4842 108.9 19,990 16,401 16,401 4.1 3.4 3.4Garu-Tempane 7179 45.4 13,318 9,152 9,152 1.9 1.3 1.3Ho 10436 58.5 19,397 15,339 15,339 1.9 1.5 1.5Krachi West 9337 80.9 16,070 13,390 13,390 1.7 1.4 1.4Nadowli 4999 44.2 7,107 4,977 4,977 1.4 1.0 1.0Pru-Yeji 9243 76.3 17,039 12,401 12,401 1.8 1.3 1.3Saboba Chereponi 4497 43.3 6,529 5,989 5,989 1.5 1.3 1.3Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 3587 32.5 6,871 4,797 4,797 1.9 1.3 1.3
Private and Public Kindergarten CombinedAccra Metro 31038 27.5 48,617 50,679 50,679 1.6 1.6 1.6Amansie West 12044 91.4 20,298 17,664 17,664 1.7 1.5 1.5Assin North 10855 73.1 18,074 15,278 15,278 1.7 1.4 1.4Bia 14812 92.5 24,269 18,717 18,717 1.6 1.3 1.3Birim North 10160 68.2 18,239 14,759 14,759 1.8 1.5 1.5Ga East 11205 108.9 19,990 16,401 16,401 1.8 1.5 1.5Garu-Tempane 7849 45.4 13,318 9,152 9,152 1.7 1.2 1.2Ho 11552 58.5 19,397 15,339 15,339 1.7 1.3 1.3Krachi West 9867 80.9 16,070 13,390 13,390 1.6 1.4 1.4Nadowli 5054 44.2 7,107 4,977 4,977 1.4 1.0 1.0Pru-Yeji 10042 76.3 17,039 12,401 12,401 1.7 1.2 1.2Saboba Chereponi 4780 43.3 6,529 5,989 5,989 1.4 1.3 1.3Sawla-Tuna-Kalba 3776 32.5 6,871 4,797 4,797 1.8 1.3 1.3Source: Ghana Education Service, TLMP Distribution. Ministry of Education District Level Enrollment DataNote: NER*: Net Enrollment Rate for 2008/2009, Based on 2000 National Population Census.
15
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 re-printed 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. A small number of teachers did not have 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.
16
Table 6
TLMP Recorded during Class Observations by School and District
District School Children Environ Studies Literacy Numeracy Wall Charts
CommentsChildren Boys Girls Work-
bookT’s
GuideWork-book
T’s Guide
Work-book
T’s Guide
Accra Metro
Sch1Numeracy
53 60 1 61 1 51 1 15 Environmental Studies workbooks looked barely used.
Sch 3Literacy
42 48 1 49 1 48 1 4 Teacher made her own activity books with enough space for children to write.
Ga East
Sch 1Env Stud
9 60 2 60 2 60 2 12 Teacher did not use posters during class observation.
Sch 2Env Stud
5 31 1 30 1 0 1 13 Children shared books even though there were enough copies.
Sch 3Env Stud
11 50 1 0 1 50 1 20
Assin North
Sch 1Numeracy
27 24 1 54 1 56 2 0 Numeracy workbooks look barely used; other workbooks do look used.
Sch 2Numeracy
26 38 1 48 1 43 1 13 Environmental Studies workbooks look barely used
Sch 3Numeracy
57 60 1 63 1 63 1 5 Posters on the wall. Teacher extensively used teacher-created manipulatives.
Ho
Sch 1Literacy
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 2Numeracy
14 0 0 0 0 14 1 2 Teacher also has 5 NALAP posters.
Sch 3Numeracy
31 60 1 64 1 55 1 13
Bia
Sch 1Env 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 3Env 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 17/19 20/3 60 1 60 1 60 1 0 No charts. Books look very used
17
Env Stud 1Sch 2Numeracy
22/34 8/22 60 1 60 1 60 1 -- No charts. Books almost finished. Extensive use of manipulatives.
Sch 3Env 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 1Env Stud
10/13 9/14 66 0 73 1 0 1 20 Posters not on wall
Sch 2Env Stud
30/37 25/36
80 1 80 1 80 1 10
Sch 3Env Stud
7 16 22 1 10 1 14 1 3 Teacher did not receive enough workbooks.
Nadowli
Sch 1Literacy
20 35 -- 1 -- 1 1 1 -- Children had copies of “Let’s Read and Write*” books. Not enough TLMPs
Sch 2Numeracy
43 14 -- 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- The teacher had a stack of “Kindergarten Mathematics*” books. Not used.
Sch 3Literacy
15 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Teacher says children share TLMPs. No TLMPs seen during observation.
Sawla-Tuna-Kalba
Sch 1Literacy
40 30 -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Teacher says there are not enough TLMP. No TLMP used/seen during observation
Sch 2Env. 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 3Numeracy
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 literacy workbook with a name on it 1 One wall chart rolled up on a deskSch 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 Studies0
Sch 3 nc/o nc/o No TLMP workbooks seen, but teacher had a teacher’s guide
0 A mixture of KG1 and KG2 in the classroom
Saboba Sch 1 nc/o nc/o Not enough workbooks nc/oSch 2 nc/o nc/o Enough numeracy workbooks nc/o
18
Sch 3 nc/o nc/o Some children do not have workbooks nc/o
Krachi
Sch 1Numeracy
20/50 nc/0 nc/o nc/o nc/o 50 1 nc/o Wall charts kept in office.
Sch 2Env 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 1Literacy
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 2Numeracy
56 -- -- -- -- -- 1 0 There were environmental studies books in the classroom, but not distributed to pupils.
Sch 3Env. 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. Boys and girls. The number of girls and boys was counted at some schools. At other schools, only the combined number was recorded.
19
Teachers Report Inadequate Supplies of TLMP Materials
In all districts, but 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 1Children admitted late 6(3.8%) 2(5.1%) 1No TLMP supplied 2 2(5.1%) 1 1Cost of some TLMP 2Newly absorbed schools 2Children admitted before TLMP were introduced 1Children not registered with GES 1Lack of pencils to write and draw 1Lack of storage; they get spoiled easily 1Only posters were supplied 1TLMP not supplied to schools far from the store 1
20
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 5 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 5
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.
21
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 1Amansie (N=4) 4(100%) 4(100%) 0 0
Assin North (N= 17) 7(41.2%) 10(58.8%) 2 1District 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 0Circuit 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 3Nadowli (N = 18) 10(55.6%) 12(66.7%) 1 1
Pru (N= 15) 5(33.3%) 5(33.3%) 0 0Circuit supervisors estimate 12 periods of TLMP for pupils and teachers
Saboba (N = 10) 6(60%) 3(30%) 0 0District 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
use 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.
22
Table 9
Frequency Distribution of Teachers in Whose Classrooms TLMP and Non-TLMP Materials Are Used 0 Periods Week
Pupils Use TMLP
Teachers Use TLMP
Children Use Non-TLMP
Teachers 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 sup 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 pupils1 Circuit supervisor: 0 non-TLMP for teachers1 D ECD Coord.: 0 non-TLMP for pupils
Chereponi (N = 16) 0 0 4 4 1 D ECD Coord: 0 non-TLMP for teachersGa 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 2Nadowli (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 sup: 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
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.
23
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 %TrainedAccra 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).
24
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 teachersSchool 2: 1 teacher
- Circuit 1: all teachers trained- Circuit 2: 0 ECD/DD: 8 out of 350
Amansie WestSchool 1: 1 teacherSchool 2: 2 teachers School 3: 2 teachers
- Circuit 1: 0 ECD: 222DD: 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 teachersDD: 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 198DD: 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 teachersDD: all 248 KG teachers
25
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
DirectorDiploma 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 1At random 3 1 1 1Trained teachers 2 4 1 2Need of lass 2Old KG teachers 1 1 1Two teachers per school 1 -- 1 1Serious teachers 1Great enrollment 1One teacher per school 1Number of years a KG school opened 1 1Two teachers per circuit 1All KG teachers 1 1Sub-metro vs. metroTeachers who never had training in KG teaching 1
Impact of Training of Teachers (TOT) Workshops
The assessment teams visited two to three schools in each of the 14 districts. The teams
interviewed one teacher at each school. Overall, 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?
26
3. Have you trained other kindergarten (KG) teachers?
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.
27
Of the 159 teachers who returned the questionnaires, 73 (45.9%) had attended one of the “training
of trainers” (TOT) workshops in Sunyani or Koforidua in September 2008. Sixty-nine of the 73 (94.5%)
thought 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.
28
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 is about 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 child use the materials. Questions also asked 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 seems 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 have implemented strategies for improving the involvement of the
parents. The majority of respondents identified parent-teacher association (PTA) meetings and school
29
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 gave 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. Gathering this data consisted of keeping track of the number of and the
types of responses that the teachers gave to the following questions. Responses to these questions
depicted the teachers’ comfort with the TLMs and children’s comfort with TLMs.
(1) How useful is the Teacher Guide in planning and Teaching the lessons?
30
(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 the TLMP
workbooks/materials than others?
(6) What observable changes have you observed in the children’s achievement since the TLMP
Workbooks/Materials have been used?
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 statements 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.
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 teachers
answered the questions. One hundred five teachers (66%) thought they were very effective; eight (5%) felt
31
“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:
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 aids on the walls than any other available.
3) KG children with TLMP workbooks do better than those without workbooks.
4) The TLMP workbook is child-centred 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.
32
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. One hundred three
(64.8%) teachers had improved their teaching techniques “a great deal.” Other 31 (19.5%) teachers had
“somewhat” improved their techniques. By collapsing “a great deal” and “somewhat” responses, 84.3% of
teachers self-reported having made positive changes in their teaching techniques. These teachers had
made 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 TLM 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 TLM’s 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.
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.
33
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.
1) The children have improved tremendously in all areas.
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 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.
34
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.
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 must be sewn in 3 dimensions, not 2; numbering of pages is not correct.
3) Words should be printed more boldly and big so that children can identify the words clearly and fast.
35
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 depicts the Southern environment and there is the 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.
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.
36
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.
37
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.
Other
1) 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.
38
4) It will be welcomed 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.
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
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.
39
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.
40
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 titles came in workbooks and teacher guides, and were
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 Teaching 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.
41
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,
there would have been 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 could have been 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
42
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?
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 a dire need for training. The renewed
partnership must address this dire 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
43
trainers’ workshop, but had not trained other teachers. A situation such as that of the Bia district needs
immediate attention.
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 had 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 Training of Trainers was for those
teachers to train other, further discussion with districts seems necessary to determine the qualities and
qualifications that trainers of teachers should have.
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 follow-up component to the training sessions so that teachers’ utilization use the skills
learned back in their schools is monitored and evaluated. In addition, it seems necessary to explore the
qualifications that facilitators of the sessions must have. Who provides the sessions? Most importantly,
how are the sessions monitored, and how are follow-up plans for the sessions developed and coordinated?
However, overall, even teachers who had attended the “train the trainers” workshops or attended
their districts’ in-service training in the use of TLMP still wanted more training.
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, the
44
Memorandum of Understanding does not clearly delineate responsibilities regarding parental and
community involvement. The omission should be rectified.
Still, 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. The
majority of participants also reported that children were not allowed to take books home to their parents
for five main reasons:
1) The textbooks are too heavy for Kindergarten children to take home.
2) The Kindergarten children are too young to handle the books
3) The Kindergarten children’s younger siblings would destroy the materials because they do not know the use
of the materials.
4) Many parents are illiterate to assist their children in the learning process, or handle the materials
adequately.
5) The supply of the materials is too low, and must be shared among children. Therefore, those textbooks
cannot be taken home.
The fifth reason 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 2 child
should be able to have his/her own copy of the three workbooks—Environmental Studies 2, My Second
Literacy, and My Second Numeracy.
Overall, 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.
45
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
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 with three
broad questions:
Contents changes: Changes to the TLMP were of four types.
1) Binding of the TLMP textbooks: Participants recommended binding must be strengthened and
done in three dimensions, as opposed to two, to withstand the playfulness and young age of
Kindergarten children.
46
2) Changes to the layout of the materials: There were two broad changes to the layout. 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.
3) Changes to Improve 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 program is 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
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
47
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 jeopardized
because of poor monitoring and management of their distribution and utilization. The quality of the
program will be unsure until 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 use
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 followed to the rule.
Failure to follow the implementation plan alters the momentum of schools, teachers and pupils,
particularly when these “core” materials are supplied several terms after other schools have received
them. 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 supplies as pencils to write.
However, the exposure of the teachers, parents and districts to the TLMP materials is in its infancy.
From the first TOT workshops in September 2008 to the first distribution of materials in October 2008, and
the final distribution of November 2009, one ought to give the time to the pupils, the teachers, the
administrators, and the community to adjust to the new teaching and learning tools. Indeed, some schools
still do not have or use all three titles, teacher’s guides or wall charts after a whole year. What this
assessment has shown is that the discrepancy in distribution was 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,
48
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 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
are identified in the Memorandum of understanding—the development of functional and efficient work
plan and the establishments of a dedicated “GES team that will ensure effective implementation of the
TLMP.” As important, but not delineated in the Memorandum of Understanding, are conditions necessary
for the implementation and survival of the partnership. Those conditions include the availability of
financial resources and human resources consistent with each step of the work plan, both at Chicago State
University and in Ghana.
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, its clarity is desirable. 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,” or to “develop
and monitor all for effective utilization of TLMs by educators and learners.”
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, etc.
49
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. 50
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 to “training of trainers” workshops teachers 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? In the latter
51
case, a simple visit to the school for a PTA or SMC meeting will not be enough. 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, all the beneficiary districts have received the materials. What seems problematical
seems to be the materials reaching the child, his/her family, and being effectively incorporated in KG
teaching and learning. As for any new program adoption, two years is not enough for organization to have
everything in place. As such, the need for a jointly and clearly developed work plan that delineates all the
pieces of the puzzle is evident.
The success the Chicago State University Teaching and Learning Materials Program in Ghana has
had in such a short time, and the enthusiasm and hope it has instilled in children, teachers and
administrators must not be thwarted by adoption glitches.
52
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
53
APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
54
55
APPENDIX B
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION APPROVAL
56
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 questionnaireDistrict Early Childhood Coordinator 1 questionnaireCircuit Supervisor 2 questionnairesHead Teacher 3 schools X 1 head teacher X 1
questionnaire = 3 questionnairesKG2 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 GahunguCoordinating 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: 1620 periods: 1
25 periods: 2 25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 112 periods: 55 periods: 23 periods: 10 periods: 8
25 periods: 10 periods: 1
25 periods: 112 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 1412 periods: 3
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 112 periods: 75 periods: 20 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: 212 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 --
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 20 periods: 2
12 periods: 20 periods: 1
12 periods: 1 12 periods
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 4 25 periods: 112 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 12 periods
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 20 periods: 2
12 periods: 10 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
Periods per Week 25 periods: 7 25 periods: 1 25 periods: 1 13 periods: 162
Children Use TLMP 12 periods: 10 12 periods: 2Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 212 periods: 66 periods: 13 periods: 20 periods: 6
25 periods: 112 periods: 10 periods: 1
0 periods: 1 7 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 1012 periods: 7
25 periods: 112 periods:2
25 periods: 1 13 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 112 periods: 16 periods: 13 periods: 20 periods: 12
25 periods: 112 periods: 10 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: 512 periods: 1
35 periods: 125 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 012 periods: 10 periods: 4
15 periods: 10 periods: 2
0 periods: 1 0 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 512 periods: 1
35 periods: 125 periods: 2
25 periods: 1 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 10 periods: 5
15 periods: 10 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: 512 periods: 1
25 periods: 1 20 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 10 periods: 5
0 periods: 1 15 periods: 2 0 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 6 25 periods: 1 35 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
63
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 10 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: 13rarely: 2no response: 1
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 612 periods: 10
12 periods: 10 periods: 1
25 periods:112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 116 periods: 10 periods: 4
12 periods: 125 periods: 1
25periods: 10 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 612 periods: 10
12 periods: 10 periods: 1
25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 116 periods: 10 periods: 4
12 periods: 125 periods: 1
25 periods: 10 periods: 1
0 periods: 1
GA EAST
Teachers (N=13) Head Teachers
(N=1)
Circuit Supervisors
(N=2)
District Early Childhood
CoordinatorHow often TLMP used
almost all the time: 12rarely: 1
--
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 212 periods: 11
12 periods: 1 12 Periods: 1 6 periods: 1
--
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 118 periods: 16 periods: 1
6 periods: 1 12 periods: 16 periods: 1
--
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 212 periods: 11
12 periods: 1 12 periods: 1--
--
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 118 periods: 16 periods: 1
6 periods: 1 12 periods: 16 periods: 1
--
GARU-TEMPANE
Teachers (N=12) Head Teachers
Circuit Supervisors
District Early Childhood
64
(N=4) (N=2) Coordinator (N=1)How often TLMP used
almost all the time: 10rarely: 1no response: 1
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 412 periods: 8
25 periods: 312 periods: 1
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 60 periods: 6
38 periods: 112 periods: 10 periods: 2
12 periods: 10 periods: 1
0 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 412 periods: 8
25 periods: 212 periods: 2
25periods: 2 12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 60 periods: 6
38 periods: 10 periods: 3
12 periods: 10 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 WESTo 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: 612 periods: 7
25 periods: 315 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
65
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 105 periods: 10 periods: 2
12 periods: 35 periods: 2
12 periods: 10 periods: 1
6 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 812 periods: 5
25 periods: 215 periods: 112 periods: 2
25 periods: 112 periods: 1
19 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 312 periods: 75 periods: 10 periods: 1no response: 1
12 periods: 45 periods: 1
12 periods: 10 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: 1012 periods: 8
25 periods: 3 25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 112 periods: 140 periods: 3
12 periods: 20 periods: 1
25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 1212 periods: 6
25 periods: 3 25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 112 periods: 110 periods: 5 no response: 1
12 periods: 20 periods: 1
25 periods: 112 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: 14rarely: 1
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 520 periods: 314 periods: 212 periods: 5
25 periods: 320 periods: 114 periods: 112 periods: 2
12 periods: 3 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
13 periods: 36 periods: 15 periods: 33 periods: 20 periods: 6
25 periods: 120 periods: 113 periods: 15 periods: 14 periods: 1
12 periods: 3 0 periods: 1
66
3 periods: 10 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 520 periods: 314 periods: 212 periods: 5
25 periods: 220 periods: 114 periods: 112 periods: 3
12 periods: 20 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
13 periods: 312 periods: 26 periods: 15 periods: 33 periods:20 periods: 4
25 periods: 120 periods: 117 periods: 113 periods: 15 periods: 10 periods: 1
12 periods: 20 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: 612 periods: 4
12 periods: 3 25 periods: 2 12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
12 periods: 34 periods: 30 periods: 3no response: 1
4 periods: 10 periods: 2
12 periods: 10 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 312 periods: 6no response: 1
12 periods: 3 25 periods: 112 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
12 periods: 24 periods: 30 periods: 41 no response
12 periods: 10 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: 10/12no response: 2
-- -- --
Periods per Week Children Use TLMP
25 periods: 912 periods: 3
25 periods: 2 12 periods: 2 25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Children use non-TLMP
25 periods: 212 periods: 40 periods: 6
0 periods: 2 25 periods: 10 periods: 1
12 periods: 1
67
Periods per Week Teachers Use TLMP
25 periods: 812 periods: 4
25 periods: 2 25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
Periods per Week Teachers use Non-TLMP
25 periods: 212 periods: 43-5 periods: 10 periods: 5
0 periods: 2 25 periods: 112 periods: 1
25 periods: 1
68
APPENDIX E
TLMP DISTRIBUTION
69
Table 5
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
LiteracyMy 2nd
NumeracyKG
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 4,392TG 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 16,248TG 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 15,810TG 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 12,591TG 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 14,211TG 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 1,920TG 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 6,453TG 269 234 234 234 234 234 -- -- -- --
Ho Wkbk 27,197 17,184 21,242 19,397 15,339 15,339 511 511 511 511TG 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 11,696TG 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 3,528TG 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 10,741TG 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 5,189TG 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 4,167TG 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 and brought up to speed 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
71
