Quality for Preschool Impact Evaluation 2015, Baseline Survey
Ghana, 2015
Get Microdata
Reference ID
GHA_2015_QPIE-BL_v01_M
Producer(s)
Sharon Wolf, John Lawrence Aber, Jere Behrman
Metadata
Created on
Mar 26, 2019
Last modified
Mar 26, 2019
Page views
42222
Downloads
4624
Identification
Survey ID Number
GHA_2015_QPIE-BL_v01_M
Title
Quality for Preschool Impact Evaluation 2015, Baseline Survey
Subtitle
Baseline Survey
Country/Economy
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Ghana | GHA |
Study type
Impact Evaluation Study
Abstract
The Ghana Quality for Preschool Impact Evaluation 2015, Baseline survey (QPIE-BL 2015) was approved by the Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund (SIEF) of the World Bank on August 2015 in the Great Accra Region of Ghana. The official project name is called "Testing and scaling-up supply- and demand-side interventions to improve kindergarten educational quality in Ghana”, known as “Quality Preschool for Ghana (QP4G)”.
The project seeks to increase the quality of preschool education during the two years of universal Kindergarten (KG) in Ghana through intervening in the supply-side (i.e., teacher in-service training) and the demand side (i.e., increasing parental awareness for developmentally appropriate quality early education).
The primary goal of the impact evaluation is to test the efficacy of a potentially scalable (8-day) in-service teacher training to improve the quality of KG teacher practices and interactions with children and to improve children’s development, school readiness and learning in both private and public preschools in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Additional goals of this evaluation are: to test the added value of combining a scalable (low-cost) parental awareness intervention with teacher in-service training; to compare implementation challenges in public and private schools; and to examine several important sources of potential heterogeneity of impact, primarily impacts in public vs. private schools.
The current submission is for the Baseline Survey, conducted with 5 types of respondents in two phases - Baseline I and Baseline II. Baseline I consisted of interviews with school head teachers and school proprietors (for private schools) and was conducted in June 2015. Baseline II consisted of collecting the following data: (a) direct assessments of children’s school readiness at school entry, (b) surveys of teacher well-being and demographics, (c) video recordings for classroom observations of teachers (not being submitted), and (d) caregiver surveys. This data collection was conducted from Sep-Nov 2015.
The project seeks to increase the quality of preschool education during the two years of universal Kindergarten (KG) in Ghana through intervening in the supply-side (i.e., teacher in-service training) and the demand side (i.e., increasing parental awareness for developmentally appropriate quality early education).
The primary goal of the impact evaluation is to test the efficacy of a potentially scalable (8-day) in-service teacher training to improve the quality of KG teacher practices and interactions with children and to improve children’s development, school readiness and learning in both private and public preschools in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Additional goals of this evaluation are: to test the added value of combining a scalable (low-cost) parental awareness intervention with teacher in-service training; to compare implementation challenges in public and private schools; and to examine several important sources of potential heterogeneity of impact, primarily impacts in public vs. private schools.
The current submission is for the Baseline Survey, conducted with 5 types of respondents in two phases - Baseline I and Baseline II. Baseline I consisted of interviews with school head teachers and school proprietors (for private schools) and was conducted in June 2015. Baseline II consisted of collecting the following data: (a) direct assessments of children’s school readiness at school entry, (b) surveys of teacher well-being and demographics, (c) video recordings for classroom observations of teachers (not being submitted), and (d) caregiver surveys. This data collection was conducted from Sep-Nov 2015.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Units of analysis include individuals (head teachers, teachers, children, caregivers) and schools.
Version
Version Description
Version 1: Edited, anonymous dataset for public distribution. All Person Identifying Information (PII) has been removed.
Version Date
2016-04-20
Version Notes
The data provided is the final version with PII removed.
Scope
Notes
1. Head teacher survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. Overall School Profile and Management
E. Parent and Community Participation
F. Kindergarten School Management
G. Kindergarten Teacher Attendance
H. Kindergarten Children Attendance
I. Family/Community Involvement
J. Retention
K. Work stress/burnout
L. Perceptions of Early Childhood Development
M. Additional Questions
2. Proprietor survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. School Management and Finance
E. Community Engagement and Participation
F. Perceptions of Early Childhood Development
3. KG Teacher Survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. Household and Living Conditions
E. Food Security
F. Community/Locality
G. Work Nature and Conditions
H. Psychological Well-being
I. Reading Knowledge
J. Comments
4. IDELA (Child Assessment)
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Item 1. Personal Awareness (Socio-Emotional)
D. Item 2. Comparison By Size And Length (Emergent Math)
E. Item 3. Sorting And Classification (Emergent Math)
F. Item 4. Shape Identification (Emergent Math)
G. Item 5. Number Id (Emergent Math)
H. Item 6. Number Sense - One-To-One Correspondence (Emergent Math)
I. Item 7. Addition And Subtraction (Emergent Math)
J. Item 8. Number Discriminatation (Emergent Math)
K. Item 9. Missing Numbers (Emergent Math
L. Item 10. Completing A Pattern (Emergent Math)
M. Item 11. Puzzle Completion (Emergent Math)
N. Item 12. Friends
O. Item 13. Emotional Awareness/Regulation (Socio-Emotional)
P. Item 14. Empathy /Perspective Taking (Socio-Emotional)
Q. Item 15. Sharing/Solving Conflict (Socio-Emotional)
R. Item 16. Short Term Memory (Self Regulation)
S. Item 17. Backwards Digit Span (Working Memory)
T. Item 18. Inhibitory Control (Self Regulation)
U. Item 19. Oral Vocabulary (Emergent Literacy)
V. Item 20. Print Awareness (Emergent Literacy)
X. Item 21. Letter Identification (Emergent Literacy)
Y. Item 22. First Letter Sounds (Emergent Literacy)
Z. Item 23. Emergent Writing (Emergent Literacy)
AA. Item 24. Oral Comprehension (Emergent Literacy)
AB. Item 25. Copying A Shape (Fine Motor)
AC. Item 26. Drawing A Person (Fine Motor)
AD. Item 27. Folding Paper (Fine Motor)
AE. Item 28. Pencil Tap
AF. Item 29: Overall Observation Of Child
AG. Comments
5. Caregiver Survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. Poverty Status
E. Food Insufficiency
F. Parent Involvement with Child's Education
G. Perceptions of Early Childhood Development
H. School Fees
I. Mobility and Tracking Updates
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. Overall School Profile and Management
E. Parent and Community Participation
F. Kindergarten School Management
G. Kindergarten Teacher Attendance
H. Kindergarten Children Attendance
I. Family/Community Involvement
J. Retention
K. Work stress/burnout
L. Perceptions of Early Childhood Development
M. Additional Questions
2. Proprietor survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. School Management and Finance
E. Community Engagement and Participation
F. Perceptions of Early Childhood Development
3. KG Teacher Survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. Household and Living Conditions
E. Food Security
F. Community/Locality
G. Work Nature and Conditions
H. Psychological Well-being
I. Reading Knowledge
J. Comments
4. IDELA (Child Assessment)
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Item 1. Personal Awareness (Socio-Emotional)
D. Item 2. Comparison By Size And Length (Emergent Math)
E. Item 3. Sorting And Classification (Emergent Math)
F. Item 4. Shape Identification (Emergent Math)
G. Item 5. Number Id (Emergent Math)
H. Item 6. Number Sense - One-To-One Correspondence (Emergent Math)
I. Item 7. Addition And Subtraction (Emergent Math)
J. Item 8. Number Discriminatation (Emergent Math)
K. Item 9. Missing Numbers (Emergent Math
L. Item 10. Completing A Pattern (Emergent Math)
M. Item 11. Puzzle Completion (Emergent Math)
N. Item 12. Friends
O. Item 13. Emotional Awareness/Regulation (Socio-Emotional)
P. Item 14. Empathy /Perspective Taking (Socio-Emotional)
Q. Item 15. Sharing/Solving Conflict (Socio-Emotional)
R. Item 16. Short Term Memory (Self Regulation)
S. Item 17. Backwards Digit Span (Working Memory)
T. Item 18. Inhibitory Control (Self Regulation)
U. Item 19. Oral Vocabulary (Emergent Literacy)
V. Item 20. Print Awareness (Emergent Literacy)
X. Item 21. Letter Identification (Emergent Literacy)
Y. Item 22. First Letter Sounds (Emergent Literacy)
Z. Item 23. Emergent Writing (Emergent Literacy)
AA. Item 24. Oral Comprehension (Emergent Literacy)
AB. Item 25. Copying A Shape (Fine Motor)
AC. Item 26. Drawing A Person (Fine Motor)
AD. Item 27. Folding Paper (Fine Motor)
AE. Item 28. Pencil Tap
AF. Item 29: Overall Observation Of Child
AG. Comments
5. Caregiver Survey
A. Identification
B. Informed Consent
C. Background Characteristics
D. Poverty Status
E. Food Insufficiency
F. Parent Involvement with Child's Education
G. Perceptions of Early Childhood Development
H. School Fees
I. Mobility and Tracking Updates
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
Urban and Peri-Urban Districts, Greater Accra Region
Universe
The survey universe is 6 poor districts in the Greater Accra Region. We sampled 240 schools, 108 public (Govt.) schools and 132 private schools. The population of interest is KG teachers and students in Kindergarten (KG) 1 and KG 2 classrooms in these schools, as well as the caregivers of sampled students. It also includes school head teachers and owners/proprietors.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Sharon Wolf | New York University |
| John Lawrence Aber | New York University |
| Jere Behrman | University of Pennsylvania |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Abbreviation |
|---|---|
| Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund, World Bank | WB |
| UBS Optimus Foundation | UBSOF |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
This impact evaluation applies a cluster-randomized design. Eligible schools were randomly selected to participate in the study. The eligible population was schools with KG 1 and KG 2 classrooms (the two years of universal preprimary education) in six districts in the Greater Accra Region. In these six districts we have sampled 240 schools; 108 public schools and 132 private schools in total.
The unit of randomization for this randomized control trial (RCT) is schools, whereby eligible schools (stratified by public and private sector schools) are randomly assigned to: (1) in-service teacher-training program only; (2) in-service teacher-training program plus parental awareness program; or (3) control (current standard operating) condition.
The sampling frame for this study was based on data in the Education Management Information System (EMIS) from the Ghana Education Service. This data was verified in a 'school listing exercise' conducted in May 2015.
Sample selection was done in multiple stages as shown in Figure 1. The first stage involved purposive selection of six districts within the region based on two criteria: (a) most disadvantaged (using UNICEF's District League Table scores, out of sixteen total districts); and (b) close proximity to Accra Metropolitan for travel for the training of the KG teachers. The six selected municipals were La Nkwantanang-Madina Municipal, Ga Central Municipal, Ledzokuku-Krowor Municipal, Adentan Municipal, Ga South Municipal and Ga East Municipal.
The second stage involved the selection of public and private schools from each of the selected districts in the Accra region. We found 678 public and private schools (schools with kindergarten) in the EMIS database. Of these 361 schools were sampled randomly (stratified by district and school type) for the school listing exercise, done in May 2015. This was made up of 118 public schools and 243 private schools.
The sampling method used for the school listing exercise was based on two approaches depending on the type of school. For the public schools, the full universe of public schools (i.e., 118) were included in the school listing exercise. However, private schools were randomly sampled using probability proportional to the size of the private schools in each district. Specifically, the private schools were sampled in each district proportionate to the total number of district private schools relative to the total number of private schools. In so doing, one school from the Ga South Municipal was removed and added to Ga Central so that all districts have a number of private schools divisible by three. This approach yielded 122 private schools. Additionally, 20 private schools were randomly selected from each of the districts (i.e., based on the remaining list of private schools in each district following from the first selection) to serve as replacement lists. The replacement list was necessary given the potential refusals from the private schools. There were no replacement lists for the public schools since all public schools would automatically qualify for participation.
The third stage involved selecting the final sample for the evaluation using the sampling frame obtained through the listing exercise. A total of 240 schools were randomly selected, distributed by district and sector. Schools were randomized into treatment groups after the first round of baseline data collection was completed.
The survey respondents were sampled using different sampling techniques:
a. KG teachers: The research team sampled two KG teachers from each school; one from KG1 and KG2. KG teachers were sampled using purposive sampling method. In schools where there were more than two KG classes, the KG teachers from the "A" stream were selected. For the treatment schools, all KG teachers were invited to participate in the teacher training program.
b. KG child-caregiver pair: The research team sampled KG children and their respective caregivers using simple random sampling method. Fifteen KG children-caregivers pair were sampled from each school. For schools with less than 15 KG children (8 from KG1, 7 from KG2 where possible), all KG children were included in the survey. KG children were selected from the same class as the selected KG teacher. The survey team used the class register to randomly select KG children who were present on the day of the school visit. Sampling was not stratified by gender or age. The caregivers of these selected child respondents were invited to participate in the survey.
The research team sought informed consent from the school head teacher, caregivers, as well as child respondents.
The unit of randomization for this randomized control trial (RCT) is schools, whereby eligible schools (stratified by public and private sector schools) are randomly assigned to: (1) in-service teacher-training program only; (2) in-service teacher-training program plus parental awareness program; or (3) control (current standard operating) condition.
The sampling frame for this study was based on data in the Education Management Information System (EMIS) from the Ghana Education Service. This data was verified in a 'school listing exercise' conducted in May 2015.
Sample selection was done in multiple stages as shown in Figure 1. The first stage involved purposive selection of six districts within the region based on two criteria: (a) most disadvantaged (using UNICEF's District League Table scores, out of sixteen total districts); and (b) close proximity to Accra Metropolitan for travel for the training of the KG teachers. The six selected municipals were La Nkwantanang-Madina Municipal, Ga Central Municipal, Ledzokuku-Krowor Municipal, Adentan Municipal, Ga South Municipal and Ga East Municipal.
The second stage involved the selection of public and private schools from each of the selected districts in the Accra region. We found 678 public and private schools (schools with kindergarten) in the EMIS database. Of these 361 schools were sampled randomly (stratified by district and school type) for the school listing exercise, done in May 2015. This was made up of 118 public schools and 243 private schools.
The sampling method used for the school listing exercise was based on two approaches depending on the type of school. For the public schools, the full universe of public schools (i.e., 118) were included in the school listing exercise. However, private schools were randomly sampled using probability proportional to the size of the private schools in each district. Specifically, the private schools were sampled in each district proportionate to the total number of district private schools relative to the total number of private schools. In so doing, one school from the Ga South Municipal was removed and added to Ga Central so that all districts have a number of private schools divisible by three. This approach yielded 122 private schools. Additionally, 20 private schools were randomly selected from each of the districts (i.e., based on the remaining list of private schools in each district following from the first selection) to serve as replacement lists. The replacement list was necessary given the potential refusals from the private schools. There were no replacement lists for the public schools since all public schools would automatically qualify for participation.
The third stage involved selecting the final sample for the evaluation using the sampling frame obtained through the listing exercise. A total of 240 schools were randomly selected, distributed by district and sector. Schools were randomized into treatment groups after the first round of baseline data collection was completed.
The survey respondents were sampled using different sampling techniques:
a. KG teachers: The research team sampled two KG teachers from each school; one from KG1 and KG2. KG teachers were sampled using purposive sampling method. In schools where there were more than two KG classes, the KG teachers from the "A" stream were selected. For the treatment schools, all KG teachers were invited to participate in the teacher training program.
b. KG child-caregiver pair: The research team sampled KG children and their respective caregivers using simple random sampling method. Fifteen KG children-caregivers pair were sampled from each school. For schools with less than 15 KG children (8 from KG1, 7 from KG2 where possible), all KG children were included in the survey. KG children were selected from the same class as the selected KG teacher. The survey team used the class register to randomly select KG children who were present on the day of the school visit. Sampling was not stratified by gender or age. The caregivers of these selected child respondents were invited to participate in the survey.
The research team sought informed consent from the school head teacher, caregivers, as well as child respondents.
Response Rate
Baseline I
Out of the 276 schools that were selected for the Baseline I, 269 schools were surveyed (remember that potential replacement schools were also surveyed during Baseline I). This represents a response rate of 97%. It must, however, be emphasized that there were incomplete surveys in some of the schools, especially for the private schools. Incomplete surveys mean that only one of the surveys (instead of the two) was administered.
Baseline II
All the surveys/assessment [with the exception of the Caregiver Survey] reported more than 90% response rate. The response rate for the Caregiver Survey was 60.0%.
Out of the 276 schools that were selected for the Baseline I, 269 schools were surveyed (remember that potential replacement schools were also surveyed during Baseline I). This represents a response rate of 97%. It must, however, be emphasized that there were incomplete surveys in some of the schools, especially for the private schools. Incomplete surveys mean that only one of the surveys (instead of the two) was administered.
Baseline II
All the surveys/assessment [with the exception of the Caregiver Survey] reported more than 90% response rate. The response rate for the Caregiver Survey was 60.0%.
Weighting
No weights were used in the analysis.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End | Cycle |
|---|---|---|
| 2015-06-10 | 2015-06-25 | School Proprietor Survey, Baseline I |
| 2015-06-10 | 2015-11-05 | Head teacher Survey, Baseline I |
| 2015-10-14 | 2015-11-24 | KG Teacher Survey, Baseline II |
| 2015-09-28 | 2015-10-27 | IDELA Child Assessment Baseline II |
| 2015-10-20 | 2015-12-03 | Caregiver Survey Baseline II |
Data Collection Mode
Face-to-face [f2f]
Supervision
See supporting documents. All enumerators were supervised by Team Leaders, who were supervised by Field Supervisors, who were supervised by the Field Manager, then Research Associate and then Research Manager.
Data Collection Notes
All surveys were done in person except for the caregiver survey which was done by enumerators over the phone.
Baseline data collection occurred in two rounds, and data was collected from multiple sources and respondents. Baseline I consisted of interviews with school head teachers and school proprietors (for private schools) and was conducted in June 2015. This was done before the summer holidays and the start of the academic year (2015-2016). It was expected that school ownership and senior management would not change between academic years and that this would give us a more clarity about the structure and composition of schools in our sample. Baseline II was done in Sept-Nov 2015 and consisted of collecting the following data: (a) direct assessments of children's school readiness at school entry, (b) surveys of teacher well-being and demographics, (c) video recordings for classroom observations of teachers, and (d) caregiver surveys.
The video recordings conducted during Baseline II were subsequently analysed/coded by a team of trained researchers to create a dataset for classroom observations (at the KG teacher level). Due to issues of confidentiality, these video recordings are not included in the submission of data to the Microdata catalogue.
The sampling method and processes used for the Baseline I were based on the procedure used in the school listing exercise. However, schools that refused to participate in and/or were not covered during the school listing exercise were excluded: 276 schools were selected for Baseline I data collection. An additional 36 schools were selected because we expected some refusals.
240 schools were eventually randomized into two treatment arms (i.e., teacher training only and teacher training plus a parental awareness intervention) and a control group. An additional 30 schools were selected to be on a "reserve list" and were used to replace schools in the original list that declined to participate in the survey. Out of the initial 240 schools randomized, 27 were replaced because of refusals and lack of KG classes in the schools. School replacement was done on a case-by-case basis.
Baseline data collection occurred in two rounds, and data was collected from multiple sources and respondents. Baseline I consisted of interviews with school head teachers and school proprietors (for private schools) and was conducted in June 2015. This was done before the summer holidays and the start of the academic year (2015-2016). It was expected that school ownership and senior management would not change between academic years and that this would give us a more clarity about the structure and composition of schools in our sample. Baseline II was done in Sept-Nov 2015 and consisted of collecting the following data: (a) direct assessments of children's school readiness at school entry, (b) surveys of teacher well-being and demographics, (c) video recordings for classroom observations of teachers, and (d) caregiver surveys.
The video recordings conducted during Baseline II were subsequently analysed/coded by a team of trained researchers to create a dataset for classroom observations (at the KG teacher level). Due to issues of confidentiality, these video recordings are not included in the submission of data to the Microdata catalogue.
The sampling method and processes used for the Baseline I were based on the procedure used in the school listing exercise. However, schools that refused to participate in and/or were not covered during the school listing exercise were excluded: 276 schools were selected for Baseline I data collection. An additional 36 schools were selected because we expected some refusals.
240 schools were eventually randomized into two treatment arms (i.e., teacher training only and teacher training plus a parental awareness intervention) and a control group. An additional 30 schools were selected to be on a "reserve list" and were used to replace schools in the original list that declined to participate in the survey. Out of the initial 240 schools randomized, 27 were replaced because of refusals and lack of KG classes in the schools. School replacement was done on a case-by-case basis.
Data Collectors
| Name | Abbreviation |
|---|---|
| Innovations for Poverty Action, Ghana | IPA |
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
See attached questionnaires. All instruments have been shared except for IDELA (child assessment) as Save the Children have proprietary rights over this. Please contact the project Task Team Leader Deborah Newitter Mikesell <dmikesell@worldbank.org> for more information.
Data Processing
Data Editing
Data consistency checks (or High Frequency Checks) and back checks (audits) were conducted for all surveys remotely. Corrections were made during and after data collection after errors were reconciled.
All checks and cleaning was done using STATA and IPA possesses all the relevant code.
All checks and cleaning was done using STATA and IPA possesses all the relevant code.
Other Processing
Data was collected electronically using SurveyCTO software (based on ODK).
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Maham Farhat | Innovations for Poverty Action | mfarhat@poverty-action.org |
| Deborah Newitter Mikesell | World Bank | dmikesell@worldbank.org |
Access conditions
We would like to request No Access till 1st Mar 2018. Beyond 1st Mar 2018, we would like to request licensed access.
Please contact the World Bank Task Team Leader for queries relating to access: Deborah Newitter Mikesell <dmikesell@worldbank.org>
Please contact the World Bank Task Team Leader for queries relating to access: Deborah Newitter Mikesell <dmikesell@worldbank.org>
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the Innovations for Poverty Action, New York University, Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund, the World Bank, and UBSOF bear no responsibility for use of this data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Copyright
(c) 2015, Innovations for Poverty Action
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_GHA_2015_QPIE-BL_v01_M_WB
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Economics Data Group | DECDG | The World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
Date of Metadata Production
2016-05-05
DDI Document version
Version 01 (May 2016)