SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAM Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00 Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010 October 2014 This study was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Creative Associates International. ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2013 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
63
Embed
SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAMschooldropoutprevention.com/wp-content/...Report_Fiscal_Year_2014.pdfHR Human Resources ICT ... the FCI process and enrichment program ... School
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAM
Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00
Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010
October 2014
This study was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Creative Associates International.
ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2013 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program
Summary Annual Progress Report
October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014
Submitted to:
U.S. Agency for International Development/Asia and Middle East Bureau
Chris Capacci-Carneal, COR
AME/ME/TS
Washington, D.C.
Submitted by:
Creative Associates International
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20015
Under Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00/Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010
October 2014
This report was made possible by the American People through the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Creative
Associates International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States
Government.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
DEC Submission Requirements
a. USAID Award Number Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00
Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010
b. USAID Objective Title Investing in People (IIP)
c. USAID Project Title USAID Asia and Middle East Regional School Dropout Prevention
Pilot (SDPP) Program
d. USAID Program Area and
Program Element
Education (program area 3.2)
Basic Education (program element 3.2.1)
e. Descriptive Title Summary Annual Progress Report: October 1, 2013 – September 30,
IDEAL Institute for Development, Education, and Learning
IIP Investing in People
IRL Indochina Research Limited
KAPE Kampuchean Action for Primary Education
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development
MO Monitoring Officer
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MoE Ministry of Education
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPR Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
NA Not Applicable
NGO Non-governmental Organization
PO Project Officer
POE Provincial Office of Education
PRI Panchayati Raj Institution
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
QUEST Quality Education and Skills Training
RED Regional Education Director
RTE Right to Education
SDPP School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program
SES Selected Educational Statistics
STS School-to-School International
TOR Terms of Reference
U.S. United States
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page iii
Activity Summary
Lead Implementing Partner: Creative Associates International (Creative)
Other Implementing
Partners:
Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica)
School-to-School International (STS)
Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE)
Institute for Development, Education, and Learning (IDEAL)
CARE/Timor Leste (CARE)
Activity Name: USAID Asia and Middle East Regional
School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program
Activity Objective:
The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program’s objective is to
provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and
countries in Asia and the Middle East on student dropout prevention in
primary and secondary school by piloting and testing the effectiveness of
dropout prevention interventions in four target countries: Cambodia,
India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste.
USAID Program Objective: Investing in People (IIP)
Life of Activity: September 27, 2010 – September 29, 2013 (extended to September 29,
2015)
Total Estimated
Contract/Agreement
Amount: $51,504,754
Obligations to date: $51,504,754
Accrued Expenditures 12th
Quarter (July-Sept. 2014): $1,991,169
Activity Cumulative
Accrued Expenditures to
Date (Inception through
September 2014):
$36,537,453
Estimated Expenditures
Next Quarter: $1,994, 910
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 1
Executive Summary
The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program is a five-year program, funded by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), aimed at mitigating student dropout from primary and secondary
school. Its objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and
countries in Asia and the Middle East on student dropout prevention by piloting and testing the
effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste.
SDPP’s three-stage applied research approach includes 1) identifying best practices in dropout prevention
in the U.S. and developing countries (Result/CLIN 1); 2) identifying those groups, grades and/or
geographic areas most severely affected by dropout and analyzing the risk factors and conditions affecting
dropout (Result/CLIN 2); and 3) designing, implementing, and evaluating pilot interventions to keep at-
risk students in the most acutely affected areas in school (Result/CLIN 3).
All standards and deliverables under Result/CLIN1 have been achieved. All Result/CLIN2 standards have
been achieved, except a four-country summary and a final presentation in Washington. Under
Result/CLIN 3, pilot dropout prevention interventions have concluded in Cambodia, Tajikistan, and
Timor Leste. School interventions in India will continue through the school year (March 30, 2015). In
all four countries, SDPP interventions reached 84,454 students, of which 39,930 were girls (47 percent)
In Cambodia, interventions in the 215 treatment schools concluded in Quarter 3, having reached 59,271
grade 7-9 students (41,487 at risk). SDPP worked with MOEYS to develop a Sustainability Plan,
approved in Quarter 4. Follow-up 2 impact assessment data were collected, and Fidelity of
Implementation (FOI) and Qualitative Research (QR) conducted. FOI found overall high fidelity with
some weakness in case management, which was addressed by supporting monthly school meetings.
Computer Labs received replacement equipment; schools were trained on repair and maintenance.
In India, SDPP interventions spanned two school years, reaching 10,814 students (8,343 at risk) in 113
treatment schools. SDPP responded to the Bihar Education Project Council request for a simplified
EWS suitable for scale-up. Follow-up 2 and FOI data were collected. SDPP trained teachers and staff on
the FCI process and enrichment program (EP) activities, and conducted leadership training for
headmasters. NEW EP sessions and voice messages were created for program related activities.
In Tajikistan, SDPP concluded its support of 1,753 at-risk students in 82 schools in Quarter 3. SDPP was
authorized to organize one Consultative Group meeting and an International Literacy Day celebration.
Follow-up 2, FOI and QR data were collected. Schools were trained on the revised EWS toolkit and 203
Tutoring Lessons; all SDPP materials were submitted for MOES approval. FOI found high fidelity but
weakness in case management; SDPP staff worked with the schools. SDPP proposed several training
activities to reinforce interventions, but the lack of a signed Letter of Commitment hampered progress.
In Timor Leste, SDPP concluded intervention support, having served 12,616 students (5,467 at-risk) in 97
schools spanning two school years in FY14. Each quarter, a National Coordination Body meetings were
hosted by the MOE. Follow-up 2, FOI and QR data were collected. Based on FOI results, staff
encouraged teachers to hold case management meetings, using the first trimester exam results as a focus;
reactivated ‘Stay in School’ Community Groups; and trained teachers on extracurricular sessions.
SDPP HQ prepared a preliminary analysis of Baseline and Follow-up 1 data, and oversaw the collection
and data cleaning of Follow-up 2 data. It developed FOI tools, supported data collection, and conducted
analysis. It designed a Qualitative Research Study exploring beneficiary-intervention interactions, and
launched data collection in three countries. It completed filming for the SDPP multimedia packages in all
countries. It developed and organized two panels on SDPP research results and community mobilization,
which HQ and country team member presented at for the Comparative International Education Society
2014 Conference in Toronto.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 2
I. Project Overview, Rationale and Strategy
For the past two decades, children’s access to basic education has been the major focus of national and
international education development efforts. However, as more children enroll in school, but fail to
complete it, school dropout has become recognized as a major educational challenge both in developed
and developing countries. Although the pattern of dropout varies by country, the result is the same:
increasing numbers of under-educated and unemployable youth. Reducing dropout is key to improving
access to basic education, particularly in countries with relatively high enrollment rates where most
school-age children who do not currently attend school have previously been enrolled in school.
The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program is a five-year multi-country program, funded by
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), aimed at mitigating student dropout from
primary and secondary school. Its objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to
USAID missions and countries in Asia and the Middle East (AME) on student dropout prevention by
piloting and testing the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in four target countries:
Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste. Using multiple channels, including a web-based platform,
SDPP will build a community of practice, sharing information and feedback on intervention design,
research methodologies, and results. It will also produce practical and accessible guidance and models
for designing, implementing and assessing dropout prevention programs in primary and secondary school.
SDPP will advance knowledge on dropout prevention programs through an applied research approach. In
a three-stage process, it will:
1. Identify best practices in dropout prevention in the U.S. and developing countries (Result/CLIN 1).
2. Identify existing policies and programs in each country designed to prevent or reduce student dropout
and analyze dropout trends to identify the groups, grades and geographic areas most severely affected
by dropout. SDPP will conduct a situational analysis in the target area and among the most affected
groups in order to understand the risk factors and conditions affecting dropout (Result/CLIN 2). 3. Design, implement and evaluate interventions to keep at-risk students in schools in the most acutely
affected areas. There are no preconceived interventions to reduce dropout prescribed by the project;
design will be tailored to fit the needs of the target group in each country based on the situational
analysis as well as informed by promising interventions noted in the literature review. However,
SDPP will not fund school construction, subsidies/incentives, general teacher training, vocational
education, or workforce development activities. SDPP will rigorously assess the effectiveness and
replicability of the pilot project interventions to provide state-of-the-art information on which dropout
prevention strategies work (and those that do not) using randomized control trials and/or quasi-
experimental designs and combining quantitative and qualitative methods (Result/CLIN 3).
SDPP is implemented by Creative Associates International with international partners Mathematica
Policy Research (Mathematica, or MPR) and School-to-School International (STS), and local partners
Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE) in Cambodia, Institute for Development, Education,
and Learning (IDEAL) in India, and CARE in Timor Leste. With technical guidance from Creative’s
SDPP headquarters, implementing partners in the target countries implement the SDPP program, working
with the government and key stakeholders to identify the project target group and site, design
interventions, and assess effectiveness.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 3
II. Progress toward Results and Requirements and Activities Undertaken
A. Result/CLIN 1: Elements of Successful Student Dropout Prevention Programs Identified
Programs or interventions from around the world which have been evaluated for their effectiveness in
reducing dropout have been identified in order to help determine programming recommendations for the
four pilot countries and to inform the selection and design of interventions in each country. The review of
existing U.S. and international research on dropout prevention also provides critical information regarding
dropout to USAID and its partners in the AME region.
Requirement 1.1: Conduct Identification and Analysis of U.S. and International Evidence-Based
Student Dropout Prevention Programs and Interventions
During FY11, identification and analysis of existing research on dropout prevention programming around
the world was completed. All four standards under Requirement 1.1 have been achieved.
Requirement 1.2: Produce Report on U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout
Prevention Programming
During FY11, the results of the literature review were synthesized into a school dropout prevention and
analysis report, which was approved by USAID. The report has been translated into Khmer, Hindi, Tajik
and Russian, and Portuguese and Tetun (for Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste, respectively).
All six standards under Requirement 1.2 have been achieved.
Requirement 1.3: Distribute Report on U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout
Prevention Programming
English and local language versions of the report have been distributed in all four countries and in the
U.S., including to the AME Bureau of USAID/Washington. In-country distributions were done primarily
in conjunction with the intervention design workshops (year two) and other events including the program
launches this year. The English and six local language versions are available on the SDPP website. The
three standards under Requirement 1.3 have been achieved.
Standards Achieved:
Plan for conducting the identification and analysis provided within thirty days after award.
Plan for identification and analysis includes methodology and criteria to identify effective evidence-based
programs and interventions for preventing student dropout.
Identification and analysis includes a review of at least fifteen programs or interventions.
A synthesis of effective interventions that can be adapted to the pilot countries.
Standards Achieved:
Draft report submitted within thirty (30) days after completion of analysis.
Report includes an executive summary, which succinctly profiles specific interventions, combinations of
interventions and or programs that have demonstrated student dropout prevention.
Report includes estimated costs associated with each intervention or program associated with positive
results.
Report includes a conclusion as to which interventions/programs are most convincing and make the greatest
contribution to the understanding of student dropout prevention.
Report is grammatically correct and contains no spelling or punctuation errors.
Minimum of two hundred (200) reports packaged.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 4
Requirement 1.4: Present Findings of the Analysis
Key findings from the literature review were presented to USAID missions, host country representatives,
and other stakeholders in the four pilot countries as part of the design consultation workshops held during
the project’s second year. Presentations on the findings of the literature review have been made to USAID
AME Regional Bureau representatives, including the SDPP COR. All three standards under Requirement
1.4 have been achieved.
B. Result/CLIN 2: Risk Factors and Conditions that Increase the Likelihood of Students Dropping
Out of School in the Pilot Countries Identified
In-depth assessments of the risk factors and conditions that influence school dropout have been
completed. In each country, this effort involved three main components, including analyzing national data
on dropout trends; identifying existing policies and programs designed to prevent or reduce student
dropout; and conducting field-based, primary research on dropout in the geographic areas and with the
target populations and grades that pilot project interventions will address.
Requirement 2.1: Identify Assessment Tools
Development of tools used in conducting primary research on dropout in the four pilot countries (data
collection instruments, data entry system, and a variety of guidelines, training materials, and other
supportive tools) was completed during the first year of the project. Both standards under Requirement
2.1 have been achieved.
Requirement 2.2: Conduct an In-depth Assessment of Student Dropout Issues and Trends in each
of the Four Pilot Countries
To ensure that pilot projects address the most critical academic and social pressures that influence dropout
in each of the four pilot countries, SDPP has conducted in-depth assessments in each country. The
assessments served to identify children who are most vulnerable to dropping out of school, to determine
Standards Achieved:
Minimum of two-hundred (200) total hard copy reports distributed to USAID pilot missions, and the AME
Regional Bureau in English.
Minimum of fifty (50) hard copy reports distributed to each of the four (4) USAID pilot missions and the
respective host country representatives and key stakeholders in the official languages of the country.
Report, in English, distributed to intended recipients within thirty (30) days after TO COTR approval.
Standards Achieved:
A minimum of five (5) presentations total on report findings made to USAID AME Regional Bureau,
USAID pilot missions and host country representatives and key stakeholders.
Presentations include all key findings.
Presentations include a power point that summarizes findings.
Standards Achieved:
List of assessment tools for each of the four (4) countries that indicate the subset of core tools for all
countries.
Each proposed assessment tool specifies the factor(s) it assesses.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 5
the reasons for dropout in the most affected areas, and to assess the effects of existing policies and/or
programs designed to prevent or reduce student dropout rates, through three major tasks: (1) analysis of
dropout trends, (2) policy and program analysis, and (3) on-site primary research that profiles children at
risk of dropping out and the factors and conditions affecting dropout.
All three tasks in each of the four SDPP countries have been completed, and all four standards under
Requirement 2.2 have been achieved.
Requirement 2.3: Produce Report of In-Depth Pilot Country Assessments
In order to help USAID, host country governments, and other stakeholders in the pilot countries and the
AME region gain a clearer understanding of dropout factors and trends, key findings from the country
assessments have been documented and shared widely. Results are presented in separate reports on each
of the major components of the assessments: the dropout trends analysis, the inventory of policies and
programs, and the situational analysis/primary research.
Analysis of Dropout Trends: Reports on the data trends analysis for all four countries have been
finalized, translated, and submitted to USAID/Washington. The reports frame the magnitude of the
dropout problem in each country and identify the locations, groups and grades that are most acutely
affected by dropout. Copies of the report in English and in local languages have been distributed in all
countries.
Policy and Program Analysis: Inventories of the government policies or institutionalized practices in
each country that may influence dropout, together with information on past or current government or non-
governmental programs with potential for influencing dropout, were compiled for each country,
submitted, and approved by USAID in year one. English and local language translations have been
distributed in all four countries.
On-Site Primary Research: Initial summary reports providing an overview of the primary research
methodologies and results from each country have also been prepared. A more detailed report
summarizing the findings of the research was prepared for the Timor-Leste Ministry of Education. SDPP
completed analyses of data from all four countries and prepared four full country reports. One four-
country summary report is under preparation.
Standards Achieved:
Draft plan for implementing in-depth assessment developed for each of the four (4) pilot
countries within two (2) months after award.
Four (4) individual pilot country assessment plans submitted within fifteen (15) days after approval of
drafts.
In-depth assessments initiated within each of the four (4) pilot countries no later than one (1) month after
Country AM/TO COTR approval.
Inventory of existing government policies and programs of government, NGOs and community-based
organizations (CBOs) that may affect dropout rates and that may be considered as interventions to test in
Result 3 compiled.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 6
One Standard under Requirement 2.3 has been achieved, while the others have been partially achieved.
Requirement 2.4: Present Findings of In-Depth Pilot Country Assessments
Findings of the in-depth country assessments, including trend analyses, policies and programs, and
primary research, together with findings from the literature review on dropout prevention programming,
were presented in all four countries at the consultative intervention design workshops held during the first
two quarters of FY2012. In addition, country-specific presentations were made to USAID Mission
personnel in-country in Cambodia, Timor Leste, and India during FY2012, as well as to the incoming
USAID Country Director for Tajikistan and the two USAID/Washington SDPP CORs in Washington.
The findings from all four countries were also presented at the 2012 Comparative and International
Education Society (CIES) conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A presentation to USAID in Washington
covering all four countries will be scheduled in consultation with the AME Bureau.
The seven standards under Requirement 2.4 have been achieved.
Requirement 2.5: Translate and Distribute In-Depth Pilot Country Assessment Report
The dropout trends analysis reports and policy and programs inventory reports have been translated into
Khmer (Cambodia), Hindi (India), Tajik and Russian (Tajikistan), and Tetun and Portuguese (Timor
Leste). In all four countries, the PowerPoint presentations summarizing key results from the primary
research were also translated into local languages. The reports have been widely distributed, primarily but
not exclusively in coordination with the intervention design consultative meetings and launches in each
country. English and local language versions of the reports have also been distributed to the
USAID/Washington AME Regional Bureau.
Standards Achieved:
Four (4) country tailored power point presentations.
Presentations on in-depth country assessments include all risk factors and trends identified for each of the
four (4) countries.
Presentations include at least two (2) recommendations for possible programming to mitigate student
dropout for each of the four (4) pilot countries.
Presentations on in-depth country assessments include a summary of findings for each of the four (4)
country assessments.
A minimum of four (4) workshops held to discuss country findings and possible programming options.
A minimum of five (5) presentations on the in-depth country assessment findings made to pilot country
stakeholders, including USAID mission personnel and Washington personnel.
One (1) power point presentation including all countries.
Standards Achieved:
In-depth country assessment results identify grade-levels and student populations most at risk of dropping
out for each of the four pilot countries
Four (4) in-depth country assessment draft reports written within two (2) months after the completion of the
country assessments.
All four (4) reports adhere to a uniform organizational format.
Written reports are grammatically correct, without spelling or punctuation errors.
Standards Partially Achieved:
One (1) report with country comparisons.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 7
The final, primary research component of the assessment report has been completed and will be sent for
translation in FY15. The standards under this requirement have thus been partially achieved.
C. Result/CLIN 3: The Effectiveness of Education Interventions in Reducing School Dropout
Rates Determined in Each Pilot Country
In FY14, SDPP conducted a second (and final) year of school-based dropout prevention interventions in
each of the four pilot countries, reaching 84,454 students in 507 treatment schools. Based on findings
from CLINs 1 and 2, the interventions introduced in the schools address identified academic, economic
and social pressures shown to influence dropout, as well as gender considerations where needed. The
rigorous research designs allow for measurement of intervention effectiveness. By the end of the pilots,
SDPP will have identified achievements and failures, described lessons learned, suggested possible
models for replication in other countries, and made recommendations for dropout prevention
programming in Asia and the Middle East. Guidance and programming guides and toolkits on evidence-
based school dropout prevention programming, including best practices, requisite conditions and
estimated cost, will be prepared and distributed.
Requirement 3.1: Establish Pilot Country Coordination Bodies for the SDPP Program
SDPP coordination bodies or consultative groups, which were formed in each of the four SDPP countries
in FY12 with codified scopes of work, continued to meet throughout FY14. The consultative groups
serve as a means of fostering collaboration, communication and coordination among the SDPP
implementers, USAID pilot country mission personnel, host government representatives and other key
stakeholders.
Cambodia: SDPP continued its close collaboration with the National Coordination Body and with senior
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) officials. In Quarter 1, nine representatives of the
(MoEYS)—including National Coordination Body members—joined the EWS trainings for homeroom
teachers and school directors, encouraging them to collaborate with SDPP for a second school year.
Fifteen officials from the MoEYS ICT Department helped deliver SDPP computer literacy training to
Computer Lab teachers. In Quarter 2, National Coordination Body members and representatives from
the six Provincial Offices of Education (POE) met for two days to review the implementation plan and
discuss the draft SDPP Sustainability Plan, which was endorsed by H.E. Im Koch. In Quarter 3, SDPP
assisted the MoEYS to develop its official instruction letter to the 215 treatment schools to continue
implementation of EWS and Computer Labs in School Year 2014/15, following the end of SDPP support
in June/July 2014. The MoEYS announced it would request additional resources from the Ministry of
Economy and Finance to continue SDPP school intervention.
In Quarter 4, the sustainability plan—“Guidelines for the Implementation of the Early Warning System
and Computer Lab Interventions”—was officially approved by the MoEYS Secretary of State for
Secondary Education H.E. Im Koch on September 19, 2014, including not only the SDPP treatments
schools but those operating computer labs funded by the USAID IBEC project. The national
Standards Partially Achieved:
Each country assessment report translated into the official languages of the pilot countries: Cambodia
(Khmer), English, Tajik, Portuguese and Tetun.
A minimum of four-hundred (400) total in-depth country assessment reports distributed to four (4)
USAID pilot country missions and the respective host government representatives and stakeholders in the
languages required.
A minimum of fifty (50) in-depth country assessment reports distributed to each of the four (4) pilot
country missions and AME Regional Bureau, in English.
Each in-depth country assessment report comprises a print and compact disc (CD).
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 8
Coordination Body and relevant MoEYS officials met with SDPP to review SDPP progress and approve
activities proposed to strengthen both school and MoEYS capacity to continue to support and expand the
interventions, including two national dissemination workshops planned for October and December 2014.
India: SDPP staff interacted frequently with state, district and block- education officials, responding to
high level interest in replicating and expanding the SDPP interventions. In Quarter 1, SDPP obtained
permission from Samastipur District officials to conduct school personnel training and provided a
progress report to the State Project Director for Education. In Quarter 2, the Consultative Group granted
SDPP permission to continue activities in the 2014/15 school year starting April 2014, and suggested
SDPP work with the state technical team to develop a stream-lined EWS for expansion to statewide. In
Quarter 3, State officials formally requested a scalable EWS model that can be expanded to more blocks
and another district in Bihar State.
In Quarter 4, SDPP shared a revised plan for expansion of the EWS intervention with the State Project
Director’s office. It proposed to train other block, district and state-level education staff who could train
schools on the interventions. The district-level coordination meeting was postponed due to heavy rains,
but permission was obtained for SDPP to capture stories, pictures and video footage from intervention
schools.
Tajikistan: Due to the on-going discussions between USAID and the Ministry of Education and Sport
(MoES) about the Letter of Committment, the SDPP Consultative Group was authorized to meet only
once in FY14, although permission was granted for SDPP to continue school-based activities in school
year 2013/14, starting in October 2013. Nevertheless, meetings took place frequently between individual
Consultative Group members and SDPP staff, particularly at the district level, to update them on program
activities and ensure continued support. In Quarter 3, with MoES authorization, SDPP organized a
Consultative Group meeting in Kulob, chaired by the MoES Supervisor for Pre-Primary and Secondary
Education for Kulob, and attended by district education officers and USAID to review progress, plans to
reinforce school capacity to continue the interventions, and the second reward package of books.
In Quarter 4, the MoES approved the SDPP-organized International Literacy Day Celebration, held in
September, which brought together regional and district education directors preempted the tentatively-
scheduled Consultation Group meeting. Quarterly reports on SDPP activities were regularly submitted to
the MoES.
U.S Ambassador to
Tajikistan Susan Elliot
greets Grade 9 students at
School #4 in Dangara
District at the
International Literacy
Day celebration on
September 23, 2014,
organized by SDPP.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 9
Timor Leste: The Country Coordination
Body met four times, once per quarter in
FY14, with meetings chaired by the
National Director for Basic Education or
his representative. In Quarter 1, newly-
appointed District Directors were oriented
to the program activities. In Quarter 2,
members discussed how the interventions
could be continued after SDPP; the
Director General for Basic Education
expressed interest in integrating the Extra-
curricular enrichment activities into regular classes and continuing the EWS intervention. In Quarter 3,
SDPP staff presented sample copies of the “easy-user” EWS Guide for teachers and a draft poster.
In Quarter 4, the Country Coordination Body met in September. SDPP staff updated participants on SDPP
activities of the previous school trimester and presented findings from the Fidelity-of-Implementation
assessment, showing high levels of teacher absenteeism and poor record-keeping at the schools, which
inhibit intervention impact. Participants expressed the desire to continue SDPP activities, and noted the
final results will influence Ministry of Education (MoE) policy.
All five standards under Requirement 3.1 have been achieved.
Requirement 3.2: Design Student Dropout Prevention Pilot Projects
Pilot projects in each of the countries were designed and operationalized in FY 12. In FY14, the school-
based interventions entered a second year of implementation and were concluded in three countries—
Cambodia, Tajikistan and Timor Leste (see Requirement 3.5). Each country has implemented an Early
Warning System (EWS), as one of two interventions. While each country EWS is tailored to the context,
they all aim to: (i) use existing school-level data on attendance, performance, behavior, and other
indicators to identify students at risk of dropping out of school; (ii) enhance the capacity of schools to
address the needs of at-risk students; and (iii) strengthen the partnership between school personnel and the
parents or guardians of at-risk students. In addition to the EWS, other interventions include computer labs
in Cambodia; in-school arts and crafts, sports, and language arts activities in India; after-school tutoring
and recreational activities in Tajikistan; and extra-curricular enrichment activities in Timor Leste.
All three standards under Requirement 3.2 have been achieved.
Timor Leste
“The SDPP program acts as a key for the Ministry of
Education to pay attention to student attendance from
beginning to completion of basic education. We need to
prevent repetition. We need to make extra efforts to ensure that
all students pass the exams. Many students drop out of school
because of repetition. When a student has had to repeat a
grade 2 or 3 times it greatly increases their risk of dropout.” --Cidálio Leite, Director General for Preschool and Basic
Education.
Standards Achieved:
Stakeholders identified in each of the four (4) pilot countries that include, at a minimum, representatives
from the Ministries of Education, the teacher’s union (where applicable), and community representatives,
PTAs or private sector.
Areas of collaboration identified and areas of potential conflict and resolutions identified.
A SDPP project oversight body formed in each of the four (4) pilot countries.
A communication plan developed for each of the four (4) pilot countries.
The Coordination Body convened and a scope of work developed for its engagement in the project.
Standards Achieved
Four (4) tailored draft pilot design plans are completed within six (6) months after award.
Each of the four (4) pilot design plans includes the proposed methodology for selecting intervention sites.
Minimum of four (4)-[one (1) per country] design workshops are conducted that include representatives of
the SDPP project oversight body.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 10
Requirement 3.3: Develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
SDPP’s research plan, developed in FY12, details study design, data collection, and analysis for the
impact evaluation. It includes basic elements for country M&E plans, including: proposed outcome
variables and their operational definitions (between-grade and within-grade dropout, attendance,
performance, progression, student attitudes, and teacher attitudes/behaviors), described by country and in
accordance with the target grades and school calendars in each country; data sources needed to measure
these outcomes as well as other student and school characteristics needed for the impact analysis; and data
collection methods and timelines by country. In addition, “Fidelity of Implementation” (FOI) a nd
Qualitative Research tools and procedures have been developed, piloted and implemented in each
country.
All four of the Requirement 3.3 standards have been achieved.
The following presents progress on M&E activities.
Impact Assessment
Due to uncertainties about the SDPP extension, which was received in late August 2013, the SDPP data
analysis plan was revised to eliminate formal baseline reports. Instead, in Quarter 1 of FY14, SDPP
produced a preliminary report on all four countries comparing baseline with selected findings from
Follow-on 1 data, collected during the first year of school-based intervention. Baseline analyses suggest
that random assignment successfully created treatment and control groups that are equivalent on almost
all observed characteristics in all countries. The preliminary analysis comparing baseline data with the
first follow-on impact data on student dropout, student engagement in school (attendance), student
attitudes (emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and behavioral engagement), and teacher
behavior and attitudes indicates that only in a few instances is there a statistically significant, extremely
modest difference in with-in or between grade dropout between treatment and control groups. In
summary:
Dropout and Attendance: There are no statistically significant impacts of the programs on dropout or
attendance in Tajikistan, India, or Timor-Leste; nor are there dropout or attendance impacts for at-risk
students in these three countries yet. In Cambodia however, EWS schools have a statistically-
significant lower within-grade dropout rate than control schools, although no such significant findings
are present in EWS+Computer schools. Also, among at-risk students in Cambodia, EWS schools have
statistically-significant lower dropout than control schools.
At-risk Student Attitudes: There are no significant impacts on attitudes of at-risk students in any of the
four countries.
Teacher Dropout Prevention Practices: Impacts on the teachers’ dropout prevention practices are
mixed: significant positive impacts were found for EWS and EWS+Computer schools in Cambodia
and a marginally significant positive impact for schools in Timor-Leste, although none found in in
Tajikistan or India
Standards Achieved
Target dates established for all activities and outputs of pilot projects.
Operational definitions provided for all variables included in the four (4) country pilots.
At least three (3) outcome indicators established for each of the four (4) country pilots.
Data sources [identified] for each indicator.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 11
Table 1: Impact Assessment Data Collection Schedule
Data collected for: Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor Leste Total
Baseline 1 June 2012 July 2012 May 2012 May 2012
Schools 322 220 165 191 898
Student Records 89,040 25,562 8,110 29,477 152,189
Teacher Records 6,339 1,667 3,035 1,881 12922
Student Interviews na na na na na
Teacher Interviews 4,342 661 1,039 1,031 7,073
Baseline 2 December 2012 na November 2012 na
Schools 322 na 165 na 487
Student Records 140,214 na 8,245 na 148,459
Teacher Records na na na na na
Student Interviews 12,515 na 1,995 na 14,510
Teacher Interviews na na na na na
Follow-up 1 June 2013 May 2013 May 2013 May 2013
Schools 322 220 165 191 898
Student Records 140,002 12,812 8,245 29,458 190,517
Timor Leste Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct Oct Nov-Dec
Bold=completed, italics=in progress or planned
* Data in India collected for Early Warning System, Component 1: At-risk students identified. Data for EWS
Components 2-4, enrichment activities, and parent involvement to be collected Sep-Oct.
Cambodia: In Quarter 1, the M&E team worked with SDPP HQ to update and revise the fidelity tools to
provide more streamlined but measurable tools for fidelity for EWS, Computer Labs (with a student
computer literacy assessment) and control schools, which were piloted, revised and re-tested. In Quarter
2, the M&E team trained staff and the provincial teams carried out the fidelity check in all 322
schools. In Quarter 3, Round 1 FOI data cleaning and preliminary descriptive analysis were
completed showing relatively high results for both EWS and Computer Labs.
In Quarter 4, the provincial teams completed the 2nd round of Fidelity: 19 schools were re-visited to
check if they had improved their score for the EWS implementation which had not reached the fidelity
threshold and 61 randomly selected schools were assessed. As all schools scored highly on Computer
Labs in round 1, there was no 2nd round fidelity check, although staff continued to monitor computer
labs. The student assessment was conducted for the 2nd time to the same classes in the same 12 schools
and KAPE randomly selected 61 control schools to carry out a fidelity check to ensure there was no
contamination. The KAPE IMS Manager designed a database to enter the data which was submitted to
School-to-School and Creative for final analysis. Initial findings show improvement in fidelity.
India: In Quarter 1, the country team tested existing FOI tools for case management, open house and
Enrichment Program (EP) implementation. In Quarter 2, new fidelity tools were developed on EWS, EP
and Parent activities with assistance from SDPP HQ and pilot tested. In Quarter 3, the three FOI tools--
Early Warning System, Enrichment Activity and Parental Engagement--were finalized and FOI data was
collected for EWS.
In Quarter 4, data was collected for the Enrichment Program and Parental Engagement processed. During
FOI data collection, ghost students and “migrated” students were identified in treatment and control
schools, and data sent to SDPP HQ. This information is important as it must be factored into the impact
assessment calculation of dropout. There were: 776 ghost students in treatment schools and 366 ghost
students in control schools, and 123 migrated students in treatment schools and 105 migrated students in
control schools.
Tajikistan: In Quarter 1, the SDPP country team conducted FOI monitoring visits to treatment schools to
check whether the EWS and Afterschool Tutoring interventions were being implemented as intended. In
Quarter 2, the SDPP HQ, the country program and M&E teams developed, revised and tested two FOI
instruments to simplify and reduce the number of FOI tools to only two. Round 1 FOI data was collected.
In Quarter 3, analysis of Round 1 data revealed some data anomalies, which resulted in the revision of the
EWS tool and retraining of SDPP staff involved in FOI data collection. A second round of data collection
was conducted.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 15
In Quarter 4, the FOI database was revised to reflect the changes in the FOI tools, and FOI data was
entered, tabulated and sent for analysis.
Timor Leste: In Quarters 1 and 2, the country team worked with SDPP HQ to review and revise FOI
instruments. In Quarter 3, the M&E team pilot tested the finalized FOI tools, initiated Round 1 data
collection, and develop the FOI database and entered Round 1 data.
In Quarter 4, plans were developed for the second round of FOI data collection in FY15 Quarter 1.
Qualitative Research Study
To augment the data obtained through the impact assessment study, the FOI study, and routine
monitoring, SDPP HQ designed a Qualitative Research Study to (1) better understand why changes in
student and teacher behaviors and attitudes have happened, and (2) how beneficiaries and targets
(students, teachers, school directors, parents and community members) have responded and reacted to the
interventions. This is intended to inform improvements in SDPP intervention design for future use by
government and others, and indicate what is likely to be sustained. The approach is a small-scale data
collection effort using qualitative research methods: focus group interviews with students, teachers,
parents and community members and a one-on-one interview with the school director, using semi-
structured interview guide with open-ended questions for both. The sample includes 10-12 schools (two
per administrative unit), comprising a high SDPP take-up school and low SDPP take-up school with
enough students and teachers to conduct focus group interviews and where both interventions have been
implemented (i.e. Cambodia).
Cambodia: In Quarter 3, initial drafts of the
quantitative research tools were developed and
shared with the country team for feedback.
In Quarter 4, SDPP traveled to Cambodia to train
staff on the instruments and administration
protocols, and piloted them in three schools in Pursat
province. Following tool revision, the country team
provided further training to 18 provincial staff
charged with data collection. Round 1 FOI data were
collected by six teams, each assigned to a province.
Focus group and individual interviews were
conducted with 455 students, dropouts, parents,
teachers, school directors, and community members.
The FOI database was developed and tested.
India: Given the Impact Assessment data collection
preparation for Follow-on 3 and FOI data collection
activities, the Qualitative Research Study activities
were not scheduled until FY15 Quarter 2.
Tajikistan: The Qualitative Research was launched
in Tajikistan with a visit by SDPP HQ. In Quarter 3, instruments were developed, field tested and
finalized. Fifteen SDPP staff members (3-person teams), including Dushanbe staff, were trained in data
collection methods. Qualitative data were collected in 10 schools, two per district. Focus group and
individual interviews were conducted with 333 students, dropouts, parents, teachers, school directors, and
community members.
In Quarter 4, the M&E database officer designed an Excel database and conducted data entry. Following
analysis procedures provided by SDPP HQ, each instrument was analyzed twice by different team
members. Initial analysis will be ready in FY15 Quarter 1.
Qualitative Research Questions
• How did SDPP interventions affect at-risk
students’ decisions to stay in school?
• How did or why didn’t SDPP interventions affect
at-risk student decisions to dropout?
• How did students react to SDPP interventions—
did they notice them, like them, felt helped and
supported, or prefer something else?
• How did teachers, school directors, parents and
community interact with the SDPP interventions—
did they notice them, understand them, use them,
like them or prefer something else?
• What kind of difficulties did SDPP beneficiaries
(students) and targets (teachers, school director,
parents and community) experience with SDPP
interventions?
• What aspects of the SDPP interventions will they
continue to use?
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 16
Timor Leste: In Quarter 3, SDPP HQ prepared draft instruments and shared with the country team. In
Quarter 4, SDPP HQ travelled to Timor Leste to train the country team. Instruments were trialed and
finalized. Thirteen country team members were trained on their application. Data collection is planned
for FY15 Quarter 1.
Requirement 3.4: Launch SDPP Projects in the Four Pilot Countries
SDPP schoo l -based activities were formally launched in all four countries in FY13, with
participation of senior U.S. and host-country government officials. The events helped to raise public
awareness about dropout and SDPP interventions, and solidify local and national government support for
the program.
Both standards under Requirement 3.4 have been fully achieved.
Requirement 3.5: Conduct Student Dropout Prevention Pilots in the Four Selected Countries
In FY14 Quarter 1, SDPP began a second year of
school-based intervention activities in all four countries,
made possible by the contract extension received in late
FY13 (August 22, 2013). Over the course of the year it
reached 84,454 students, of which 39,930 were girls. In
Cambodia and Tajikistan, SDPP interventions resumed
with the new 2013/14 school year in Quarter 1, and were
concluded in Quarter 3. In India, interventions continued
uninterrupted (except by extended holidays and
inclement weather) through the end of the 2013/14
school year in Quarter 2, and resumed with the new
2014/15 school year in Quarter 3 with completion
planned for FY15 Quarter 1. In Timor Leste, the first
Standards Fully Achieved:
Pilot launchings in the four (4) pilot countries within the first year after award.
One (1) press release for each of the four (4) pilot countries issued.
SDPP Country School Calendars
Cambodia: October – July
India: April - March (break May & June)
Tajikistan: September - June
Timor Leste: January - September
NB: Calendars are subject to change,
frequent breaks/holidays and disruptions
due to inclement weather, national events,
strikes, etc.
SDPP HQ provides feedback to the SDPP
team in Cambodia practicing the FGI tools.
SDPP team practicing through role play as
interviewer, interviewees and note takers. Focus Group Interview in Cambodia
with at risk students.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 17
full year of SDPP interventions was concluded in Quarter 1; the second year of interventions began with
the new school year 2015 in Quarter 2 and concluded in Quarter 4.
Varying by school calendar, the following activities were undertaken in each of the SDPP countries: (1)
implementation and conclusion of a second year of school interventions, (2) strengthening and further
operationalization of interventions, including revision of procedures and materials and training, (3)
initiation of activities aimed at building ministry of education capacity to continue, sustain and/or expand
SDPP interventions, and (4) distribution of participation rewards to treatment and control schools
Cambodia:
School Year 2013/14 Intervention Activities (October 2013-June 2014)
School-based intervention activities for the Stay in School Program were scheduled to resume in October
2013 to coincide with the start of the 2013/2014 academic year. For the second year, schools openings
were delayed due to heavy rains. Numerous (56) treatment schools, as well as SDPP’s Battambang office
were closed or adversely affected by flooding, resulting in the postponement of planned activities to later
in the year. Nevertheless, the full work program for school-based activities was implemented, albeit
within a shortened timeframe.
Early Warning System: Implemented in all 215 treatment schools, the Early Warning System
intervention reached 59,925 grade 7-9 students (27,348 girls). In preparations for at-risk student
identification, 39 SDPP staff were retrained on EWS, followed by a 2-day training on EWS for 2,008
school personnel, POE/DOE representatives and MoEYS officials in six provinces. Homeroom teachers
completed at-risk child scoring of entering Grade 7 students and Grade 8 and 9 transfer students and at-
risk student identification at the beginning of Quarter 2. 41,487 students (17,910 girls) were identified as
“at-risk” of dropping out.
Over the course of the year, students received a range of follow-up support from schools, teachers and
communities, including home communication (11,842 letters and 11,383 calls) and 44,072 home visits,
increased in-class attention and case management meetings. The EWS Parent-Teacher Association
Training Guide and PTA/Community toolkit were updated and expanded for use in the training of 931
PTA members in early Quarter 2. To reinforce their skills, SDPP program and provincial teams observed
PTA- and school director-led community meetings in each treatment school and provided feedback. Three
meetings were held during the school year at different sites within the community. Re-published anti-
dropout toolkits, comprising ring-bound posters, wall calendars, diaries and banners, were used to support
discussion of the value of education, issues leading to dropout and ways to prevent dropout. 641 schools
and community meetings brought together members of the Commune Council, village chiefs, local police,
parents, teachers and school principals
Round 1 fidelity-of-implementation results, although high overall (90 percent of schools met or surpassed
the threshold score), showed significant weakness in the implementation of follow-up support (i.e., case
management) by teachers, with an average score of 36 percent. As a consequence, the country team
redoubled its effort with provincial staff meeting regularly with schools to assist them on follow-up.
Discussion of at-risk student was included in the agenda of monthly teacher meetings at the schools and
results were recorded in the school report.
Computer Labs: Implemented in 108 of the 215 treatment schools, computer labs served nearly 40,000
grade 7, 8 and 9 students for twice-weekly (total of two hours) computer literacy classes. Multiple
trainings were conducted over FY14 for computer lab teachers, school director and technicians on their
use and support. In Quarter 1, SDPP staff and MoEYS trainers provided a 5-day training to 535 teachers
and schools directors in the computer lab schools on the computer literacy curriculum, student project
work exercises, and computer lab timetabling and operation. In Quarter 2, 108 selected computer teachers
participated in three-day training on computer lab maintenance and basic repair.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 18
The SDPP country monitored the computer labs and equipment to ensure they were functioning and
operated according to guidelines. Repair and replacement of solar panels, batteries and peripheral
equipment (monitors, keyboards, printers, etc.) were effected through the local companies, and completed
in Quarter 4. SDPP also arranged to re-install a computer lab into a new classroom, following relocation
of the school. Encouraging schools to clean debris off solar panels restored power to several computer
labs that had suffered from weak power. SDPP worked with schools to construct simple bamboo ladders
to access roofs. To date, 83 of the 108 schools have fabricated ladders.
Round 1 fidelity-of-implementation results showed the 98 pecent of the labs were functional, 93 percent
followed the computer literacy curriculum, and 94 percent of schools provided the required support.
Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (July 2014- September 2014)
At the end of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support
for the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued. In Quarter 4,
the SDPP team worked to strengthen the capacity of the MoEYS and schools to sustain the interventions.
(See 3.1 for discussion.)
Early Warning System: In Quarter 4, the Asian Development Bank’s Senior Education Advisor, Dr.
Seema Aggarwal, met several times with SDPP HQ and country staff. The ADB is interested in
replicating the EWS in its new program. The SDPP team provided materials and organized school visits
so she and MoEYS colleagues could observe the EWS and Computer Labs in action and get feedback
from school personnel, parents and communities. With USAID COR concurrence, SDPP offered to
provide training on the interventions to central, provincial and district MoEYS staff involved in ADB
project implementation. The ADB has not yet responded.
Computer Labs: In Quarter 4, SDPP organized one-day Computer Lab safety and management meetings
with 471 school directors, local authorities and Community/PTA members and MoEYS, POE and DOE
officials to review the Computer Lab Security and Maintenance Plan, ensure understanding of computer
lab maintenance and support requirements, and to develop school-based plans for safeguarding the
computer labs and sustaining the computer literacy program in the up-coming school year. Overall,
commitment on the part of the participants was high, including suggestions for a provincial support fund
School personnel climbing the locally made step ladder,
carrying water to clean the solar panel on the roof of the SDPP
computer lab.
School personnel cleaning the solar panel
on the roof of the SDPP computer lab.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 19
Group work on detailing the
responsibilities to sustain the CL operation.
and inclusion on the agenda of monthly commune meetings. In August, the Bun Rany Hun Sen High
School in Svay Rieng province held a community fund-raiser to renovate the leaking computer lab roof.
The event--attended by the District Deputy Governor, POE and DOE representatives, local police, monks,
school personnel and the PTA/community--raised one-third of the needed funds.
Participation Rewards
Both treatment and control schools are scheduled to receive a modest “reward” for participating in SDPP
in 2013/2014 school year and undertaking the additional work it requires.3 Based on discussions with
schools, the SDPP team determined that metal file cabinets and hole punches would be most appreciated
by school personnel. These will be delivered in FY15 Quarter 1, along with a thank-you letter.
Certificates of appreciation for school personnel, PTA/community members, DOE and POE official who
have provided outstanding support for SDPP will also be presented.
India:
School-based intervention activities for the Anandshala Program in FY14 spanned two school years:
April 2013-March 2014 and April 2014-March 2015. During this period, the school calendar was
interrupted by strikes and inclement weather. Over the two school years, SDPP reached 10,814 Grade 5
students.
School Year 2013/14 Intervention Activities (October 2013-June 2014)
Early Warning System: Implemented in all 113 treatment schools, the Early Warning System
intervention identified approximately 4,213 at-risk students, known as “focus children” to avoid
stigmatization, in school year 2013/14.
During the remainder of the 2013/14 school year, SDPP strengthened student tracking and response
activities. A new child tracking booklet (including child profile, monthly tracking, communication
recording tool and case management) was introduced. The newly-designed attendance tracking register,
which was prefilled with student names and SDPP ID numbers, allowed teachers to record absenteeism,
early departure and tardiness in one place to get an overall picture of how individual at risk students were
doing. In most schools, student class monitors are now taking over recording afternoon attendance. The
Communications Recording Tool was used to record phone calls and home visits for treatment students.
3 While treatment schools already receive varying degrees of equipment, materials and services, in order to maintain
“equivalence” between treatment and control schools, both groups receive the same annual incentive.
Responsibilities for Sustainable Operation of
Computer Labs
The payment for the CL security guard will be
responsibility of the community with daily security
supported by local police posts.
The Commune Council will include the necessary
budget in the Commune Investment Budget Plan,
and mobilize resources for CL operation at the
target schools.
POE and DOE committed to sustain CL operation
by negotiating with MoEYS for an allocation of
national budget for sustainable CL operation, and
support school planning at target schools.
All participants to be active to discuss the plan for
CL safety and management at each CL target
school.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 20
School Open Houses were held in Quarters 1 and 2. The Open Houses provided an opportunity for
parents and community members to visit the school and see their children’s work, within a “low-stakes”
context. (Rare parental visits to the school are generally to respond to a problem.) A Parents’
Engagement Kit has been created for the Open Houses, comprising a board game and tracking poster.
Open House attendance has increased over time, in part due to invitations sent through the Voice
Messaging system.
The Voice Messaging System broadcast messaged twice a week, with a month hiatus in January/February
2014 due to the contract renewal process. In Quarter 2, the storyboard and scripts for 20 new messages
was approved by USAID, and recordings were completed in Quarter 3. In addition, messages were
developed to publicize SDPP activities: invitations for Open Houses and SDPP trainings were broadcast.
A review of the Voice Messaging Program showed that 81% of parents of Grade 5 students have phones,
but only 56% received the voices messages. Reasons for not receiving messages included changed phone
numbers, uncharged phones, and no answers.
School capacity to support the EWS was reinforced by several training activities. In Quarter 1, a school
planning exercise was conducted in each school to schedule case management meetings, open houses and
other SDPP activities, and selected head teachers were engaged to participate in a workshop to develop
content for head master training on planning and leadership. Separate trainings took place for
Community Champions and teachers on their role, the process of tracking students, and first “responses.”
Head teachers received training on how to integrate Anandshala activities into existing school processes.
In Quarter 2, teachers participated in a review of the Anandshala program aimed at obtaining suggestions
for strengthening implementation and preparing them to continue activities without the support of
community champions. Head teachers participated in planning session for the upcoming school year.
Enrichment Program: Session plan development for the Enrichment Program continued over the first
two quarters, with the design of 18 session plans in sports, language and arts. Training teachers,
Community Champions and Program Officers on session plans took place each quarter. 5532 students
participated in the Enrichment activities.
School Year 2014/15 Intervention Activities (April 2014 - September 2014)
The 2014/15 school year began in Quarter 3, with 5,282 students in the treatment schools. Although the
school year officially starts April 1, a long break in late May and June contributes to delayed enrollments
and uneven attendance by students and teachers. Resumption of most SDPP school intervention activities
did not take place until July (Quarter 4), when enrollment had stabilized sufficiently to complete
identification of 4,130 at-risk students. The SDPP team used the interval to review and refine the
interventions, materials and training modules. SDPP school-based activities were scheduled to end in
October/November 2014, at which time final data collection would take place. However, SDPP support
for schools was re-scheduled to continue through March 2015, in response to a request from the state and
district educational authorities received in late FY2014. Final data collection took place in November as
originally planned.
Early Warning System: In Quarter 4, the 2014/15 school year resumed in earnest. The Focus Child
Identification list for school year 2014/15 was finalized for each school, which also received a pre-filled
attendance tracking register. A FCI data book (report card), which consolidates data on at-risk children,
was developed and distributed to head teachers and classroom teachers. Phone calls and home visits to at-
risk students resumed. Following the Hindi, Behavior and Enrichment Program assessment, the case
management planning was initiated. The phone number list for the new 2014/15 Grade 5 student cohort
was developed, including 82 percent of households. Voice messages were sent to parents, including
invitations to the first Open House of the year in July. A change has been made in the service provider to
ensure regular broadcasts.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 21
The first Open House, held in July at the 113 treatment school, was attended by 70 percent of Grade 5
students’ parents, as well as the village heads and government officials. A revised board game and poster
were distributed. A second Open House was held in September for 70 schools (the remainder will
participate in Open Houses in October 2015). It enjoyed a 75 percent participation rate by students and
families. Completed school activities plans were displayed at the schools, and the development of a Head
Teacher Journal was initiated to facilitate activity planning.
Enrichment Program: In Quarter 3, the country team conducted a formative assessment of the session plan
content. Feedback was positive: teachers like the clear statements of objectives, understood the content
and liked the activities. Based on their comments that the illustrations were too numerous, the team
developed a new template and began revising the session plans. In Quarter 4, 48 session plans had been
revised to make them easier to read.
Enrichment Program activities began in early May and continued until the school break at the end of the
month. During the month, 9-10 sessions had been completed in most schools. Teachers and Head
teachers are taking more responsibility from Community Champions for their implementation. Each
Friday, teachers and Community Champions reflected on the week’s experience.
Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (July 2014- September 2014)
In Quarter 4, 210 Community Champions participated in a refresher training, aimed at redefining the role
of Community Champions beyond the end of SDPP. They suggested ways they could continue to support
the school, engage the community and promote anti-dropout activities. One day trainings were held for
teachers on the EWS, head teachers on their responsibility for supporting Anandshala activities, and
Community Champions on the Enrichment Program.
Participation Rewards
In Quarter 1, student seating mats were distributed to the 220 treatment and control schools as the reward
for their first year of participation. In Quarter 4, procurement was begun for fabric classroom “attendance
trees,” made locally, for the second year’s participation reward
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 22
Anandshala Open House and Enrichment Program Views and Voices
“Many students didn’t want to stay in school after midday meal, but now due to EP activity they
enjoy and stay in school till the last period.” --Teacher
“I learnt lot of things from Anandshala EP Program and due to this I got benefit during
enrichment training organized by Department of Education and got A+ grade.” --Teacher
“Whenever I attend the Open House I can see children developing all new things. I am convinces
that my child too can do something worthwhile in near future.” --Parent
“When we mark our SDPP journal, we can see how regular our children are at school. Our
children enjoy the school, they tell us the activities that they do at school.” --Parent
“My children want to attend school regularly because of Anandshala Program.. We feel so
involved in the Open House program.” --Parent
“I can’t really believe that our children can make such beautiful things. This community is really
fond of your activities.” --Parent
“Only the Anandshala Open House lets so many parents get together. My school has been
recognized as the best school of Samastipur. Anandshala is a large reason for this.” --Parent
Now I know why it is important for our children. Now I understand what SDPP is doing and how
it benefits my child.” --Parent
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 23
Tajikistan:
Intervention Activities (October 2013-May 2014)
The second and final year of school-based intervention activities for the Stay in School Program were
initiated in 82 treatment schools in September 2013 with the start of the 2013/2014 academic year.
Early Warning System: In Quarter 1, identification of 1,753 at-risk students was finalized. The process
compared favorably with the previous year: school personnel played a more active role in scoring the
students.
Teachers tracked the attendance, behavior and course work and used the information for case
management. A revised EWS Toolkit was distributed to each treatment school, containing Monthly Case
Management Meeting form, Behavior Tracking form, Homework Tracking form, Form Letter for Parents,
Home Visit form and Letters, Home Visits and Meetings log. Throughout the year, homeroom teachers
generally completed the EWS records and kept them organized. Some gaps remained that were addressed
by the field monitors—for example, although Case Management Meeting forms listed student names and
course marks, they did not present comments on the problems identified, actions taken or plans for
follow-up, a key weakness substantiated by the Fidelity-of-Implementation research.
At the beginning of the school year, the SDPP country team conducted training workshops for 1,940
parents and community members, including civic and religious leaders, police and local officials, to orient
them to the SDPP activities, enlist their support and participation, and clarify roles and responsibilities.
Participation exceeded expectations, so at several schools, two sessions were conducted.
School-based EWS activities were concluded in Quarter 3, with the end of the school year.
After-School Tutoring and Enrichment Program: By the first week of Quarter 1, SDPP has prepared and
distributed a complete lesson plan packages to all 450 tutor to conduct lessons throughout the 2013/14
school year. The package consisted of: year-long calendars for tutoring lesson plans in all 10 subjects;
203 lesson plans4, organized by 10 core
subjects; questionnaires for field program
staff to gather feedback from parents and
students about the after school program;
lesson observation forms for field program
staff to provide feedback to tutors; and
covers for binders that hold their lesson
plans.
Approximately 1,300 Grade 9 students
participated in the after school program,
93 percent of the at-risk students in the
full treatment group. To ensure a high
participation rate, parents were invited to
observe the Afterschool Tutoring classes,
giving them an opportunity to see the
positive effect on the students’ attitude
and attendance. As an added incentive to
encourage students to sit for the Grade 9
4 SDPP received a total of 444 first-draft lesson plans from the module developers between June, 2012 and May, 2013. From
those, the program team selected the best lesson plans for further development and revision. During revision, other lesson plans
were eliminated from the pool. The final collection consisted of 203 lesson plans, in Tajik and English.
# FINALIZED TUTOR LESSON PLANS
SUBJECT NUMBER
1 English Language 30
2 Russian Language 23
3 Tajik Language and Literature 34
4 Geography 17
5 History 18
6 Law 17
7 Biology 17
8 Physics 17
9 Chemistry 14
10 General Math, Geometry and Algebra 16
Total: 203 Lesson plans
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 24
leaving exam (SDPP’s proxy measure for completion and transition), tutors and students were given the
option to use part of the tutoring hour to review content for the final exams in Quarter 3.
For the most part, equipment and supplies remained in good shape, but in some cases more storage and
minor repairs to designated Afterschool Tutoring room were required. Sport equipment was procured to
round out the leisure program equipment, and proved popular with both girls and boys.
Based on the previous years’ experience, ineffective tutors had been replaced, but some problems
remained: some tutors continue to use traditional methods of instruction or some schools are unable to
provide the subject teacher (most often in English). To strengthen tutor capacity to sue interactive
teaching methods, SDPP organized demonstration classes in 78 treatment schools in Quarter 2. SDPP
staff and master tutors modelled lessons, and tutors practiced with 1,284 Grade 9 students in practicums,
receiving feedback on their efforts. Tutor participation was high—438 out of 450 tutors took part. Tutors
so much liked the demonstration classes that they organized their own demonstration sessions in 68
schools in Quarter 3, inviting SDPP staff to attend as expert observers. Over 300 tutors participated.
School-based Afterschool Tutoring activities were concluded in Quarter 3, with the end of the school
year.
Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (June 2014- September 2014)
In May of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for
the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued.
In Quarter 4, the SDPP team worked to initiated activities to contribute to the sustainability of the
program interventions. In light of the recently-announced MoES requirement that all program materials
used in schools must undergo MoES and approval for nationwide use, a package of SDPP materials—
already approved for use in the treatment schools—was submitted to MoES point-of-contact for review.
The package included the EWS School Manual with forms, the Afterschool Tutoring and Enrichment
Activities School Manual, all tutoring lesson plans, a booklet for parents, and copies of community
awareness posters. In July, SDPP was instructed to send the materials to the Collegium—group of
representatives from different MoES institutions—for approval. With COR approval, SDPP has engaged
the head of the Academy of Education to review the package and provide suggestions for changes, which
SDPP will make prior to submission.
SDPP participated in a joint MoES-UNICEF working group on out-of-school children, which includes
dropouts. The working group plans to develop an EWS and accelerated learning program for Grade 9.
SDPP shared both its EWS tools and its lesson plans.
Participation Rewards
The Consultative Group decided in Quarter 3 that the second year’s participation reward for treatment and
control schools should again include a package of reading books, as this had proved very popular with
schools, Districts and the MoES the previous year. In Quarter 4, the books were delivered to the 165
schools. The U.S. Ambassador handed over packages of books to the host school and officials at the
SDPP-organized International Literacy Day celebration, held in Dangara district.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 25
International Literacy Day Event Announcement
(from the Tajikistan MoES website)
U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan Susan M. Elliott, together with the Chairman Hukumat of Danghara Mahmadullo Saidaliev, and the head of the pre-school and secondary education of the Ministry of Education Abdujabbor Aliev, participated at the ceremony of 48th anniversary of the International Literacy Day on Tuesday in Danghara district of Khatlon region.
According to the American Embassy in Tajikistan, who informed "Khovar," the U.S. Agency for International Development, in honor of International Literacy Day in 2014, gifted 7,260 books to 165 schools in the Khatlon region. We remind you that in accordance with UNESCO, Literacy Day is celebrated around the world.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Elliot presents books from the SDPP book rewards package to Ministry of Education
and Sport representative Abdujabbor Aliev at the International Literacy Day celebration.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 26
Timor Leste:
School Year 2014 Intervention Activities (October 2013-September 2014)
School Year 2013 closed in late September 2013 to accommodate planned MoE teacher training. School
year 2014—the second and final full year of SDPP school-based activities--started in January 2014 and
concluded in September 2014.
Early Warning and Response System: In Quarter 1, SDPP used the hiatus between school years to
mobilized Stay in School community groups to conduct advocacy activities at the final exam results
ceremonies in October.
With the beginning of School Year 2014, the MoE issued a formal letter extending collaboration with
SDPP for another school year, which SDPP staff helped to deliver to regional, district and school level
authorities prior to the start of school-based activities.
In Quarter 2, the at-risk child identification process was conducted and completed over a three-week
period. Data was collected on all incoming Grade 4 students and Grades 5 and 6 transfer students. Of the
7,959 students enrolled in Grades 4, 5 and 6 in the treatment schools, 3,171 were identified as at-risk. To
facilitate the process, refresher training was provided to SDPP field implementation staff and (separately)
to 406 home room teachers, who received a branded binder in which to organize the EWS forms.
While teachers generally track student attendance, schools have been less complaint in organizing regular
case management meetings to allow teachers to review the progress of at-risk students and develop
support strategies. In Quarter 3, only 41 percent of school held these meetings (although a significant
improvement over the 7 percent of the previous year). In Quarter 4, SDPP filed staff supported the
monthly case management meetings, with some qualified success. While most schools held monthly
meeting in June, a few did in July, citing teacher absenteeism, teacher workload, lack of interest, or
absence of the directors. In August, case management meetings were organized around the second
trimester exam results, resulting in all but one school’s participation.
Table 3: Community Activities in FY2014
Activity school personnel
with the community
Number done
July14 – Sept 14
Number done
Jan – Sept 14
Cumulative for
2014
Objective of Activity
Send postcard
notification 253 620
The school sends a postcard notification
to the student's parents through the "Stay
in School" community volunteer,
providing an early warning if the child
has missed 2 days of school or was late or
left school early twice.
Home visits by
community volunteers 226 620
A community member visits the student’s
home to discuss find out why the child
has not been at school
Hold meetings in the
community 32 101
Community group members and the Field
Officers hold meetings in the community
to raise awareness about the importance
of education and the parents'
responsibility to send their children to
school
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 27
Field staff sought to re-engage the Stay in School Community Groups, first by organizing them to follow-
up on students who had not re-enrolled in school. Several groups decided to replace members who had
not been active the previous year. Field staff provided orientation, often with experienced Community
Group members, to refresh their knowledge of their role and share their experience of the prior year.
Community volunteers continued to undertake home visits and deliver, postcards, which were revised
slightly to enable the village head and school director to be more actively engaged in the process. The
lack of postcards for community volunteers to take to households and time limitations for the volunteers
has led some schools to reorganize the home visit process. In some cases, volunteers will visit a home
only one time per week, which may reduce the speed of response to a student’s absence.
Extracurricular activities: In preparation for the resumption of Extracurricular Activities (ECA) with the
new school year in January 2014, two rounds of training were conducted for master SDPP ECA trainers,
so they were better able to work with field staff and teachers in the new year.
In Quarter 2, teachers were oriented and received refresher training on Extracurricular Activities. In some
cases, MoE personnel took part in the training. ECA sessions began in February for Grade 5 and 6
students and in March for Grade 4 students. All schools had established the annual activity schedule and
received new and revised ECA Activities Plan Manual, ECA Handbook with 40 session plans, and ECA
“Starter Kits’ with stationary and supplies. In Quarter 3, a new poster—promoting courtesy and
respect—was distributed to the schools, accompanied by instructions for its use by teachers and SDPP to
raise awareness about positive classroom environments, free of bullying, harassment, teasing, aggression
and violence.
Table 4: Breakdown of ECA Sessions by District and Month of Implementation
In Quarter 4, delivery of ECA sessions were interrupted in August by the trimester exams and school
break, which many school “unofficially” extended through the end of the month. As part of its on-going
strategy to devolve ECA session leadership to teachers, SDPP staff played supporting roles only to
teachers leading the session. While many teachers are taking responsibility for leading the ECA session
and appreciate the “spillover” effects on their classes, some have not fully participated in the ECA session
or maintain desk-bound or chalk-and-talk approaches to the activities or—worse—try to “grade” children
on the ECA games and songs.
5 Figures may change following review and cleaning of field reports.
District Jan-Mar14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Grand Total
Bobonaro 130 431 317 878
Ermera 182 460 292 934
Liquica 78 230 156 464
Manatuto 152 326 208 686
Viqueque 27 541 326 894
Grand Total 569 1988 1299 3,8565
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 28
Table 5: Number of Teacher-Led Sessions per District / Per Month (excluding breaks in April and
August)
Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (June 2014- September 2014)
In May of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for
the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued.
Early Warning and Response System and Extracurricular Activities: In Quarter 4, SDPP country teams
completed a series of final Reflection meetings with Community Groups, parents, PTA, community
leaders, school personnel and –at times—MoE officials to assess the progress of EWS in individual
schools. Games and energizers were used to get participants to think about approaches to working
together to continue SDPP activities in the school after the program support ended in September.
A final Field Implementation Team Reflection was held in September with 62 SDPP staff, drawing on
their extensive experience to make practical recommendations to the MoE about the elements of the
SDPP program that could be implemented immediately and future policy directions.
Other activities: SDPP country representatives participated in the newly-instituted Local Education
Working Group meeting for development partners in August, convened by the MoE. Senior MoE staff
presented progress against the objectives of the 2014 Annual Action Plan. Mandatory government teacher
training programs were on-going throughout the 2014 school year, which often took teachers away from
school for weeks at a time and impeded SDPP’s EWS and Extracurricular activities.
SDPP representatives were among the 300 persons who attended the Second Dialogue of the Joint Action
for Education in Timor Leste, held in August. SDPP staff consolidated inputs from the education
development group partners to prepare a short presentation on monitoring at the national and school
levels.
Participation Rewards
In Quarter 4 procurement was initiated for the reward packages for all schools in the research sample.
Reward packages were one of three types: for schools without adequate storage, schools will receive a
metal filing cabinet, football and hole-punch; for schools with no lockable room, schools will receive a
footlocker; for schools with complete office furniture, schools will receive a complete music package
consisting of a guitar with strings and sports equipment. Rewards will be delivered in FY15 Quarter 1.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 29
Timor Leste Stakeholder Reflections
School Coordinator of Central School EBC Bogoro – Sr. Vincente da
Conçeição
“I think the thing that we have learned this year is that we need to pay
attention to two things. The first is that we should work to attract students to
school, so that we do activities where students feel happy, and comfortable in
school, and where they want to attend every day rather than staying at home.
The second thing is that we need to pay attention to students’ attendance, and
check where they are when they are absent for any period of time. I think that
if we can continue to do these two things then we will be able to prevent
dropout.”
Mother – Ana-Paula dos Santos
“It is the responsibility of parents to send their children to school. Parents are the
ones who must take moral responsibility for the education of their children, and it is
their moral obligation to support their children’s education.
I am happy with the activities that have happened in the school over the past year. I
think the best situation is where students are dressed and wanting to leave the house
early every morning because they want to be at school, and don’t want to lose any
opportunity to play and learn with their friends.”
Stay in School Community Group Member - Eduardo da Cruz (right)
“There has been good progress this year. The number of students missing school
has gone down, and students are only absent now if they are sick. Parents
understand now that when children are sick they need to let the school know.
There is more awareness of the importance of education now. Education is the key
to a better future. If you have qualifications then you can get a good salary, so
education is like an investment in the future of our children. We need to make sure
that they get the best opportunity.”
Parents, community members and school personnel engage in games to help form their own strategy for
development of dropout prevention activities in their school.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 30
Table 6: Selected SDPP Country Indicators for Quarter 4 (July-September), FY14 and Annual (October 13-September 14)
Indicator Cambodia
SY 2013/14
India
SY 2013/14
Tajikistan
SY 2013/14
Timor Leste
SY 2014
Total SDPP
(to date)
Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14
Number of treatment and control schools
Treatment
Control
Total
215 treatment 107 control 322 Total
215 treatment 107 control 322 Total
113 treatment 107 control 220 Total
113 treatment 107 control 220 Total
0
82 treatment 83 control 165 Total
97 treatment 93 control 190 Total
97 treatment 93 control 190 Total
425 treatment 307 control 732 Total
507 treatment 390 control 897 Total
Number of interventions implemented
2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 6 8
Number of students enrolled in the target grades in treatment schools.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 31
8,343 Total (o/w 4,327 girls)
5,467 Total (o/w 2,493 girls)
Secondary (o/w 17,211 girls)
49,880 Total (o/w 21,307 girls)
Secondary (o/w 17,925 girls)
57,050 Total (o/w 24,745 girls)
Number of treatment school teachers and other school personnel trained
0 2,585 (o/w 828 female)
271
(o/w 130 female)
549 teachers, HMs & CCs (o/w 230 female)
0 897 (o/w 448 female)
251 (o/w 60 female)
696 (o/w 198 female)
1,419 (o/w 190 female)
4,727 (o/w 1,704 female)
Number of PTAs or other school support groups trained
0 215 111 113 0 246 3 5 114 579
Number of community members trained
0 931 (o/w 113 female)
5385
(o/w 3600 female)
9979 (o/w 6,432 female)
0 1,940 (o/w 800 female)
29 (o/w 6 female)
46 (o/w 11 female)
5.414 (o/w 3,606 female)
12,896 (o/w 7,356 female)
Number of trainings conducted for teachers, schools, communities
0 84 3 14 0 291
53 105 56 232
Number of contacts (home visits, calls, letters/cards) to follow up at risk students
13,139 67,297 ND 24,646
0 4862
479
1241
13,618 98,046
Number of school and outreach events held
4 641 111 426 1 649 32 135 148 1851
Number of Consultative Group meetings held.
1 2 1 5 0 1 1 4 3 12
Number of manuals developed and/or refined
0 3 0 13 0 4 0 2 0 22
Number of modules/tools developed/refined
0 106 3 7 0 222
0 13
Number of impact assessment data collection rounds conducted
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 32
i Adjusted totals due to review and correction of under-reporting of previous monitoring data ii Figures are presented for SY 2013/14 and SY 2014/15 as FY14 spans two school years. iii School-based activities were completed in Q3. iv Figures are presented for SY 2013/14 and SY 2014/15 as FY14 spans two school years. v Comprises 210 CCs, 23 HMs, and 38 Teachers vi Participants were estimated at demonstration lessons. Some participants might be double-counted; data being cleaned. vii Some teachers may be counted twice when they receive training for both EWRS and extracurricular activities on separate days; data being cleaned. vii Gender breakdown estimate. Data being processed. ix Comprises 90 parents & community workshops and 201 demo classes. x Data covers June-September 2014 as June data was not available for the previous quarterly report. xi Comprises 1,717 phone calls to parents, 1,070 letters sent to parents after 3-day absence, 186 letters sent to parents after 10-day absence, 10,166 home visits made to parents xii Comprises11,842 phone calls to parents, 9,419 letters sent to parents after 3-day absence, 1,964 letters sent to parents after 10-day absence, 44,072 home visits made to parents xiii Data not yet available. xiv Q4 data not included. Comprises 9373 phone calls and 15273 home visits. xv Comprises 2,351 letters and 2,511 home visits xvi Comprises 253 Notification Cards and 226 Home Visits. xvii Comprises 620 Notification Cards and 621 Home Visits. xviii Data covers June-September 2014 as June data was not available for the previous quarterly report xix 4 community meetings were held to raise awareness of the importance of education to which 176 people attended (of which 63 were female). The number of meetings and participants here does not include the Computer Lab safety and management meetings which were held in the quarter. xx 641 community meetings were held to raise awareness of the importance of education to which 24,735 people attended (of which 12,455 were female). The number of meetings and participants here does not include the Computer Lab safety and management meetings which were held in Quarter 4, 2014. xxi Comprises school posters reprinted. xxii Comprises board game, attendance tracking poster, attendance tracking register and student booklet, and school poster. xxiii Comprises 211 lesson plans, 8 qualitative research tools, and 3 FOI tools.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 33
The following requirements will be addressed in FY15. Nevertheless, some activities were undertaken
this year which begin to address the requirements, as described below.
Requirement 3.6: Produce and Distribute Reports of the Student Dropout Prevention
Pilots in the Four Selected Countries
In Quarter 1, a draft report combining baseline results with a preliminary analysis of outcome indicators
from the Follow-up 1 data collection was prepared and shared with the COR. A final version was
completed in Quarter 2. Following discussions with the COR, it was decided not to share the information
beyond core country team members, as the analysis was based on incomplete data after only 4 months of
implementation.
A preliminary report on the analysis of Follow-up 2 data is scheduled for FY15 Quarter 1.
Requirement 3.7: Present Findings of the Student Dropout Prevention Pilots
The SDPP project website (www.schooldropoutprevention.com) is regularly updated and made compliant
with USAID requirements as communicated through the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs (final
approval was received in June 2012). Several documents have been posted on the website as well as
submitted to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).
In Quarter 2, SDPP HQ (Creative, Mathematica, and STS) and 2-person country teams from
Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste participated in the 2014 CIES Conference of the
Comparative International Education Society (CIES) in Toronto, Canada. SDPP presented two panels:
Preventing Dropout: First Follow-Up Impact of the School Drop-Out Prevention Program
Interventions, presented the initial findings from the midline impact assessment of the four-country
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program, comparing baseline and first follow-up data collection
results. The panel examined the extent to which the program has affected student dropout and
engagement in school, student attitudes and behaviors, and teacher knowledge, behaviors and
attitudes, as well as methods and challenges of data collection on dropout. Also presented was the
SDPP research methodology for data collection on dropout and related outcomes, and the Fidelity of
Implementation design and experiences (and challenges) implementing FOI in the four SDPP
countries.
Involving Communities in Dropout Prevention: Experience from Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and
Timor Leste, examined the ways the four countries have engaged communities in dropout prevention
activities, addressing: community attitudes towards dropout and schooling; community engagement
with the school and their child’s schooling; community activities to prevent dropout; outreach efforts
to engage community and parental action; effectiveness of community-supported dropout prevention
activities; considerations and challenges with community-supported implementation.
Also in Quarter 2, SDPP HQ (Mathematica) presented preliminary impact findings at the Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) 2014 spring conference in Washington, DC.
Requirement 3.8: Student Dropout Prevention Programming Guide Developed and Distributed
Throughout FY14, SDPP country teams revised and updated manuals and materials which will be
incorporated into country toolkits. In Quarter, 4, SDPP met with the COR to identify and define the SDPP
toolkits. It presented the findings of a review it prepared on different programming guide structures and
approaches. With the COR, it was determined that SDPP would prepare two programming guides: (1)
Early Warning System and (2) Enrichment and Afterschool Tutoring Programs. These toolkits will be
generalized for use in any country, but will use SDPP country-specific examples. The toolkits will be
translated into 10 languages; links to the country-specific manuals and materials will be in English and in
the SDPP country language. Although not a deliverable, each country will assemble its materials into
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 34
III. Project Management and Operations
A. Operations
Operational support throughout the year focused on facilitating the programmatic and technical activities
described above, including: supporting and monitoring ongoing interventions; multimedia package
development; and data collection for follow-up impact assessments, qualitative assessment, and fidelity of
implementation. Operations focused heavily on finalizing subcontract extensions and extension budgets
for all existing partners, negotiating new subcontracts with research firms in Cambodia, India, and
Tajikistan, shifting SDPP implementing partnership in India, and preparing a realigned project budget for
submission to USAID in May 2014.
During Quarter 4, SDPP project management staff focused on orienting and training new HQ team
members, supporting country teams as in-school activities wound down, and planning for policy
dialogues and other activities to take place during the final year of the project.
Key staff and consultant actions are detailed in sections C. and D., and major procurements are described
in section F. Other important management and operational actions of note include the following:
Country Partnership Agreements: As FY 2013 closed, local Ministries of Education in all four countries
were informed of the project extension and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was renewed in
India and submitted for renewal in Timor Leste. By the second quarter of FY 2014, the MOE in Timor
Leste granted SDPP permission to continue to operate in the target schools for the 2015 school year. In
Quarter 1, the SDPP country teams began the process of renewing the MOUs with the local Ministries of
Education in Cambodia and Tajikistan, updating the ministries on the program extension. In Cambodia,
the draft MOU was submitted to the new MoEYS Minister for endorsement in Quarter 2, and was signed
on April 4, 2014, extending the approval of the SDPP project in Cambodia through September 2015. In
Tajikistan, USAID and SDPP submitted a Letter of Commitment (LOC) to the MoES in November, 2013.
USAID, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the MOES briefly negotiated the terms and language in the
LOC, until the process reached a standstill over a disagreement regarding a clause stating that the LOC
does not legally bind USAID to any activity or funding. Despite the halted LOC process, SDPP was
authorized to continue operations under a new Tajik project name (“The Student Motivation Learning
Program”). In July, USAID decided to stop pursuing the LOC with the MoES, as the in-school pilot
interventions had been completed. In September, however, USAID renewed efforts to locate the LOC and
to complete the process, as the LOC must be submitted to the MoES at the closure of the program. SDPP
currently has no news of its status.
Implementing Partnership Agreements: SDPP sub-contractor agreements and budgets were modified
and approved to accommodate the project extension and revised work plans, and to increase ceiling
amounts. All subcontract extension budgets were finalized at the end of the first quarter for CARE,
KAPE, STS, MPR, and SABRE. SDPP also worked closely with our partners in India to finalize the
smooth transfer of implementation partnership from IDEAL to QUEST Alliance, the originally-proposed
implementing partner for India. All QUEST Alliance staff (formerly IDEAL staff) were approved and
QUEST’s subcontract began in mid-January. New subcontracts with data collection firms IRL, SUNAI
and Zerkalo were prepared and approved by USAID.
Partner Management Support: In the first two quarters, SDPP HQ staff from Creative and STS made site
visits to Cambodia, India, and Tajikistan to provide support for fidelity-of-implementation (FOI)
monitoring and intervention review and general operational oversight during the budget realignment
process. Creative and STS HQ staff also worked remotely with the Timor Leste team to revise and
finalize their FOI tools and processes. Virtual support was provided by HQ staff to all countries on
renewing MOUs with local ministries, developing and revising the data collection schedule to
accommodate for the project extension, and addressing concerns regarding staffing and attrition.
Significant efforts were also spent in preparing and supporting Follow-Up 2 data collection, which began
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 35
and was completed in India and Timor Leste in Quarter 2, and in Tajikistan and Cambodia in Quarter 3.
Site visits were made by SDPP HQ staff from Creative and STS to Tajikistan in June to finalize and test
Qualitative Research instruments, and train local staff in their use. Creative and STS HQ staff also
continued to work with all countries on FOI checks in Quarters 3 and 4.
Project Budget Realignment: During Quarter 3, the Creative HQ SDPP team worked to finalize the
budget realignment to accommodate the project extension, and submit to USAID for approval. Upon
receiving the extension, we focused our efforts in amending and extending subcontracts and revising the
project work plan to reflect the new end date, in preparation for the budget realignment. Under this
realigned budget, Creative closed all CLIN 1 activities and revised projections for CLINs 2 and 3.
Remaining funds from CLINs 1 and 3 were moved to CLIN 2 to fund the remaining work that is
anticipated to support CLIN 2 requirements. The budget was also revised to include increased
subcontractor values approved during the second quarter. The budget was submitted to USAID for
approval in Quarter 3 and was approved in Quarter 4.
Multi-Media Packages: Filming for the SDPP multimedia packages was completed in Cambodia and
Tajikistan in Quarter 3 and in Timor Leste and India in Quarter 4. The Creative communications team and
SDPP program staff traveled to the four countries to conduct and film stakeholder and beneficiary
interviews and to collect relevant background and program footage. Filming trips served the dual purpose
of collecting positive anecdotal impact data, while also bolstering local support and enthusiasm for
sustaining implementation of interventions beyond the close of the project. Meetings and interviews with
local ministry officials, community leaders, and USAID Mission representatives went particularly well in
all countries, with reiterated expressions of support and visible community and school-level change
resulting from SDPP interventions. With robust guidance from HQ, local project staff provided
preparatory support for the trips, selecting and preparing the schools and interviewees for the visits,
ensuring all permissions forms were translated and completed, and pre-arranging logistics as necessary.
HQ communications and program teams were accompanied by local staff and translators throughout the
trips to ensure the most relevant and impactful material was captured. Post-production of the videos is
now underway, and initial cuts are expected to be available by the end of next quarter.
B. Key Meetings with USAID and Partners
In each of the first three quarterly reports from FY2014, a detailed list was provided of the formal
meetings held in Washington, DC and in the field with USAID, MOE, or other partners at which key
decisions affecting the program were taken or major presentations made. Meetings held during Quarter 4
are as shown in Table 7.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 36
Table 7: Key meetings with USAID and partners in Quarter 4
7/7/14 Chea Kosal, Country
Coordinator; Ouk
Sothira, Education
Specialist; Lork Ratha,
IMS Manager; Chea
Tha, Kuoy Pharin,
Chhoeng Sina, Yos
Nara, & Sorn Khemra,
KAPE staff Phnom Penh
Dr. Seema Agarwal-
Harding, Senior
Education Advisor,
ADB’s School-Based
Enrichment Program;
& her Assistant
- Fact-finding about
SDPP, specifically on
the EWS intervention
since ADB was
recommended by
MoEYS to design an
EWS-model project
-Presentation of an
overview of SDPP
(EWS & CL
intervention)
- ADB’s Advisor will
meet again with the
EWS program team to
learn in more detail
about the process of
EWS and visit EWS
target schools
- SDPP shared the list
of SDPP target schools
and contacts for SDPP
provincial staff
7/21/14 Chea Tha & Kuoy
Pharin, EWS Program
Managers
Dr. Seema Agarwal-
Harding, Senior
Education Advisor,
ADB’s School-Based
Enrichment Program;
& her Assistant
Presenting in more detail
on the process of EWS
ADB’s Advisor will
contact CAI’s
Technical Director
Karen Tietjen for
permission to share the
SDPP tools and visit a
few EWS target schools
8/25-
26/14
Chea Kosal, CC; Ouk
Sothira, Education
Specialist
Attended 2-day
Consultative Seminar
of Improved Basic
Education in
Cambodia (IBEC)
project hosted by
World Education at
KAPE-HQ. The
seminar was chaired
by MoEYS’ Minister
(Dr. Hang Chuon
Naron)
Discussion on the Future
Generation Schools and
Best Practices of IBEC
-Presentation &
discussion on a wide
range of relevant
education topics.
-KAPE was encouraged
by MoEYS’ Minister to
submit a proposal to
ADB.
9/1/14 Ouk Sothira Educational
Specialist & Chea Tha,
EWS Program Manager
Mr. Chhim Kumnith,
Director of
Secondary Office
(General Secondary
Education
Department: GSED)
Discussion on the next
draft of the SDPP
Sustainability Plan and
passage on to the
Cabinet Office of
MoEYS’ Secretary of
GSED agreed to submit
the Sustainability Plan
to the Cabinet Office of
MoEYS’ Secretary of
State
Date(s) Key SDPP
representative(s)
Key client and/or
partner
representative(s)
Topic/focus of meeting
Key
decisions/outcomes
(if any)
SDPP Headquarters/Washington
7/30/14 Karen Tietjen, Sakil
Malik, Zuhra Abhar,
Nicholas Hoekstra, Mary
Calomiris (Creative),
Mary Lynd (STS),
Nancy Murray, Kathy
Buek, Owen Schochet,
Mark Strayer, Ali Protik
(MPR), Lotte Renault
(CARE)
Rebecca Adams,
Laura Parrott
Team meeting to discuss
impact assessment data,
qualitative research
processes, instruments
and planning, toolkits,
SDPP video production
updates, and policy
dialogue plans
Revised schedule for
impact data and reports,
options for 4 possible
types of toolkits were
discussed for further
consideration
SDPP/Cambodia
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 37
State
9/30/14 Chea Kosal, Country
Coordinator; Carole
Williams, Research,
M&E Specialist; Ouk
Sothira, Education
Specialist; Chea Tha,
Kuoy Pharin, Chhoeng
Sina, Yos Nara, Sorn
Khemra & Thol Buntha
Ung Ngor Hok,
GSED Director; Mao
Samrithy, Deputy
Director of Teacher
Training Dept (TTD);
Chhim Kumnith,
Deputy Secondary
Education Office;
Meung Veasna,
Deputy Examination
Office; Pol Sorith,
GSED Inspector;
Nareth Polyvin,
Planning Office
Official; Lim Chan
Soeun, GSED
Official; Sok Tha,
Head ICT Office;
Phel Phearoun,
Information &
ASEAN Affairs
Dept; Chhoeung
Rachana, Official of
Dept of Planning
- Report on the SDPP
progress
-Discuss the planning for
the national
dissemination workshop
on the SDPP
implementation
guideline after approval
by MoEYS and the
Training of Trainers
(ToT) to MoEYS
-GSED and TTD will
send SDPP the list of
trainers from their
departments.
-SDPP/KAPE will
propose to MoEYS to
host the national
dissemination
workshop on October
21-22, 2014 in
Battambang province
and the ToT in Pursat
province in December
2014.
SDPP/India
7/1/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
DPO-SSA and Nodal
Officer-SDPP
Discussion on Teacher
Training and approval
Approval Letter
submitted to DPO-SSA
office for further action
7/1/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Brajesh Kumar
Ojha, new DEO for
Samastipur and Mr.
J N Srivastava,
Outgoing DEO,
Samastipur
Meeting for updates on
SDPP activities and to
schedule introductions
with SDPP Staff in Samastipur
The new District
Education Officer in
Samastipur was
briefed on SDPP
activities as he has
recently transferred
from another District in
Bihar.
7/17/14
Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
DPO-SSA and Nodal
Officer-SDPP
A courtesy call to share
SDPP updates and
observations from school
visits with the DPO
The DPO encouraged
greater involvement in
the improvement of
classroom learning
environments and
wanted to be updated
on school-related
matters.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 38
8/9/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi
Mr. Dipak Singh,
Alternative &
Innovative Education
(AIE), Innovation –
SC/ST,ECE,
Minority & Urban
Deprived
Follow up discussion on
Training of Master
Trainers proposal in
Samastipur District and
updates on the
forthcoming
Communication Visit by
Creative Associates
Decisions regarding the
training of master
trainers will not be
made until discussions
with Core Team
members at BEPC,
Patna, can occur.
Regarding the
Communications Visit,
it was suggested that
the BEPC State Project
Director’s approval be
obtained.
8/22/14
;
9/01/14
Mr. Sharique Mashhadi
and Mr Nemi Kumar
Mr Barjesh Kumar
Ojha, District
Education Officer
and Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, DPO-SSA
and Nodal Officer-
SDPP
Meetings about
preparations for the
upcoming
Communication Visit
Officials expressed
their excitement to
share their views
during the forthcoming
visit; the DEO
suggested that
headmasters be present
at schools on Sept
17/Sept 18 as schools
are officially closed for
holidays.
9/12/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi
and Mr. Nemi Kumar Mr. Sudhir Kumar,
Sub Divisional
Magistrate (SDO),
Samastipur
meeting with the SDO to
update him regarding
SDPP and its
implementation aspects
The SDO shared his
willingness to visit
schools in October as
he was busy in
September. He will
visit the SDPP Office
and one or two
treatment schools
9/18/14 Mr Sakil Malik and Ms
Zuhra Abhar from
Creative Associates and
Mr Sharique Mashhadi
Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
DPO-SSA and Nodal
Officer-SDPP
A brief meeting with
District officials and
SDPP HQ staff
After the meeting, Mr
Sakil Malik suggested
that the State Head
update him regarding
the point person at
BEPC for SDPP.
9/18/14 Mr Sharique Mashhadi Mr Barjesh Kumar
Ojha, District
Education Officer
and Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, DPO-SSA
and Nodal Officer-
SDPP and Block
Education Officers of
11 Blocks of
Samastipur
The focus of this
meeting was to ensure
government officials
visit treatment schools
along with SDPP Staff
Higher district level
education officials
agreed to share their
school visit schedule
with respective SDPP
Staff and a few
treatment schools to be
visited jointly in the
coming months. The
State Head will also
join District Education
Officer for school visits
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 39
9/29/14
Mr Sharique Mashhadi Mr Barjesh Kumar
Ojha, District
Education Officer
and Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, DPO-SSA
and Nodal Officer-
SDPP
Meeting to Share
information regarding
the forthcoming Head
Masters Training and
probable dates for final
phase of Data Collection
Approval for these
training will be done
once dates are finalized
SDPP/Tajikistan
7/2/14 Sayora Abdunazarova
(Education Specialist) Irina Kholovna (Head
of Academy of
Education)
To discuss SDPP program
materials to be submitted
and further cooperation
between Academy and
SDPP
Kholovna looked
through the submitted
subject activities and
talked about other
programs working with
at-risk students. She
suggested more follow-
up and team work.
7/15/14 Wendi Carman (Deputy
Country Coordinator)
Katie MacDonald
(USAID country
director), Rebekah
Eubanks (USAID
Regional Legal
Adviser), Mavjuda
Nabieva (USAID
Education
Management
Specialist),
representatives from
USAID
implementing
partners in Tajikistan
To provide each other
with insights and
experiences in the process
of obtaining tax
exemption status
Followed up with the
USAID regional adviser
by email to share further
information on SDPP’s
experience earning tax
exemption.
7/18/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Lyla Andrews-
Bashan (USAID
Team Leader for
Democracy &
Governance, Health
and Education)
To share SDPP program
updates
Soon afterwards, Lyla
completed her
assignment and departed
Tajikistan.
7/18/14 Sayora Abdunazarova
(Education Specialist)
Irina Kholovna
(President of
Academy of
Education), Mavjuda
Nabieva (USAID
Education
Management
Specialist)
Discussed the review of
all program materials,
especially tutoring lesson
plans
Submitted package of
subject activity and
other materials for
revision and conclusion
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 40
7/22/14 Wendi Carman (DCC),
Sayora Abdunazarova
(Education Specialist)
To provide the working
group with technical
input on the
development of the
curriculum for the
accelerated learning
program
The accelerated learning
program will be
organized by grade
cluster. The participants
were introduced to a
framework for
organizing the curricula,
beginning with Grade 9,
to identify the core
subjects to be included
in the program.
USAID/SDPP handed
over two sets of Grade 9
lesson plans for the
working group
members’ reference.
7/24/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Leigh-Anne Ingram
(UNICEF
international
consultant),
Fayziddin Niyozov
(UNICEF local
consultant)
To share SDPP material
with the working group;
to provide technical input
on the development of the
accelerated learning
program
Discussed the planned
accelerated learning
program in more detail.
UNICEF consultants
agreed to keep SDPP
apprised of progress in
their program design.
8/5/14 Sakil Malik (HQ),
Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator)
Irina Kholovna
Karimova (Head of
the Academy of
Education)
To discuss SDPP plans
and the review and
approval of SDPP
program material
(manuals, lesson plans.)
Kholovna explained the
working group with
UNICEF and their
program on out of
school children. SDPP
material can be used as
a support for the
program and she will
try to work with the
three other institutions
to get their feedback
and MOES approval on
the material.
8/5/14 Sakil Malik (HQ),
Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator),
Sayora Abdunazarova
(Education Specialist)
Mavjuda Nabieva
(USAID Education
Management
Specialist)
To share SDPP future
plans, Kulob satellite
office close-out, and
upcoming workshops and
meetings with
stakeholders
Mavjuda suggested
fewer workshops and
participants that we
deliver the reward
packages of books at the
International Literacy
Day celebration, and that
SDPP invite important
stakeholders.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 41
8/6/14 Sakil Malik (HQ),
Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator)
Qahramon Baqozoda
(Director of Zerkalo),
Soleh Sharipov
(Zerkalo Manager),
Parviz Yusupov
(Zerkalo Finance
Manager)
To discuss how FU2
went, and to plan for FU3
(dates for training and
data collection, hiring
researchers)
Zerkalo team agreed
that the training for
Follow-Up3 should
start earlier – from
October 15 – and they
will plan other
activities accordingly.
They will try to hire the
same researchers who
worked for FU1 and
FU2
8/6/14 Sakil Malik (HQ),
Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator)
Parviz Abduvahobov
(UNICEF Education
Specialist)
To provide an overview
of SDPP achievements
and plans for future. To
get an understanding
about UNICEF out of
school children program
Parvis mentioned that
the approaches that
UNICEF is taking to
implement the program
are different from
SDPP’s approaches, and
therefore UNICEF
cannot use the SDPP’s
EWS material.
9/3/14 Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator),
Zarina Bazidova (M&E
RS)
Sharipov Soleh
(Zerkalo Manager),
Olimov Rahimjon
(Zerkalo Project
Coordinator)
To discuss problems
faced during the FU2 and
scheduled activities for
FU3
Zerkalo representatives
assured that the
problems were solved
and they will take a
better care of the data
collectors this time. Also
they asked if it is
possible to hire SDPP
former staff members.
9/5,
9/11,
9/15-
16/14
Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator),
Lutfullo Boziev
(Program manager)
Saidahmad Umarov
(Head of local
authority device,
Danghara district),
Amirshoeva
Mahbuba (Deputy
Governor of
Danghara)
To discuss plans for
International Literacy
Day celebration
Several meetings were
held to discuss the
location of the
International Literacy
Day Celebrations. They
asked us to send them
the agenda and the list of
the participants as soon
as we get approval from
the MOES.
9/15/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Malika Bahovadinova,
(International
Organization for
Migration technical
adviser), Malika
Yarbabaeva (IOM
labor migration
program manager)
To discuss IOM’s
proposed program, to
share ideas for involving
community and working
with government
counterparts
Discussed the IOM
program: Its aim is to
improve education
opportunities for migrant
children in the Gharm
area. Their program will
include policy
development, basic
vocational/ technical
training, community
engagement and
awareness-raising
campaign.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 42
9/20/14 Gulguncha Naimova
(Country Coordinator),
Lutfullo Boziev
(Program Manager)
Saidahmad Umarov
(Head of local
authority device,
Danghara district),
Amirshoeva
Mahbuba (Deputy
Governor of
Danghara)
To discuss plans for the
International Literacy
Day celebration
Met one last time, prior
to ceremony, to make
sure that everything is
set. Also SDPP team
decided to have the
ceremony at school #4
Danghara district and
lunch for the guests at
Khurramshahr Tea
House.
SDPP/Timor Leste
7/15/14 Nicole Seibel (Country
Coordinator); Adelino
Guterres (Field
Implementation
Coordinator)
Scott Ticknor,
Charge d’Afaires US
Embassy; Kate
Modic, Politics and
Economy Desk, US
Embassy; Pamala
Horugavye,
Development
Outreach and
Communications
Officer USAID/TL;
Emidio Amaral,
Viqueque District
Director for
Education
US Embassy Delegation
visited the SDPP office
in Viqueque to discuss
the program. The District
Director for Education
led the way for a school
visit.
Conducted US
Embassy visit to
Bahalara-Uain school
First field trip visit to
SDPP for new USAID
Development Outreach
and Communications
Officer.
US Embassy reported
that the school visit was
their “favorite part of
the trip”.
Various
7/16/14
Nicole Seibel (Country
Coordinator), Michael
Zamba (HQ director of
communications), Mary
Calomiris (HQ SDPP)
Cidálio Leite,
Director General of
Primary and Basic
Education, Alfredo
de Araujo, National
Director of Basic
Education; Eduardo
Guterres, District
Director, Manatuto
Interviews with
Communications Team
Local education
authorities expressed
continued enthusiasm
for SDPP project
activities and look
forward to using videos
from communications
visits to lobby for
continued support for
at-risk students.
Various:
7/17/14
Nicole Seibel (Country
Coordinator), Michael
Zamba (HQ director of
communications), Mary
Calomiris (HQ SDPP)
John Seong, Mission
Director, USAID in
Timor-Leste; Flavia
da Silva and Milca
Baptista, USAID in
Timor-Leste
Personnel
Interviews with
Communications Team
The Mission Director
as well as the activity
Manager expressed
enthusiasm for project
activities. The
Activities manager
expressed interest in
scheduling visits to
intervention schools,
which took place a few
weeks later.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 43
C. Staff Actions
At the end of the 2011 fiscal year, the three core SDPP staff—Country Coordinator, Education Specialist
and M&E Specialist—were in place in all four countries, with the exception of the Education Specialist in
India, who was hired and began work in quarter two of 2012. All of the core in-country staff were in
position throughout the 2012 fiscal year, except for the Country Coordinator in Timor Leste, who
resigned from the project and departed in April 2012. An interim Country Coordinator (Nicole Seibel)
was hired and began work in May. Her contract was extended until August 10, in order to allow for
overlap with the new, permanent replacement (Monzu Morshed), who began work in August, but soon
after resigned for health reasons. CARE re-engaged Ms. Seibel as Country Coordinator for an additional
period (September 17 – December 24, 2012), who was then approved as the permanent Country
Coordinator. In June 2013 Sushant Verma, Country Coordinator for India, resigned from his position.
8/18/14 Simplicio Barbosa,
(Education Program
Manager); Nicole
Seibel, (Country
Coordinator)
Education
Development
Partners meeting
chaired by Takaho
Fukami, Chief of
Education for
UNICEF
Updates from
Development Partners
and presentation on
status of World Bank
Management
Strengthening Project.
Confirmed MoE
meetings on Aug 19
and 22.
NZAID shared
information on
approved assistance in
education including
preschool, children’s
magazine LAFAEK
with CITL and planned
work with PTAs.
8/19/14 Simplicio Barbosa,
(Education Program
Manager); Nicole
Seibel, (Country
Coordinator)
Bendito dos Santos
Freitas, Minister of
Education; Dulce
Araujo Soares, Vice
Minister of Education
for Preschool and
Basic Education
Presented status of
education as per annual
action plan. Open to
questions and dialogue
with development
partners. Confirmed
ACETL dialogue on
Aug. 22nd.
Planned to be held
quarterly as the Local
Education Working
Group (LEG)
8/22/14 Simplicio Barbosa,
(Education Program
Manager); Nicole
Seibel, (Country
Coordinator)
Bendito dos Santos
Freitas, Minister of
Education; Dulce
Araujo Soares, Vice
Minister of Education
for Preschool and
Basic Education
Second Dialogue of the
Joint Action for
Education in Timor-
Leste (ACETL)
Signed agreement
following the dialogue
on the two topics of
discussion: Teacher
performance and a
district-level
mechanism for
monitoring schools
8/25/14 Nicole Seibel, (Country
Coordinator)
Alfredo de Araujo,
National Director of
Basic Education
Briefing on program and
preparation for
Coordination Body
Meeting in September
Signed invitation for
delivery
9/19/14;
9/22/14
Karen Tietjen, Creative;
Lotte Renault, CARE-
USA; Nicole Seibel
(Country Coordinator);
Saad Karim (Assistant
Country Director-
Programs)
Alfredo de Araujo,
National Director of
Basic Education;
Flavia da Silva,
USAID Timor-Leste
Activity Manager
Courtesy visit, sharing
Creative observation
from field trip and
reviewing options for
future activities
Shared information on
data collection
including qualitative
data collection training;
Determined MoE
interest in initial policy
dialogue, possibly for
early December;
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 44
Creative worked with its subcontractor in India, IDEAL, to identify Mr. Verma’s replacement, during
which time the SDPP India Project Director, Aakash Sethi, served as interim Country Coordinator. In
August 2013 Mr. Sethi was approved as the permanent Country Coordinator.
Table 8 shows the status of the core SDPP positions in each country since the beginning of the project.
Table 8: Field Office Core Staff Actions
Core Staff Position Name and Start Date
(Departure Date)
Name and
Replacement Date
Status
SDPP/Cambodia (KAPE)
Country Coordinator Kosal Chea, 1/1/11 NA Filled
Education Specialist Sothira Ouk, 1/1/11 NA Filled
Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Carole Williams, 11/1/10 NA Filled
SDPP/India (IDEAL)
Country Coordinator Sushant Verma,
(6/24/13)
Aakash Sethi,
8/14/13
Filled
Education Specialist Neha Parti, 1/9/12 NA Filled
Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Vir Narayan, 10/18/11 NA Filled
SDPP/Tajikistan (Creative)
Country Coordinator Gulgunchamo Naimova,
12/6/10
NA Filled
Education Specialist Sayora Andunazarova,
11/15/10
NA Filled
Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Davlatmo Yusufbekova
(2/10/11)
Zarina Bazidova
5/3/11
Filled
SDPP/Timor Leste (CARE)
Country Coordinator Lorina Aquino, 4/19/11
(4/20/12)
Monzu Morshed, 8/3/12
(8/28/12)
Nicole Seibel,
5/18/12 – 8/10/12;
9/10/12 – 12/5/12;
12/5/12
Filled
Education Specialist Martin Canter, 3/12/11 NA Filled
Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Shoaib Danish, 2/14/11 NA Filled
In FY14, a total of 454 full- or part-time SDPP field and HQ staff were approved, including 17 in
Cambodia, 292 in India, 13 in Tajikistan, 116 in Timor Leste, and 12 at HQ (7 at Mathematica, 3 at STS,
and 5 at Creative). Two Creative HQ Program Associate vacancies that were not filled in FY13 due to
uncertainty surrounding the SDPP extension were filled this year, in addition to a Creative HQ Research
Associate position. A substantial number of staff approvals in FY14 were due to the transition from
IDEAL to QUEST in India, which resulted in 269 staff approvals for QUEST, including 224 approvals
for Community Champions.
During Quarter 4, field staff actions include the following:
In Cambodia, Creative granted approval for the replacement of a Guard in Phnom Penh and the IT Field
Officer based in Prey Veng. Recruitment for a cleaner based in Prey Veng, DPO based in Pursat, and
Admin/Finance Officer in Kampong Speu is still in progress.
In India, four staff (Program Facilitation Officer, Database Manager, Program Monitoring Officer, and
Systems Manager) resigned and three new Program Monitoring Officers were hired.
In Tajikistan, the Accountant based in the Kulob office resigned in September. The management and
finance team decided not to fill the vacancy, but rather that the Dushanbe finance team will support the
Program Manager and Program Administrative Officer in Kulob with all finance duties until the closure
of the Kulob office. The Finance & HR Officer in Dushanbe also resigned, effective October 13th. The
finance department and management team determined that this position needs to be filled as soon as
possible and Creative HQ agreed to an accelerated selection process which is underway.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 45
In Timor Leste, one Field Officer was replaced and three additional Field Officer positions subsequently
became vacant.
At Creative HQ, a Nicholas Hoekstra joined as a Research Associate and Jenna Frydman began full time
on the project as a Program Associate.
At Mathematica, Deputy Project Director and Survey Director, Kathy Buek, transitioned to part time
status. Her roles as Deputy Project Director and Survey Director were assumed by the Emilie Bagby,
Task Lead for Tajikistan and India, and her role as Task Lead for Timor Leste and Cambodia were
assumed by Ali Protik, who also expanded her role in leading analysis and reporting. Kristine Johnson
was also brought on to help fill some of the void left by Kathy Buek’s departure. Wesley Dunlap filled the
vacant role of Contracts Specialist.
At STS, Jennifer Ho joined as a Research Specialist and Elizabeth Fincham changed roles from Program
Associate to Program Coordinator.
D. Consultants
A total of 237 in-country consultants for SDPP were approved by USAID during the year: 228 in India, 1
in Cambodia, 3 in Tajikistan, 4 in Timor Leste, and 1 at SDPP HQ. These include community volunteers
(“Community Champions”) supporting the intervention in India. Others included those hired to carry out
data collection and entry, temporary drivers, etc.
Table 9 summarizes the higher-level, professional consultancies of the project during the quarter.
Additional longer-term consultancies, such as Community Champions in India are not shown.
Table 9: Consultant Actions in FY14
Consultant Dates of consultancy Activity/Assignment Place
Lorelei Brush July 15-Oct 31, 2014 Research Analysis Consultant Creative HQ
Mr. Gagan Sethi Oct.10 2013 – Sept. 29, 2015 HR Consultant India
Ms. Gauri Sanghi Oct.10 2013 – Sept. 29, 2015 Program Consultant India
Mr. Path Sarwate June 24 - December 31, 2014 Development of leadership manual
and HM Master training
India
Ms. Rochna Pant June 26, 2014 - July 29, 2015
Enrichment Program Activities India
Mr. Nuy Bora Feb-Mar, 2014 (9 days) Coordinate and document the SDPP
Training and Planning meeting in
Sihanoukville
Cambodia
Mr. Isaac Scarborough July 30, 2013 – September
29, 2015 (originally max. 50
days, amended to max 80
days)
Edit English versions of program
manuals and lesson plans
Tajikistan
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 46
Consultant Dates of consultancy Activity/Assignment Place
Mukim Malaev September 19, 2014 – May 31, 2015
Oral interpretation for U.S.
Ambassador at the celebration of
International Literacy Day, September
23, 2015
Tajikistan
Sarmento Wargas Feb 11-17, 2014 Translation of data collection
training and instruments
Timor Leste
Jose Manuel Sarmento Feb 10 – Mar 4, 2014 Design and layout for EWRS
‘Politeness and Respect’ poster
Timor Leste
Jose Manuel Sarmento July 15-31, 2014 Design of SY 2014 Certificates and
reformat branding
Timor Leste
Sarmento Wargas Sept 29 – Oct 30, 2014 Translation Tetum-English of Film
interviews for Creative
Communication Team
Timor Leste
E. Staff and Consultant International Travel
Visits by staff from the headquarters offices of Creative, Mathematica, STS (and in the case of Timor
Leste, CARE) were made during the year to the four pilot countries, for providing technical and
operational support to the field teams, conducting the follow up, qualitative assessment, and fidelity of
implementation surveys, supporting in-school activities, and providing other technical and/or
management support. Details of the international travel undertaken during the first three quarters to
support SDPP field activities and operations are summarized in Table 10, with additional detail shown for
travel during the fourth quarter.
Table 10: HQ Staff and Consultants International Travel in FY13
Name of Traveler Destination Dates of Travel Purpose of Trip Mary Calomiris Cambodia
11/12/13 –
11/23/13
To work with the SDPP Cambodia team to revise,
pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures for
Cambodia. To provide operational support for the
Cambodia finance and procurement teams in
budget realignment.
Mark Sweikhart;
Mark Lynd
Cambodia 11/12/13 –
11/23/13
To work with the SDPP Cambodia team to revise,
pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures for
Cambodia.
Kathy Buek; Owen
Schochet
India 1/16/14 - 1/29/14 To assist the local SDPP country team with
enumerator training and survey supervision.
Mark Sweikhart;
Mark Lynd;
Amadou Bakayoko
Tajikistan 1/24/14 – 2/5/14 To work with the SDPP Tajikistan team to revise,
pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures.
Mark Sweikhart;
Mark Lynd;
Amadou Bakayoko
India 2/5/14 – 2/19/14 To work with the SDPP India team to revise, pilot-
test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures
Ebow Dawson-
Andoh Timor Leste 2/13/14-2/27/14
To assist the local SDPP country team with
enumerator training and survey supervision.
Karen Tietjen, Sakil
Malik, Mary
Calomiris, Nancy
Murray, Kathy
Canada 3/9/14-3/17/14 CIES Conference and SDPP workshop
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 47
Name of Traveler Destination Dates of Travel Purpose of Trip Buek, Mark Lynd,
Mark Sweikhart
Zuhra Abhar Canada 3/14/14-3/17/14 CIES Conference and SDPP workshop
Owen Schochet;
Emilie Bagby Tajikistan 4/1/14 – 4/28/14
To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data
collection, support data collection team training,
and monitor data collection processes
Ebow Dawson-
Andoh Cambodia 4/13/14 – 5/7/14
To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data
collection, support data collection team training,
and monitor data collection processes
Zuhra Abhar;
Jennifer Brookland;
David Snyder
Tajikistan 5/9/14 – 5/18/14
To film and conduct interviews with program
beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia
packages.
Mary Calomiris;
Michael Zamba;
Christopher
McMorrow
Cambodia 5/14/14 – 5/26/14
To film and conduct interviews with program
beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia
packages.
Mark Lynd; Karen
Tietjen Tajikistan 6/8/14 – 6/15/14
To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative
assessment instruments and procedures; to support
training of local staff in qualitative data collection
Karen Tietjen; Mark
Lynd Cambodia 7/12/14 - 7/21/14
To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative
assessment instruments and procedures; to support
training of local staff in qualitative data collection
Mary Calomiris;
Michael Zamba;
David Snyder
Timor Leste 7/7/14 - 7/18/14
To film and conduct interviews with program
beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia
packages.
Mohammad Sakil;
Aibek Allakhunov Tajikistan 8/2/14 - 8/11/14
To provide operational support in preparation for
satellite office closing and close of activities
Ali Protik; Ebow
Dawson-Andoh Timor Leste 8/21/14 - 9/14/14
To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data
collection, support data collection team training,
and monitor data collection processes
Zuhra Abhar;
Jennifer Brookland;
David Snyder
India 9/12/14 - 9/28/14
To film and conduct interviews with program
beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia
packages.
Mohammad Sakil India 9/12/14 - 9/25/14 To support filming team and to provide operational
and supervisory support to the local SDPP team
Lotte Renault Timor Leste 8/28/14 - 9/26/14 Technical visit to support data collection and close
of activities, as well as qualitative assessment
Karen Tietjen; Mark
Lynd Timor Leste 9/10/14 - 9/25/14
To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative
assessment instruments and procedures; to support
training of local staff in qualitative data collection
F. Procurements
Creative HQ worked with field offices to procure essential office and program supplies, equipment and
services, in accordance with established procurement regulations and requirements.
Of particular note this year was the procurement of program materials (e.g. extracurricular activity
materials, toolkit materials, printing of activities manuals), as well as rewards and incentive packages for
participating schools. After extensive discussions regarding school needs assessments and consideration
of potential impact of rewards on research results, different rewards packages for each country were
identified for both control and treatment schools. In Cambodia, cabinets, hole punchers, and level arch
files were chosen. In Tajikistan, each school received a package of literature books, selected for a range of
ages, gender and reading level, which were distributed on International Literacy Day. In Timor Leste, all
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 48
schools received bulletin boards for the previous school year, and packages of guitars, sports equipment,
filing cabinets, and metal storage trunks are being procured for the current school year. In India, the team
is in the process of finalizing the contents of its rewards package and intends to procure and distribute the
rewards packages in February 2015.
In Quarter 4, the rewards/incentives packages were ordered in Cambodia and Timor Leste, and distributed
in Tajikistan as part of the International Literacy Day celebration. In Cambodia and Timor Leste,
certificates of appreciation were printed for all participating schools, thanking them for efforts in records
maintenance and program implementation, and encouraging continued efforts throughout the program
extension. In India, t-shirts and cotton bags were distributed to teachers, headmasters, and Community
Champions for training workshops and to wear and carry on field visits.
Procurements made during Quarter 4 which exceeded $5,000 are as noted in Table 11. Procurement of
services related to training and logistics (venue, printing, stationary, transport of personnel, etc.) are not
included in the table. For detailed lists of procurements made in Quarters 1-3, please see the Quarterly
Reports submitted to USAID.
Table 11: Procurements in Quarter 4 Field Office Description Amount* Status
Cambodia School Reward Packages- Cabinets for 322 schools 30,846 Ordered
India Bags and t-shirts for conference participants and Community
Champions
6,188 Delivered
Timor Leste 3 laptop computers 6,507 Delivered
Timor Leste Extracurricular Activity Materials 13,906 Delivered
Timor Leste Incentive Packages- Guitars, Sports Equipment, Filing
Cabinets
33,351 In process
* $ amounts approximate
IV. Status of Contract Deliverables
Table 12 provides an updated list of the contract deliverables completed and in process since the
beginning of the project, as per section F.2(a) of the SDPP Task Order.
Table 12: Contract Deliverables
Deliverable Requirement Delivery date Approved
by client date
School dropout prevention identification and
analysis plan
1.1 10/12/10 Approved
10/16/10
School dropout prevention identification and
analysis methodology and criteria
1.1 10/12/10 Approved
10/16/10
School dropout prevention identification and
analysis of 15 programs or interventions6
1.1 11/22/10 (presentation
and written summary)
Approved
11/22/10
School dropout prevention identification and
analysis draft report (including executive
summary, cost estimates, and conclusions)
1.2 3/10/11 Approved
3/28/11
School dropout prevention identification and
analysis report
1.2 5/24/11 (COTR);
5/27/11 (AMs)
Approved draft
version 3/28/11
200 print copies of school dropout prevention7
identification and analysis reports
1.3 6/20/11 NA8
50 reports for each pilot country in required 1.3 August 2011 NA
6 Thirty-four (34) programs were identified and analyzed. 7 Two hundred and fifty (250) reports were printed. 8 NA = client approval is not applicable to the deliverable.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 49
Deliverable Requirement Delivery date Approved
by client date
language
200 reports distributed to 4 pilot missions in
English
1.3 November 2011 NA
5 presentations on report findings
(presentation of all key findings)
1.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11,
11/15/11, 1/17/12,
10/28/11, 11/21/11,
1/27/12, 7/20/12,
8/20/12, 4/26/12
NA
Power point summarizing findings of student
dropout prevention identification and analysis
1.4 Complete for each
country as per above
dates; summary
presentation developed
List of assessment tools for each country 2.1 4/13/11 Approved
4/26/11
List of factors each assessment tool measures 2.1 4/13/11 Approved
4/26/11
4 in-depth country assessment plans9 10 2.2 4/19/11 Approved
4/19/11
4 in-depth country assessments 2.2 Completed May –
October 2011
NA
Inventory of existing programs 2.2 5/25/11 (draft);
7/25/11 (final)
Approved
7/28/11
Grade levels and student populations most at
risk of dropout identified in each country
2.3 8/19/11 (Cambodia,
Timor Leste)
8/25/11 (Tajikistan)
12/22/11 (India)
Trend analysis
reports approved
verbally 6/22/12;
written approval:
9/9/13.
4 in-depth country assessment draft reports 2.3 Reports on trend
analyses submitted as
above; report on
policies and programs
submitted 7/25/11;
report on situation
analysis submitted
Policies and
programs report
approved
7/28/11; Trend
analysis reports
approved as
above
1 report with country comparisons 2.3 In process
4 in-depth country assessment reports 2.3 In process
4 power point presentations 2.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11,
11/15/11, 1/17/12
NA
1 power point presentation on all four
countries
2.4 PowerPoint
developed, presented,
and submitted 3/1/12
NA
5 presentations on the in-depth country
assessment findings
2.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11,
11/15/11, 1/17/12,
10/28/11, 11/21/11,
1/27/12, 7/20/12,
8/20/12, 4/26/12
NA
Risk factors and trends for each of the 4 2.4 Risk factors and trends NA
9 One plan was submitted, covering all four countries, rather than four country-specific plans. 10 Draft and final plans submitted and approved as one.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 50
Deliverable Requirement Delivery date Approved
by client date
countries identified and
presented as above
8 (2 per country) program recommendations 2.4 Completed as outcome
of workshops (below)
NA
4 (1 per country) in-depth country assessment
findings summary
2.4 In process
4 workshops on findings and
recommendations
2.4 10/18-20/11
(Cambodia)
11/15-17/11
(Tajikistan
11/14-16/11 (Timor
Leste)
1/17-19/12 (India)
NA
4 language translations of in-depth country
assessment reports
2.5 6 local language
translations of trend
analysis reports
(Khmer 10/5/11,
Tetum 9/16/11,
Portuguese 9/13/11,
Tajik 10/6/11, Russian
10/8/11, Hindi
12/28/11) and policies
and programs
inventory completed
(Khmer 8/29/11, Tajik
8/29/11, Russian
9/6/11, Tetum 8/29/11,
Portuguese 9/13/11,
Hindi 1/14/12)
NA
100 (400 total) in-depth country assessment
reports distributed
2.5 September 2011 to
January 2012
NA
250 in-depth country assessment reports
distributed in English
2.5 September 2011 to
January 2012
NA
650 CDs of in-depth country assessment
reports (for each hard copy report)
2.5 In process
4 stakeholder lists 3.1 2/28/12 NA
Areas of collaboration/conflict identified and
resolved in each country
3.1 Included w/ report on
Coordination Bodies,
submitted 7/3/12
(Approval
pending)
4 SDPP project oversight bodies formed 3.1 Completed in all
countries by March
2012, described in
report on Coordination
Bodies, 7/3/12
(Approval
pending)
4 (1 per country) communication plans 3.1 Submitted 9/13/12 (Approval
pending)
1 scope of work for Coordination Body 3.1 Included as part of
report on Coordination
Bodies, submitted
7/3/12
(Approval
pending)
4 (1 per country) tailored draft pilot design 3.2 2/28/12 (Approval
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 51
Deliverable Requirement Delivery date Approved
by client date
plans pending)
4 (1 per country) site selection methodologies 3.2 Addressed in design
plan, 2/28/12
(Approval
pending)
4 (1 per country) design workshops 3.2 10/18-20/11
(Cambodia)
11/15-17/11
(Tajikistan
11/14-16/11 (Timor
Leste)
1/17-19/12 (India)
NA
Target dates for all activities and outputs of
the 4 pilot projects
3.3 Submitted in annual
work plans
Operational definitions for all variables in the
4 country pilots
3.3 Submitted in research
design report
12 (3 per country) outcome indicators for the
4 country pilots
3.3 Submitted in research
design report
Data source descriptions for each of the 4
country pilot indicators
3.3 Submitted in research
design report
4 (1 per country) pilots launched 3.4 NA NA
4 (1 per country) pilot launch press releases 3.4 10/23/12 (Timor)
12/12/12 (Tajikistan)
2/26/13 (India)
3/6/13 (Cambodia)
10/17/12 (Timor)
12/10/12
(Tajikistan)
2/13/13 (India)
3/13/13
(Cambodia)
1 implementation work plan annually 3.511 5/20/1112
6/4/1213
10/13
10/14
5/31/11
Approval
pending
V. Challenges and Actions Taken
Major challenges and actions taken to address them during the year are as highlighted below. The project
continues to work to identify solutions to these challenges, including through school-level consultation
and consultation with district-, province- and national-level MOE representatives and the country
coordination bodies.
Early Project Delays: SDPP projects in all countries experienced delays early in fiscal year 2014 due to
various causes. As a result of SDPP extension through September, 2015, subcontractor scopes-of-work
and budgets required modifications that were not fully realized until the end of the first quarter. This led
to delays in the renewal of staff contracts, hiring of new staff and disbursing of funds for project
activities. Some training activities and meetings were delayed and uncertainty about job security caused
some field staff to quit.
In addition to delays caused by budget modifications, changes in the procedure for personnel approvals
also slowed work early in the year. All personnel approvals now require the additional step of passing
through Creative Contracts before submission to USAID. Delays resulted in some unfilled field positions.
11 Deliverables for Requirements 3.6-3.8 are not due until near end of project and are not included in this table. 12 For Fiscal Year 2011 13 For Fiscal Year 2012
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 52
Finally, weather played a part in major delays in schools across SDPP project countries. Flooding in
Cambodia as well as winter rain and snow in India and Tajikistan led to delays in the start of the academic
year (in Cambodia), the cancelation or low turn-out in teacher training (in India), and school closure and
low attendance in tutoring/enrichment classes (in Tajikistan).
SDPP staff took a variety of measures to limit the impact delays had on project implementation. Good
communication was crucial on many levels to insure smooth coordination with contract and budget
administration during contract renewals. Whenever possible, materials were prepared ahead of time so
that staff could be deployed as soon as their contracts were approved. In Timor Leste, where delays
caused especially high attrition rates of field staff, the SDPP Timor-Leste team made efforts to assure
field staff that job uncertainty was only temporary and provided career development opportunities for
staff members who remained with SDPP. In several instances, the restructuring of program activities was
also necessary to limit the negative impact of delays caused by weather and the late start of classes. In
India, teacher training was held in smaller sessions at the block level to limit the distance teachers had to
travel to attend. In Timor-Leste, teacher orientation for the extra-curricular activities was broken down
from a two-day training to several smaller modules that could be held after school while classes were in
session. Finally, in Tajikistan, the SDPP team provided additional support to schools and rescheduled
meetings so that project implementation could begin as quickly as possible when weather permitted.
Staff retention/Teacher Motivation: As mentioned above, field staff retention was a concern during the
early part of fiscal year 2014 due to delays in budget modification and contract renewals. Staff retention
continued to be a concern, however, as program and field officers as well as M&E officers began
preparing for SDPP in-country closeout by looking for new positions. SDPP HQ staff has responded to
these concerns by working to streamline the personnel approval process as much as possible so that new
staff may be quickly hired and, in the case of Timor-Leste, additional backup candidates have been
identified and submitted for approval to replace vacancies as soon as they happen.
Teacher and community motivation, especially regarding case management and record maintenance, has
been a challenge across all project countries. In Timor-Leste, some teachers view their participation in
extra-curricular activities as a burden that requires additional hours of work. Furthermore, teachers in
Timor-Leste are resistant to cooperate with data collection schedules, especially at control schools. In
India, teachers were engaged in election activities and school examinations and these activities restricted
the time they would have otherwise spent on case management or focus child identification. SDPP
response to problems of low motivation have focused on non-monetary supports. This consists in holding
meetings with teachers and community representatives to discuss ways in which the community can
support at-risk student identification processes as well as brainstorming about how to use community
resources to prevent dropout. Inactive volunteers have been replaced and certificates of appreciation have
been budgeted which will, hopefully, provide an incentive for ongoing work.
Fidelity of Implementation: Initial fidelity of implementation (FOI) results showed some areas of poor
compliance with project implementation. In Cambodia, for example, the first round of FOI results showed
that in some schools the school personnel and teachers were not completing the EWS monthly case
management forms. Similarly, FOI results in Timor-Leste shows specific areas of insufficient compliance
of the completion and retention of EWS forms on the part of teachers, as mentioned above. These fidelity
checks have allowed SDPP to respond with specific, on the spot, coaching and feedback.
Security/Maintenance: Both security and maintenance have been ongoing concerns with computer labs
in Cambodia. Due to excessive power demands from the use of peripheral computer equipment (printers,
LCD projectors and speakers) solar batteries needed to power the computer labs were damaged in 17
schools. Effected schools were unable to provide adequate computer classes for a period of time. There
have also been issues in other schools involving theft or broken equipment. In August, a school in
Kampong Speu province reported the theft of 1 host computer, two monitors and three fans. In addition to
these concerns in Cambodia, there was one case of fraud reported this year in Timor-Leste in which a
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 53
routine analysis of field accommodation expenses implicated three M&E staff members. More details can
be found in quarterly reports from the year.
Particular challenges noted in quarter 4 include:
In Cambodia, it was announced in August that the start of the 2014-15 school year will be pushed back
from October 1st to early November. This may be in part due to the fact that over 75% of grade 12
students failed the national exam and are being offered a re-sit. While SDPP activities focus on grade 7-9,
this delay in the start to the school year will impact the collection of Follow-up 3 data.
In Tajikistan, SDPP continues to wait for the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) to sign the
Letter of Commitment (LOC) which is required for submission with other program documents by the end
of the program. The LOC serves to demonstrate that SDPP activities were operating with the full
knowledge and consent of government counterparts. The process of acquiring a signed LOC has been
ongoing in Tajikistan and the USAID Activity Manager in Tajikistan is now working to review the latest
version and revise language wherever possible to appease the MoES and expedite the process.
Saidzoda M., Governor of Dangara, and parents of SDPP students participate in International Literacy Day event.
VI. Major Activities Planned for Next Quarter
Major activities planned for next quarter (October – December 2014) include:
Finalize modified subcontractor agreements and re-align budget.
Second and final round of Fidelity of Implementation checks to be conducted in India and Cambodia.
Complete the first part of the end line data collection in all countries
Compile program material for toolkits
Prepare for satellite office closeout in all countries
Organize policy dialogues for stakeholders to take place in December 2014 and January 2015
Finalize and submit FY14-15 Work Plan
Complete delivery of reward packages.
Hold quarterly Coordinating Body (CB) meetings.
Continue drafting country-specific assessment reports for all four countries, to include primary
research results.
School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)
Page 54
VII. Accrued Expenditures
Expenditures accrued during the fourth quarter, by country and by line item, are as shown in Table 13
below. Table 14 shows annual and cumulative expenditures for each country through September 2014.
Table 13: Expenditures July – September 2014 (USD)