In Depth

This report is part of an occasional series that distills learning

and highlights resources around specific development issues.

Making the Grade in Global Education

School Improvement in Developing Countries:

Experiences and Lessons Learned
Stephen Anderson and Karen Mundy
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
September 2014

This report builds on the discussions generated in the AKFC Seminar, Leading Educational Change:
Best Practices in School Improvement (February 12, 2015), part of the Making the Grade in Global
Education series launched in fall 2014.

When a classroom is vibrant and colourful, when teachers and school administrators are trained and
knowledgeable, and when families and communities play an active role in supporting local schools –
children can learn to their full potential. How can global education research and policy changes be
translated to the developing world, improving the way that students learn and apply new knowledge?

This report was developed to stimulate a discussion about best practices in the delivery of programs that
support improvements in education access and quality at the pre-tertiary education levels in developing
countries. Looking at the experience of the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) and others, it
synthesizes evidence, experiences, and lessons learned in the broad field of pre-primary, primary and
secondary school education and improvement in eight areas: overall approaches to school improvement;
student learning; teacher development; school management; parent and community involvement; early
childhood education; gender in education; and monitoring and evaluation.

It draws on a series of literature reviews pertaining to the AKDN’s practice-based experience in school
quality and improvement programs; rapid research reviews in the eight domains named above, drawing
particularly on key syntheses of research over the past decade globally and in developing countries i;
interviews with selected AKDN education officers on school improvement efforts; and a meeting of
AKDN representatives and international experts in the field of school [Link]

Key references cited in the bibliography are organized according to the different sections of the paper.
Each section begins with a broad discussion of the research evidence and contextual issues associated
with a specific topic and concludes with key questions based on that review.

The views communicated in this report synthesize the authors’ interpretations of the documentary sources
and of input from participants at the meeting cited above. The content should not be attributed directly to
the AKDN, other participants, or documentary sources except where explicitly noted.
 Page |2

Approaches to School Improvement

Global efforts to improve the quality of education in developing countries include the adoption and
implementation of system-level policies promoted by international donor agencies as a condition of
external aid; as well as local and district-level school improvement projects (SIPs) designed and
supported by international non-governmental institutions (NGOs) with the financial assistance of foreign
aid agencies.

As has been shown in the UNESCO Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report, financing
remains a significant challenge for all educational systems in the developing world. Even among
countries which presently spend 20 percent or more of the governmental budget on education, per capita
expenditure on schooling is still too low to provide all aspects of quality learning. This drives a strong
concern with efficiency in all public expenditure – that is to say, with finding the most cost-effective way
to achieve improvements in access, equity and quality.

Related to this concern with efficiency is a strong interest in re-organizing education systems so that they
are less top-down and better placed to engage and stimulate action from local level actors in education
through, for example:
 decentralization reforms (devolution of central government control over school management and
finances to local education and to school authorities – school management committees, capitation
grants);
 use of incentives (conditional cash transfers to parents, teacher incentives);
 school choice/competition and privatization schemes;
 teacher policy reforms (reform in national teacher education and certification systems);
 reforms to teacher professional support systems such as teacher centers, system-wide action research
projects; and
 national curriculum and accountability reforms.

While system-wide policy changes interact with local and program-based school improvement initiatives,
the interaction between these two thrusts of school improvement has not yet received adequate attention
in the research literature.

Macro-policy initiatives often emphasize financial, governance, infrastructural and material changes –
such as improved facilities and access to better teaching and learning materials – and basic human
resource needs (number and deployment of teachers) that are expected to contribute to higher quality
teaching and learning on a system-wide basis. Micro-level school improvement projects tend to place
more emphasis on investing in developing the individual and collective capacity of educators in the field
(including principals, teachers, supervisors, and teacher educators) to deliver quality teaching and
learning in schools.
Macro-policy initiatives often originate from global policy interests independent of the experience and
learning accruing from the more micro-level SIP experiences. These larger policies are often based on a
weak understanding of implementation at the local (school or district) level, and tend to be framed in
“either/ or” or “before/ after” terms. The results and learning arising from the more local and smaller scale
SIP experiences do not obviously trickle up to influence system-level decisions and policies for education
quality and improvement, although they are embedded within the macro-policy context for education
delivery.
 Page |3

Overall, there is a wealth of experience with school improvement projects in the developing world
supported by NGOs independently and in partnership with local government education agencies and
authorities, including teacher training institutions. Yet there is insufficient comparative research and
knowledge about these initiatives, and what has been learned about effective school improvement models
and practices in varying geographic, demographic, sectoral and policy contexts within and across
countries. In particular, the field of school improvement research and experience in developing countries
suffers from an absence of inquiry and knowledge about the sustainability of school improvement project
inputs and outcomes for students, teachers, school and system leaders, and the communities they serve.

Approaches to School Improvement:

Discussion Questions

How can knowledge about the effectiveness of alternative models and strategies for school improvement
be more widely documented and shared across government and non-governmental agencies to inform
and strengthen collective efforts and policy to improve the quality of pre-K12 education?

How can system policy initiatives and local school improvement efforts be effectively integrated in ways
that lead to a comprehensive knowledge base and approach to education improvement in pre-K-12
education that remains sensitive to variability in local and regional contexts?

Teaching and Learning

Education for All has been a defining preoccupation of efforts to strengthen K-12 education across the
developing world over the past two decades. Significant gains in enrolment and attendance have been
achieved through interventions focused on infrastructure (school facilities, roads, and learning materials)
and on alleviating the costs to families of sending children to school. Issues of access, however, remain a
prominent concern in many developing countries, particularly for students and families marginalized for
various reasons, such as location, poverty, language, gender, ethnicity, disability, or religion.
Improvements in access and enrolment have also created new challenges (e.g., large class sizes or large
numbers of overage students) and have heightened concerns about the actual quality of education students
receive once in schools.

School improvement efforts around the world are strongly influenced by national and international
accountability systems that focus attention on a relatively narrow range of student learning outcomes, in
particular basic literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy. This narrowing of the learning agenda is
even more pronounced in developing country contexts, where literacy and numeracy proficiency levels
are typically low for adults as well as for children, and where academic learning in all subject areas is
seen as highly dependent upon strengthening student reading, writing and mathematical skills. While
some argue that literacy development need not be confined to language arts classes, the rhetoric of
teaching language across the curriculum presumes a level of pedagogical expertise that is unusual even
for well-educated teachers in developed countries. The emphasis on early literacy and numeracy, at the
expense of investment in student learning and development in other curriculum areas valued by parents
and governments (e.g., science, social studies and citizenship education, health and physical education,
arts, vocational skills) is controversial. The controversy arises in part from the tension between the
perceived value of a broader agenda for learning and improvement and the reliance on accountability and
reporting measures that continue to frame and focus talk about the quality of learning outcomes in terms
of test results on basic skills and the actions that follow by policy and funding authorities.
 Page |4

The challenges for teaching and learning in developing countries are further complicated by linguistic
diversity and competing stakeholder expectations and national policies respecting the medium of
instruction and the teaching of national, local and international languages (e.g., English and French).
What responsibility should public education systems take for both mother tongue instruction and official
national languages? What language(s) at what levels (e.g., pre-primary, primary, secondary) should be
used as the medium of instruction? What role should international languages play in the curriculum and
in the medium of instruction? How can national interests be balanced with parental interests in terms of
priorities for different languages in the curriculum? How can teacher capacity and teaching and learning
resources be adequately developed and supported to effectively teach in contexts of linguistic diversity
and varying government and parent expectations? While language policies and multi-lingual education
are issues in high-income countries as well, evidence about the effects of language choices and pedagogy
on learning outcomes in pre-tertiary education are not readily transferable to low-income developing
world contexts. These questions require more research and evaluation that is sensitive to local
demographic, political, human and material resource realities internationally.

Comparative evidence and perspectives on student learning in developing countries converge on a

common cluster of instructional concepts and strategies. First and foremost, learning should be student-
centered, use low-cost teaching and learning materials, and be provided in a language which students
understand. Some of the most effective teaching strategies to foster learning include the appropriate use of
small group learning in addition to large group instruction; regular diagnostic and formative assessment of
student progress to guide instructional decision-making; clear directions and checking student
understanding of the purpose of learning activities; personalized feedback to students based on
assessments of their learning; and explicit teaching of learning skills to strengthen students’ problem
solving competencies. With the possible exception of low-cost learning materials, these prescriptions for
good teaching are consistent with evidence about effective instruction internationally.

An ongoing debate in developing countries concerns the persistent challenge of how to adapt instructional
programs and practices to local curricula and classroom working conditions (e.g., class size, multi-age
and multi-grade classrooms, community cultural norms, available teaching and learning materials, and
linguistic diversity). This concern applies whether teachers are provided with scripted programs or
whether they are expected to acquire and effectively apply professional knowledge and skills about
alternative teaching methods (see the following section on Teacher Development).

Worldwide interest and investment in the pedagogical uses of alternative information communication
technologies (ICTs) extends to education in developing countries – particularly as the costs of ICT
materials decrease – because of their potential to provide access to education for remote groups of
students and access to curriculum content beyond the limits of traditional textbooks. It remains unclear
how effective the use of ICTs is at actually improving student learning outcomes; how to effectively
support teachers in ICT use; and how to practically embed and sustain the pedagogical uses of ICT into
teaching and learning on a large scale.
 Page |5

Teaching and Learning:

General Discussion Questions

How can the need and pressure to develop students’ basic literacy and numeracy skills be reconciled with
the broad spectrum of goals for student learning advocated by diverse stakeholders (e.g., science and
social studies, social and citizenship development, 21st Century learning skills) in the contexts of national
policies and local/regional SIP initiatives?

How can school improvement initiatives respond effectively to the realities of linguistic pluralism and
language policies in the national and local community contexts in which they operate?

How can the influence of variability in local contexts be more adequately taken into account in
evaluating and understanding the implementation and impact of instructional innovations, and in
planning for scaling up and supporting the transfer of effective practices to more schools?

Teacher Development
Research internationally demonstrates that the quality of teaching is the most significant in-school factor
affecting student learning. In developing countries, infrastructure (school facilities) and the availability
and adequacy of teaching and learning resources (textbooks) are known to exert a significant fundamental
influence on measures of education quality. Yet for learning to take place, teachers are the basic resource,
and they have to be in the classroom. The challenges of creating and sustaining an effective teaching
workforce extends beyond the quality of initial and continuing teacher education opportunities and
interventions as described below. Policies and practices related to teacher recruitment, deployment
(particularly to rural schools and schools serving socio-economically disadvantaged or otherwise
marginalized families and students), selection and hiring, working conditions, and retention are also
important. To get teachers into remote or rural schools, various kinds of incentives – such as better
housing or pay bonuses – have proven effective. Reducing high rates of teacher absenteeism, which
negatively affect the quality of teaching and learning in many low income countries, is a challenging
human resource issue, and one that is likely dependent more upon improving the overall working
conditions and levels of teacher professionalism than upon unique interventions. More research on teacher
evaluation and the use of financial and other types of incentives to attract people into the profession and
to reward performance (based on factors such as placement in difficult to serve schools, regular
attendance, and student results) are clearly needed.

Once the basic resource issues are taken care of, the centrality of teacher effectiveness takes prominence
as in developed countries. Teacher development, both pre- and in-service, are a major focus of education
improvement efforts in developing countries at both the system-level and at the level of local/regional SIP
projects. Given the overall low levels of student learning on national as well as international indicators of
achievement, together with the low level of educational qualifications required for becoming a teacher in
many developing countries (especially in Africa), the challenges for initial and continuing teacher
education are particularly daunting.

One focus of ongoing debate is whether efforts to improve the quality of teaching should focus on
training teachers to implement highly structured, even scripted, teaching and learning programs that have
proven effective in some contexts, or on developing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and skill to
creatively design and implement instructional programs and lessons in collaboration with other teachers
and with expert assistance from local teacher leaders. Some argue that the former approach is a realistic
 Page |6

and cost-effective short-term strategy, particularly in regions where well-educated, skilled and committed
teachers are in short supply. Others argue that long-term improvement in the quality of teaching and
learning requires an investment in raising the standards and level of teaching from a technical procedure
to a professional practice. Even when externally developed programs are adopted and accompanied by
intensive implementation training, the need to adapt those programs to the practical realities of local
contexts requires a high level of collective professional judgment to preserve the integrity and
effectiveness of the programs. Indeed, the root issue may be less about the sources of programs and
practices than the processes of adapting them to the local contexts – comprised of the schools,
communities, or policy frameworks within which they are implemented. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012)
make a strong, evidence-based argument that, in order to develop an effective corps of teachers, teacher
development policies and interventions should extend beyond developing teachers’ individual
professional knowledge and skills (human capital) to developing their collective capacity (social capital)
and authority (decisional capital) to improve student learning. This vision of teacher development
implicates the organizational dimensions of teachers’ work and decision-making processes related to
classroom and school change.

The international knowledge base on effective teacher development practices is consistent, including:
combining expert input in formal training contexts (e.g., workshops, courses) with follow-up mentoring
and coaching in the classroom; addressing teachers’ subject matter knowledge as well as their generic and
subject-specific instructional methods; engaging teachers in collaborative activities in schools or school
clusters where they learn together rather than independently of one another; modelling expected teaching
practices in teacher training activities; linking teacher development activities to school and system goals
for improvement; and involving principals in teacher development activities in order to increase their
understanding, capacity and commitment to support the use of new programs and practices. The
availability of that knowledge, however, does not mean that it is universally and consistently applied in
policy and in practice, regardless of context. Some common challenges to the design and delivery of
effective pre- and in-service professional learning systems for teachers in developing country contexts
include:
 weak linkages between pre-service and in-service professional learning experiences;
 absence of organizationally and financially sustainable field-based in-service teacher learning
systems;
 scarcity of teacher developer expertise to support the development, implementation and local
adaptation of instructionally effective methods, regardless of their source; and
 persistence of organizational and working conditions in schools that hinder rather than enable teacher
learning and improvement in instructional practice.

While not denying the importance of high-quality, initial teacher education, teacher effectiveness in the
long term is more dependent on direction and support for ongoing professional learning in the workplace
linked to shared goals and resources for improvement in teaching and learning. Non-traditional, field-
based, or in-service professional learning strategies – such as peer mentoring and coaching; teachers
working as professional learning communities to solve common problems and improve student learning;
and teachers engaging in collaborative action research on solutions to shared problems of teaching and
learning – have been implemented with some success at the project level in developing countries. The
challenge remains how to develop, replicate and sustain effective field-based professional learning
systems on a large scale in ways that are not dependent upon extraordinary financial aid or expertise
outside the system. This challenge is complicated by the difficulty of assessing the quality and
development of instructional practice.
 Page |7

International research also clearly demonstrates that the prospects for school improvement at any scale are
unlikely if school improvement promoters limit their focus to single dimensions of the constellation of
factors that interact to influence change, such as curriculum materials or teacher development. Bryk and
Sebring et al (2010), for example, report findings from a longitudinal investigation of school
improvement in the Chicago school district that document the combined importance of school leadership,
professional capacity, parent-community ties, a student-centered learning environment, and instructional
guidance in improving student outcomes in public elementary schools. Schools strong on these supports
were 10 times more likely to improve learning of reading and mathematics compared to schools weak in
these supports.

Teacher Development:
General Discussion Questions

How can the professional capacity of teachers to implement instructional programs and practices that
are effective in terms of student learning and appropriately adapted to the local political, geographic,
community and resource contexts be developed on a large scale?

How can teacher development be coordinated in coherent and sustainable systems of initial and in-
service professional learning that incorporate best knowledge about effective professional learning and
that lead to authentic improvements in the quality of teaching and learning?

How can teacher development policies and strategies be effectively coordinated with other policies and
practices that influence the overall professionalism and quality of the teacher workforce (e.g.,
recruitment, deployment, contractual conditions, workplace conditions, retention, incentives,
evaluation)?

School Management and Leadership

The school improvement literature internationally affirms that effective school leadership is an important
condition for a successful school, but not in isolation of other contributing factors. There are two relevant
bodies of knowledge on school management and leadership: (1) the characteristics of effective school
managers and leaders; (2) the development of effective school managers and leaders.

Evidence about the characteristics (beliefs, preparation) and practices of effective school leaders centres
mainly on the work of principals, notwithstanding current interest internationally in sharing and
distribution of leadership practice and influence. Evidence about principal effectiveness in developed
country contexts focuses on principal behaviours associated with the quality and improvement of teaching
and student learning. While there are debates about leadership models (transformational leadership,
instructional leadership), there is convergence around key leadership practices associated with principal
effectiveness when skillfully enacted in a coherent, goal-focused way: developing consensus on school
goals focused on student learning; developing teacher knowledge and skills to effectively teach; creating
workplace conditions and relationships that support teaching and learning (such as time for teachers to
plan and learn together and parent/community involvement); and managing the instructional program to
support pursuit of school goals (resourcing, staffing, monitoring and use of assessment data for decisions
about improvement in teaching and learning, and ensuring an orderly climate conducive for learning). The
research emphasizes that leader effects operate indirectly to promote student outcomes by supporting
conditions for teaching and learning affecting teachers and their work.
 Page |8

The literature on school leadership and quality in developing countries emphasizes the principal’s role
and skills in addressing basic resource challenges (e.g., quality of school facilities, teaching and learning
materials, funding) and in the enactment of basic management tasks (e.g., budgeting, planning, and
resource management), in addition to the perceived need for instructional leadership in the context of
external reform initiatives promoted by governments and donor agencies. Studies in developing countries
also point to major shifts in expectations for school leadership due to structural reforms (decentralization,
privatization) that thrust greater responsibility and accountability on principals for school quality and
improvement; mark a change from traditional roles centered more on carrying out orders and complying
with administrative regulations from supervisory authorities; and often involve them working with school
management committees comprised of parents and community members. Policy changes related to
school governance and management may complicate the work of principals without reducing the
challenging practical constraints to carry out their work effectively in these contexts. Simply stated,
policy instruments that increase accountability and competition – and that alter governing and funding
structures and authority – do not in themselves improve the knowledge and skills that school and system
leaders need to effectively manage and lead school improvement. There is less research-based evidence
and consensus on the characteristics and practices of effective school leaders in developing country
contexts, particularly in regard to enactment of new expectations for instructional leadership and school
improvement.

The growth of private sector schools, particularly low-cost private schools targeting low-income families
and students, as an alternative to government-managed public schools is a controversial phenomenon in
many developing countries. Evidence concerning their impact on student access to education and on the
quality of teaching and learning is mixed and strongly polarized along ideological grounds. Research on
school management and leadership for improvement in these schools is not yet well developed.

What are the components of effective school leadership is one question. How to develop effective school
leaders is another. Some common findings and claims from international research on effective principal
development programs include the following:
 principals need initial and ongoing training for both management and instructional leadership tasks;
 effective principal development programs are linked to competency standards aligned with research
on good practice; and
 principal development programs delivered by universities need to be integrated with provisions for
mentoring of new principals and with ongoing professional learning supports provided by local
education authorities.

It remains unclear on how to best assess the impact of principal development programs on principal
beliefs and practices, and on the quality of teaching and learning in schools where they work (given the
indirect effects of their actions on student performance). Alternative models of principal professional
learning include problem-based approaches, action research, and training in specific competencies (e.g.,
classroom visitation, use of data for school and instructional decision-making), though it cannot be said
that there is consensus in the literature on the most effective models.

Information about school leadership development programs in developing countries is minimal and
focuses more on the general preparation for school management and leadership than on evidence of
program effectiveness. In many developing countries there are no system-wide provisions for initial
preparation of principals, and in-service programs and courses are few and irregular in occurrence and
quality. Thus, principals mainly learn informally within the workplace how to do their work.
 Page |9

The development of principal effectiveness is not just about initial and ongoing training of principals, but
also about developing coherence between training and local policies and processes for principal hiring,
placement, appraisal, and succession planning; and developing the capacity of local supervisors to carry
out their responsibilities to ensure and support principal effectiveness at the school and system levels.
The role of leadership for school improvement at the local education agency (e.g., district education
officers) and higher levels of education systems is recognized in the literature internationally; however,
there is comparatively little research on the actual leadership skills for people in positions at those levels.
Leadership at the intermediate level has not been a focus of research in developing countries.

School Management and Leadership:

General Discussion Questions

How can political imperatives to reform education governance and funding systems be combined with
professional imperatives to develop effective systems of school and system management and leadership
for school quality and improvement?

What approaches to initial and continuing professional development of school and system leaders are
needed to strengthen their capacity to manage and lead schools towards system and local goals for
quality and improvement?

How can the role of intermediate levels and agents in public education systems be strengthened in the
pursuit of greater equity and quality in education provision and outcomes in K-12 education?

Parent and Community Involvement

The literature internationally on parent and community involvement in education at the school and the
system level is structured around three broad themes: (1) parent and community participation in school
governance and management; (2) parent involvement in teaching and learning; and (3) parent and
community engagement at the system level (governance and accountability).

The World Bank and other international donors have promoted considerable investment in policies and
structures to involve parents and community members as key stakeholders and participants in School
Based Management (SBM) structures associated with decentralization measures in developing world
countries, such as School Management Committees. Unfortunately, optimism about the positive effects of
interventions to increase parental and community participation in school governance in developing
country contexts is not well supported by research. Formal opportunities for parental involvement and
community participation are neither always implemented nor necessarily translated into influence. Dunne
[Link] (2007) refer to a review of decentralization policy and practice in six sub-Saharan African countries
and conclude that core education decisions are hardly ever decentralized in a way that encourages genuine
local community participation in decision-making. Several studies in different contexts show that when
accountability systems are weak at both the school and district level – and there is little information
shared with parents or parent awareness about how to hold schools responsible – decentralization
measures through SBM are ineffective as a means to involve parents in improving the management and
quality of schools. Research in various African and South Asian contexts has shown unequal access to
participation in bodies such as School Management Committees (SMCs) and Parent-Teacher Associations
due to socio-economic status, race, caste, social class, location, political affiliation and gender.

Lack of teacher and school leadership support in promoting parental and community engagement in
school decision-making are also cited as significant barriers to effective participation. Bryk and Sebring et
 P a g e | 10

al’s (2010) longitudinal research in Chicago elementary schools highlights the significance of parent and
community engagement with schools as one of five essential supports for school improvement in
combination with leadership, instructional guidance, professional capacity and a student-centered learning
climate. A focus on strengthening parental involvement without adequate attention to the other supports
yields little improvement.

Little empirical evidence exists to show a direct relationship between parental involvement in governance
and enhanced learning outcomes. When parents have a meaningful role in hiring and firing teachers and
principals, however, evidence shows that school personnel are more likely to be consistently on-the-job
when compared to similar schools and contexts where they do not have that authority. Curiously,
expectations for parent and community involvement in school governance are not emphasized in the
privatization movement. More research is needed internationally on the nature and quality of school
governance and management within the growing private education sector in both high and low income
countries, including the roles of parent and community stakeholders in those processes.

Research in developed countries reveals that parental participation in school councils and other forms of
school decision-making has lower impact on student learning than forms of parental engagement that
focus on helping parents to better understand and support their own children's learning. A small body of
evidence in developing countries affirms that interventions that provide ways for parents and community
members to support their children’s learning can be promising and valuable. These include:
 community programs that support parenting and parental involvement in early literacy and school
transition;
 use of parent/community volunteers to enhance learning and school readiness; and
 community education campaigns to encourage school entry by children from vulnerable groups; and
 greater engagement of parents and children hesitant to enter school because of social stigma and
exclusion.

Parental involvement in student learning may also positively affect teachers, as research shows that
people who have close contact with schools – such as parents who assist in classrooms– often have much
more positive attitudes towards teachers than people with little direct contact. Building stronger links
between the schools and the community can help to enhance the status of teaching and, indirectly, teacher
motivation and commitment. Another common form of parental and community involvement in
developing countries concerns the expectations for parents to fund and participate in the construction and
maintenance of school facilities. Though sometimes necessary, the expectation of parental contributions
of this kind can act as a barrier to access for poorer children.

There are also cases of system-wide initiatives to mobilize parent and community participation and
influence on education policy through citizen-led, household-based assessment initiatives – called ASER
(which means “impact”) in India and Pakistan and Uwezo (which means “capability”) in East Africa –
which utilize volunteers to assess student learning and survey parent views on education, and then present
this information as a way of enhancing the education system’s accountability to the public. While these
initiatives and other forms of policy influence through various civil society organizations (e.g., Haki
Elimu in Tanzania) have become a significant political presence and voice in education, the formal
research about the organizations, their activities, and impacts is limited. The role of these kinds of
organizations and initiatives in national and local school improvement initiatives undertaken by
governments and by NGOs is unclear. Should they be partners in education reform and improvement
efforts? Is it more important for them to position themselves as independent monitors, critics and
advocates for the publics they serve? What difference does the information they generate and disseminate
actually have on education policy, parental awareness and understanding of education issues, or school
performance (Banerjee et al 2010)?
 P a g e | 11

In a study of educational initiatives on community and parental engagement in Africa, Kendall (2007)
concludes that new models of education development planning and practices – in which parents and
communities participate broadly, such as by partnering with state and international actors to set the
agenda for what primary education is expected to accomplish and how such accomplishments should be
measured – are required to significantly improve educational quality.

Parent and Community Involvement:

General Discussion Questions

Should parent and community involvement in school governance and in student learning be addressed as
distinct goals for improvement, or should they be in the service of other goals for improvement in student
learning?

How can parent and community involvement in school governance be strengthened to enable significant
input into decision-making about school management and improvement and to ensure equitable
participation of school community members over time?

How can parent and community involvement to support student learning at home and in school be
effectively integrated into school system and school-level school improvement initiatives?

Early Childhood Development and Pre-Primary Education

Children’s participation in pre-primary programs internationally, including developing countries, has been
shown to improve the transition to schooling; promote on time school enrolment; enhance retention;
strengthen children’s confidence as learners; increase academic performance and completion; as well as
address equity problems that exclude girls or economically/ socially marginalized groups. These
differences are most evident for children from socio-economically disadvantaged family and community
backgrounds. The benefits of early childhood program interventions for children’s early primary school
success are greater when accompanied by supports for families and parental involvement, such as
advocacy, participation, and support at home. Five features of effective programs in early childhood
include: targeting the most disadvantaged; using well-designed curricula, including a parent component;
monitoring quality; and employing well-trained and supported teachers (Woodhead & Siraj-Blatchford
2009).

Given the growing interest in the science of early childhood development and strong policy support for
pre-primary programs, it is notable that there few attempts in either high- or low-income countries have
been made to adopt an educational effectiveness perspective within the field of early childhood education
(Sammons, Anders & Hall, 2013). This stands in sharp contrast to the tradition of “school effectiveness”
research on schools and teachers. A remaining challenge is to understand better what effectiveness means
in early childhood education: i.e. what matters (characteristics of home and educational environments),
what works (social interactions, quality of provision) – and in what context, and under which conditions?

A recent review of pre-primary effectiveness in a North American context highlights the most important
aspects of quality in pre-primary education as, firstly, stimulating and supportive interactions between
teachers and children and, secondly, the effective use of curricula (Yoshikawa et al., 2013). From a North
American perspective, the effective use of curricula involves the implementation of developmentally
focused curricula (rather than global curricula) that focuses on such specific aspects of learning as
language and literacy, math, or socio-emotional development. The AKDN models encourage and
 P a g e | 12

reinforce stimulating and supportive interactions between teachers and children in pre-primary, but
unanswered questions remain about the effective use of curricula in low-income countries.

In addition to identifying effective curricula, a research gap exists internationally on effectiveness related
to supporting pre-primary teachers in their implementation of instructional approaches as well as in the
optimal timing, length and exposure to pre-primary. Evidence from AKDN programs in Bangladesh
(Bartlett, 2013; Proulx & Kabir, 2012), for example, suggests that the gains from two years of pre-
primary were not as large as from the first year of pre-primary. This may be because children who attend
two years of pre-primary are not experiencing a sequential building of instruction from the first to the
second year.

Further investigation is needed about specific practices and conditions in both pre-primary and primary
school settings that benefit the transition of children to primary school. These include developing and
evaluating effective models that combine parent and family-directed early learning and stimulation
strategies with centre-based pre-primary, innovative approaches to developmentally focused curricula;
and effective practices for supporting pre-service and in-service teacher development initially and for
program implementation. Although there has been a surge in early childhood research in the last 10 to 15
years, most of this research has been generated in North America. The usefulness of such research for
policy makers, practitioners and researchers in developing countries is limited because the contexts,
funding and structures for pre-primary vary enormously from country to country.

Early Childhood Development and Pre-primary Education:

General Discussion Questions

How can robust indicators of quality in pre-primary programs be developed and used to systematically
inform teacher development practices and decision-making processes related to school improvement?

How can longitudinal and comprehensive approaches to early childhood development that include the
identification of risk factors in the first years of a child’s life (e.g., inadequate psycho-social stimulation,
stunting, maternal depression, exposure to violence) be integrated into school improvement strategies,
especially with respect to providing targeted programming for children most at risk for school failure?

How can school improvement initiatives address the concept of “ready” schools that focuses on building
smooth transitions for children to help them adjust to the primary school environment and providing
professional development to early grade teachers on topics related to early childhood development?

Gender Equality in Education

For close to twenty-five years, the international community has been constructing and pursuing goals and
strategies related to the achievement of gender equality in education. Since 2000, gender equality in
education has been pursued as part of the Millennium Development Goals and the Dakar Framework for
Action on Education for All. The focus in much of the gender equality in education research has been on
assessing and measuring gender gaps in education, identifying barriers, and developing best practices
towards the enhancement of girls’ education. While significant gains have been made in terms of
improving girls’ access to basic education worldwide, gender disparities persist particularly at the level of
secondary (and higher) education in most developing countries. Researchers, practitioners, policymakers
and donors increasingly recognize that focusing on access and the achievement of gender parity in
enrolment is an inadequate approach to and measure of gender equality in education. Girls’ educational
 P a g e | 13

experiences, the quality of education they are exposed to, and what they are able to do with their
education after graduation are critically important factors that shape girls’ educational opportunities.

A robust literature documents the many demand- and supply-side factors that can act as barriers to girls’
educational opportunities at the pre-tertiary levels, including in terms of access, retention, quality and
outcome. On the supply side, socio-economic and cultural factors include poverty; the direct costs of
schooling; high opportunity costs/low rate of return; geographic location (i.e., remote, low population
areas); limited employment opportunities for graduates; early marriage or pregnancy; and gender norms
that devalue girls’ education. On the demand side, political/institutional factors include budget
constraints; political instability; conflict/emergencies; weak policy frameworks/lack of a clear strategy for
gender equality in education; weak, uneven or inconsistent policy implementation; poor quality of
education; weak data collection mechanisms/lack of gender disaggregated statistics; and top-down policy
and programming. Demand-side factors linked to schools include inadequate classroom space; distance to
school; high school fees (including “hidden” costs); lack of female teachers; teachers not sensitized to
gender issues; gender bias in curricula and teaching/learning materials; gender-based violence; inadequate
or absent support for pregnant adolescents and young mothers; lack of separate and secure toilets with
running water; and school calendars that conflict with farming cycles.

Two main approaches have characterized global efforts to address the myriad factors inside and outside
school that can fuel gender disparities in education. The first is what Unterhalter (2007) refers to as the
interventionist approach, where the focus is primarily on expanding educational access. Driven by
instrumentalist rationales – be they informed by human capital/cost-benefit analysis, basic needs, or
Women in Development (WID) perspectives – the focus of the interventionist approach is to get girls into
schools, with little concern paid to the experience of schooling or to what happens outside of schools with
respect to gender (in)equalities. The interventionist approach privileges the “what works” agenda, and
targets a core set of technical reforms aimed at improving girls’ access to schooling: reducing cost;
building schools; making schools safe; and improving the quality of education. Significant gains in terms
of girls’ educational enrolment and achievement have been realized through the provision of subsidies to
needy girls; recruiting and training more female teachers; pre- and in-service training for teachers on
gender sensitive and gender responsive pedagogy; revision of curricula and textbooks to remove gender
bias; improving school conditions and facilities; implementing school feeding programs; providing
sanitary supplies for young women to use during their menstrual cycle; and establishing science and math
clubs for girls.

Addressing socio-cultural and other non-economic factors that constrain girls’ education continues to
present unique challenges for policymakers, administrators and educators. Some success has been
registered with the development and implementation of community sensitization programs that aim to
educate people about the importance of girls’ education as a human right and an investment in human
capital, as well as mobilizing community support for and engagement with their children’s schooling. For
example, UNICEF’s Mothers’ Club initiative has helped create spaces in many countries for schools to
benefit from the involvement of community mothers through income generation, school feeding
programs, school maintenance, mentorship, and teaching. Peer learning and peer-based advocacy
initiatives have also constituted effective strategies for improving community engagement with and
support for formal schooling in general and girls’ education more particularly.

The second main approach to promoting gender equality in education is the institutional approach, which
maps onto gender equality advocacy from a human rights perspective (Unterhalter, 2007). Examples of
building and reforming institutions towards the goal of gender equality in education include the adoption
of gender mainstreaming approaches (including gender-responsive budgeting); the development of
systems for monitoring girls in school; and developing and enforcing anti-sexual harassment policies and
 P a g e | 14

re-entry policies for young mothers. A key challenge for institutional approaches is the need to establish
and sustain institutional attention to the complexities of gender-based inequalities in education.

Starting from the premise that interventionist and institutional approaches have been “necessary but
insufficient”, Unterhalter (2007) theorizes what she calls the “interactive” approach as a blend of the two
former orientations to promoting gender equality in education. The interactive approach emphasizes the
necessity of dialogue and negotiation concerning the weighting and content of rights and capabilities
claims as a means to broaden and deepen gender equality in the education agenda and beyond.

Gender Equality in Education:

General Discussion Questions

What are the best ways to enhance teacher awareness, commitment, and action on achieving goals for
gender equality in education as an integral component of school improvement efforts?

How can organizations working on gender equality in education better address the intersection of gender
with other lines of disadvantage particular to specific local contexts, such ethnicity, socio-economic
status and geographic location?

What can organizations working on gender equality in education do to strengthen the sustainability of
initiatives that yield positive results?

Monitoring and Evaluation

Given the need for improving access to quality pre-tertiary education (pre-K, primary, secondary) in the
developing world – and the enormous investment by governments and international donor agencies
towards the accomplishment of those aims through macro-policy and micro-level education improvement
initiatives – monitoring and evaluation of those efforts is a high priority. Our comments here will focus
mainly on approaches and issues associated with monitoring and evaluating the implementation and
outcomes of the more micro-level school improvement initiatives, because that is the level at which
AKDN school improvement projects and related initiatives operate in different countries, albeit within the
context of macro-level policy initiatives and trends in those countries. The discussion is not inclusive of
all dimensions and issues pertaining to SIP monitoring and evaluation, but does address key topics that
emerged in our document reviews and in the spring 2014 AKDN meeting.

Internationally, in both developed and developing countries, concerns about how to best assess and judge
the outcomes – particularly student learning outcomes – of interventions to improve teaching and learning
are a major focus of debate. Historically, the absence of high-quality, national assessment systems for
student learning in most developing countries has been an obstacle to impact evaluations of SIP
initiatives, given the lack of common, reliable baseline data to track progress and to compare outcomes
for and between distinct policy and project interventions. As a result, virtually every government or non-
governmental school improvement initiative plans and executes its own approach to monitoring and
evaluating implementation and outcomes. This presents a significant challenge, not just for the quality of
those evaluations and associated reports, but also for the development of a cumulative knowledge base for
what works or does not within and across contexts.

In recent years, donor agencies and other international stakeholders have emphasized and even required
more experimental research designs, often referred to as randomized control trials (RCTs), as the gold
 P a g e | 15

standard for evaluating the impact of interventions to improve teaching and learning. There is heated
debate within the comparative and development education community of researchers, donor agencies,
project implementation agents, governments and advocacy groups about the use of RCTs. These debates
centre around controversial expectations and claims about evidence of outcomes through RCT use; the
generalizability of RCT findings; the costs and expertise required to do RCTs well; and the continued
relevance of well-done case studies and other more qualitative investigations of SIP-related interventions
and impact.

One issue pertains to the appropriateness of RCTs for the evaluation of different kinds of school
improvement-related interventions. Simply stated, RCTs might be useful for evaluating the effects of
discrete interventions, such as the use of a new reading program, but they are not appropriate for
evaluating the effects of complex school improvement initiatives that encompass a multiplicity of
interventions, such as teaching practices, materials, teacher development, and parent involvement.
A second issue concerns any expectation that the results of implementing a program or practice in one
setting are simply replicable in other settings. Research on educational change since the mid-1970s
irrefutably demonstrates that implementation of new programs and practices is strongly influenced by
factors particular to the different local contexts in which they are introduced. Comparative studies of
alternative programs often show greater variation between sites implementing the same program than
between the programs per se. Some argue that RCT evaluations should not be done unless accompanied
by parallel investigations – often more qualitative – of intervention implementation and associated local
conditions. Simplistic conclusions about whether a program is effective or not should be deepened by
understanding of program effectiveness when implemented in what ways and under what conditions.
Sensitivity to the influence of variability in contexts on implementation of innovations in education
programs and practices is of particular relevance to the evaluation of interventions in developing
countries.

A third issue, not just for use of RCTs, but for monitoring and evaluation of school improvement-related
policies and initiatives more generally, has to do with the sources of professional expertise and resource
capacity to do that work. Expectations that project staff should be capable of doing their own summative
evaluations of project outcomes and implementation seems unreasonable on a wide scale in terms of
human resources and expertise in most developing countries, and is unlikely to produce results that
independent observers (e.g., policy makers, donor agencies) deem credible. On the other hand, strong
arguments can be made about the importance of developing tools, opportunities and local expertise for a
school, school system, and project staff to monitor implementation progress and effects for the purpose of
learning and refining the quality of programs and practices in situ. Who should do that?

The majority of published evaluations of school improvement policy and project interventions in
developing countries are commissioned, funded, carried out, and disseminated under the authority and
direction of external donor agencies, not by national or local education agencies, and often by foreign
researchers alone or with some local researchers external to specific projects. International
donor/stakeholders and in-country education authorities have made little concerted effort overall to
develop institutional capacity and expertise within countries to assess and evaluate the implementation
and impact of the multitude of school improvement-related policy and program interventions that have
characterized the field of “development education” over the years. A big question for all is how to
develop local and national capacity to monitor and evaluate the implementation and outcomes of school
improvement related policy and program interventions.

Finally, questions remain concerning the purposes of school improvement monitoring and evaluation
activities in both developed and developing world contexts. Certainly legitimate questions persist about
whether investments in particular policies and school improvement interventions yield results that are
worth the money and resources allocated to their implementation, and whether further investment in
 P a g e | 16

scaling up and sustaining them is justified locally or elsewhere. Monitoring and evaluation activities
should also be producing information that is a source of cumulative learning about how to improve the
quality of education in particular contexts over time. This implies that monitoring and evaluation
frameworks and tools can produce findings that are comparable over time within particular policy and
project intervention contexts, as well as across interventions that aim to produce similar results albeit with
different approaches and strategies. Thirdly, systems and activities are needed to mobilize knowledge
arising from monitoring and evaluation of school improvement experiences and to increase the possibility
that relevant stakeholders have access to that knowledge to inform debates and decisions about how to
achieve education equity and quality locally and internationally. Two related arguments offered by one of
the external experts (L. Crouch) in the discussion forum that contributed to this paper are:

 school improvement monitoring and evaluation systems should be designed to gather information
about needs for professional support, not just about student outcomes; and
 monitoring and evaluation systems should take into account contextual realities and adaptations of
knowledge about what works and does not in local efforts to implement change.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

General Discussion Questions

How can national and local capacity (expertise, resources and systems) to monitor and evaluate the
implementation and outcomes of education policy and program interventions be developed independent
of particular policy and program initiatives?

How can the desire for policy and program evaluations that will yield clear judgments about the effects
of school improvement-related interventions be balanced with the need for practical understanding of
how the implementation of all policies and programs is situated and shaped within particular contexts?

What more can be done nationally and locally to mobilize knowledge about the implementation and
outcomes of school improvement-related policies and program interventions and to inform debates and
decision-making by relevant local, national and international stakeholders?

Endnotes

i
Quinan, E., Anderson, S. and Mundy, K., Teaching and Learning: A Rapid Review of the Literature. OISE/UT, June 2014.
Fernandez Hermosilla, M., Anderson, S. & Mundy, K. Education Management and Leadership: A Rapid Review of the
Literature. OISE/UT, June 2014. Bramwell, D., Anderson, S. & Mundy, K. Teachers and Teacher Development: A Rapid
Review of the Literature. OISE/UT, June 2014. Afridi, M., Anderson, S. & Mundy, K. Parent and Community Involvement in
Education: A Rapid Review of the Literature. OISE/UT, June 2014. Proulx, K. Approaches to Early Childhood and Pre-Primary
Education. OISE/UT, March 2014. Manion, C. Snapshot of the Field of Gender and Education. OISE/UT, August 2014.

ii
The group of experts external to the AKDN who participated in the meeting included the two authors of this paper; Dr. Penny
Sebring of the Chicago Consortium for School Research (University of Chicago); Dr. Andy Hargreaves (Thomas More Brennan
Chair in Education, Boston College); and Dr. Luis Crouch (Chief Technical Officer, International Development Group, RTI
International).
 P a g e | 17

Key Literature Reviewed1

Approaches to School Improvement

Anderson, S. (2010). “Primary and Secondary Education: Studies of School Improvement in Developing
Countries.” In E. Baker, P. Peterson and B. McGaw (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education
(3rd Edition). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Akyeampong, K. (2011). (Re)Assessing the Impact of School Capitation Grants on Educational Access
in Ghana. CREATE Pathways to Access. Research Monograph No. 71. UK: Consortium for
Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE) and University of Sussex Centre
for International Education.

Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H.A. and Santibáñez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-making in
Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-based Management. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.

Bruns, B., Filmer, D., and H. Patrinos (2011). Making Schools Work. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.

Bryk, A., Sebring, P. et al. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Patrinos, H.A., Barrera-Osorio, F. and Guáqueta, J. (2009). The Role and Impact of Public-Private
Partnerships in Education. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Teaching and Learning

Banerjee, A., Glewwe, P., Powers, S. and Wasserman, M. (2013). “Expanding Access and Increasing
Student Learning in Post-Primary Education in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence.”
Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) Post-Primary Education Initiative Review Paper.
[Link]
primary-education-developing-count

Hewlett Foundation (2014). “Learning to Improve Learning: Lessons from Early Primary Interventions
and Evaluations in India and Sub-Saharan Africa.” Unpublished draft.

Higgins, S., Baumfield, V. and Hall, E. (2007). “Learning Skills and the Development of Learning
Capabilities. Technical Report,” in: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

McEwan, P.J. (2013). “Improving Learning in Primary Schools of Developing Countries: A Meta-
analysis of Randomized Experiments.” Unpublished manuscript.

1
Some references are cited in more than one section because their content was relevant to multiple topics.
 P a g e | 18

Petrosino, A., Morgan, C., Fronius, T., Tanner-Smith, E. and Boruch, R. (2012). “Interventions in
Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrolment of Children: A
Systematic Review.” 3ie grantee final review.

Sumra, S. and Mugo, J. (2012). “Are Our Children Learning? Assessment of Learning Outcomes among
Children in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda,” Uwezo Working Document 1.4.05.
[Link]

UNESCO (2013/14). “Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All,” in Education for All Global
Monitoring Report. [Link]

Yu, G. (2007). “Research Evidence of School Effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa,” EdQual Working
Paper No, 7. [Link]

Teacher Development
Craig, H., Kraft, R. and du Plessis, J. (1998). Teacher Development; Making an Impact. USAID
Advancing Basic Education and Literacy Project and World Bank, Human Development Network,
Effective Schools and Teachers. Washington, DC.: World Bank.

EPPI-Centre. (2013). Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing
Countries. [Link]

Hardman, F., Ackers, J., Abrishamian, N., and O’Sullivan, M. (2011). Developing a systemic approach to
teacher education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging lessons from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
[Link]

Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C., Arbuckle, M., Murray, L., Dubea, C., and Williams, M. (1987).
Continuing to Learn: A Guidebook for Teacher Development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for
Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands & National Staff Development Council.

OECD (2011). Building a High-Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from around the World.
[Link]
[Link]

SABER (2012). What Matters Most in Teacher Policies? A Framework for Building a More Effective
Teaching Profession. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
[Link]
Teachers-Framework-Updated_June [Link]

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., and Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and
Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]. New Zealand Ministry of Education.
[Link]

UNESCO (2013-2014). Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. EFA GMR.
[Link]
agenda/efareport/reports/2013
 P a g e | 19

School Management and Leadership

Anderson, S. (2006). “The School District’s Role in Educational Change,” International Journal of
Educational Reform 15(1): 13-37.
Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T, Patrinos, H.A. and Santibáñez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-making in
Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-based Management. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.

Bush, T. and Oduro, G.K.T. (2006). “New Principals in Africa: Preparation, Induction and Practice,”
Journal of Educational Administration 44(4): 359-375.

Chapman, D.W., Burton, L. and Werner, J. (2010). “Universal Secondary Education in Uganda: The
Head Teachers’ Dilemma,” International Journal of Educational Development 30: 77-82.

Day, A., McLouglin, C., Aslam, M., Engel, J., Wales, J., Batley, R., Kingdon, G., Nicolai, S. and Role, P.
(2014). “The Role and Impact of Private Schools in Developing Countries: A Rigorous Review of the
Evidence.” Final report, Education Rigorous Literature Review. UK Department for International
Development.

Day, C. and Sammons, P. (2013). Successful Leadership: A Review of the International Literature. United
Kingdom: CfBT Education Trust.

DeJaeghere, J.G., Williams, R. and Kyeyune, R. (2009). “Ugandan Secondary School Headteachers’
Efficacy: What kind of training for whom?” International Journal of Educational Development. 29:
312-320.

Ibrahim, N. (2011). “Preparation and Development of Public Secondary Schools Principals in Kenya,”
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 1(9): 291-301.

LaRocque, N. (2008). Public-Private Partnership in Basic Education: An International Review. United

Kingdom: CfBT Education Trust.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How Leadership Influences
Student Learning: Review of Research. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Leu, E., Mulkeen, A., Chapman, D., and Dejaeghere, J.G. (2005). Recruiting, Retaining, and Retraining
Secondary School Teachers and Principals in Sub-Saharan Africa. Secondary Education in Africa
(SEIA) Thematic Study #4. Working Papers Series. Irish Trust Fund.

Mitgang, L. (2012). The Making of the Principal: Five Lessons in Leadership Training. New York, NY:
The Wallace Foundation.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying
What Works and Why. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: The University of Auckland
and New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Oduro, G., Dachi, H., Fertig, M. and Raviera, J. (2007). “Examining Educational Leadership and Quality
in Developing Countries,” EdQual Working Paper no. 9.

Oplatka, I. (2004). “The Principalship in Developing Countries: Context, Characteristics and Reality,”
Comparative Education 40(3): 427-448.
 P a g e | 20

Parent and Community Involvement

Action Aid (2010). “Politics of Participation: Parental Support for Children’s Learning and School
Governance in Burundi, Malawi, Senegal and Uganda.”
[Link]

Banerjee, R., Banerji, R., Duflo, E.l., Glennerster, R. and Khemani, S. (2010). “Pitfalls of Participatory
Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Education in India,” American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 2(1): 1-30.

Dunne, M., Akyeampong, K. and Humphreys, S. (2007). “School Processes, Local Governance and
Community Participation: Understanding Access,” CREATE, Research Monograph, No.6. London:
University of London. [Link]

Kendall, N. (2007). “Parental and Community Participation in Improving Educational Quality in Africa:
Current Practices and Future Possibilities,” International Review of Education, 53 (5-6): 701-708.

Kingdon, G.G., Little, A., Aslam, M., Rawal, S., Moe, T., Patrinos, H., Beteille, T., Banerji, R., Parton, B.
and Sharma, S.K. (2014). “A Rigorous Review of the Political Economy of Education Systems in
Developing Countries. Final Report.” Education Rigorous Literature Review. Department for
International Development.
[Link]

Leithwood, K. (2010). “Four Key Policy Questions About Parent Engagement: Recommendations from
the Evidence,” in R. Deslandes (ed.), International Perspectives on Contexts, Communities and
Evaluated Innovative Practice. London: Routledge, 8-20.

Mundy, K. (2008). “Civil Society and Its Role in the Achievement and Governance of Education for
All.” Background Paper Prepared for the UNESCO Education for All Global Monitoring Report
2009. [Link]

Nag, S., Chiat, S., Torgerson, C. and Snowling, M.J. (2014). “Literacy, foundation learning and
assessment in Developing Countries. Final Report.” Education Rigorous Literature Review.
Department for International Development.
[Link]

Neilson, H.D. (2007). “Empowering Communities for Improved Educational Outcomes: Some Evaluation
Findings from the World Bank,” Prospects, 37(1): 81-93.
[Link]

OECD (2006). “Chapter 4: Parent and Community Voice in Schools,” in Demand Sensitive Schooling:
Evidence and Issues.
[Link]
[Link]

Save the Children (2013). “The Right to Learn: Community Participation in Improving Learning.”
[Link]
 P a g e | 21

UNESCO (2014). “Achieving Transparency in Pro-poor Education Incentives.” International Institute for
Educational Planning: Paris, France.
[Link]

USAID (2011). “Community Engagement in Education Programs.” [Link]

FP_CommEng_Comp_Web.pdf

Early Childhood Development and Pre-Primary Education

Bartlett, S. (2013). “Learning about Learning: Reflections on Studies from Ten Countries.” Aga Khan
Foundation.

Behrman, J.R., Engle, P. and Fernald, L.C.H. (2013). “Preschool Programs in Developing Countries,” in
P. Glewwe (ed.), Education Policy in Developing Countries: What do we know, and what should we
do to understand what we don't know? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berlinkski, S., Galiani, S., and Maracorda, M. (2008). “Giving Children a Better Start: Preschool
Attendance and School Age Profiles,” Journal of Public Economics 92: 1416-1440.

Engle, P.L., Fernald, L.C.H., Alderman, H. and Behrman, J. (2011). “Strategies for reducing inequalities
and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income
countries,” The Lancet.

Malmberg, L.-E., Mwaura, P. and Sylva, K. (2011). “Effects of a preschool intervention on cognitive
development among East African preschool children: A flexibly time-coded growth model,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 26: 124-133.

Mwaura, P., Sylva, K. and Malmberg, L.-E. (2008). “Evaluating the Madrasa Preschool Programme in
East Africa: A Quasi-experimental Study,” International Journal of Early Years Education 16(3):
237-255.

Proulx, K. and Kabir (2012). “Tracking Study Bangladesh: Results from Phases I and II.” Report
prepared for the Early Childhood Educational Support Program Bangladesh, Aga Khan Foundation
Bangladesh: Dhaka.

Rao, N., Sun, J., Pearson, V., Pearson, E., Liu, H., Constas, M. A. and Engle, P. L. (2012), “Is Something
Better Than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia,” Child
Development, 83: 864–876.

Sammons, P., Anders, Y. and Hall, J. (2013). “Educational Effectiveness Approaches in Early Childhood
Research across Europe,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of
Research, Policy and Practice, 24(2): 131-137.

UNESCO (2007). “Strong Foundations - Early Childhood Care and Education,” Education for All Global
Monitoring Report. [Link]

Woldehanna, T. and Gebremedhin, L. (2012). “Young Lives Working Paper 89. The Effects of Pre-
School Attendance on the Cognitive Development of Urban Children aged 5 and 8 Years,” Young
Lives, Department of International Development at the University of Oxford, Oxford UK.
 P a g e | 22

Woodhead, M. and Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2009). Effective Early Childhood Programmes. Milton Keynes:
The Open University.

Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M. R., Espinoza, L. M., Gormley, W. T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K. A., Phillips, D., and Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. New York: Foundation for Child Development.

Gender Equality in Education

Global Campaign for Education, & RESULTS Educational Fund. (2011). Make It Right: Ending the
Crisis in Girls' Education. Johannesburg, South Africa: GCE/RESULTS Educational Fund.

Hertz, B. and Sperling, G. (2004). What Works in Girls' Education: Evidence and Policies from the
Developing World. Washington, D.C.: Council on Foreign Relations Press.

Oxfam Great Britain (2007). Practising Gender Equality in Education. Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
[Link]

Unterhalter, E. (2007). Gender, Schooling and Global Social Justice. London: Routledge.

Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is a non-profit international development agency, working in Asia and
Africa to find sustainable solutions to the complex problems causing global poverty. Established in 1980, AKFC is a
registered Canadian charity and an agency of the worldwide Aga Khan Development Network.
The Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat
199 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Canada K1N 1K6
Tel: 613.237.2532 1.800.267.2532
[Link]

Undertaken with the financial support of:

Funding for this report was provided through the Partnership for Advancing Human Development in Africa and
Asia (PAHDAA), a five-year partnership between AKFC and the Government of Canada through the Department of
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Under PAHDAA, AKFC is supporting school improvement programs in
Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda through the Strengthening Education Systems in East Africa (SESEA) sub-project, an
initiative designed to strengthen teacher education and support systems to improve and sustain learning outcomes for
girls and boys in pre-primary and primary school levels. School improvement is a key component of SESEA,
providing school communities with a participatory process that empowers them to analyze challenges and barriers to
school effectiveness, identify workable solutions, prioritize problems and agree on roles and responsibilities to bring
about change.

© Aga Khan Foundation Canada 2015 Registered Charity No. 100072586RR0001