Final Performance Evaluation of the Teacher Education and

March 2013

This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It

was prepared independently by Stuart Leigh and Edwin Ochieng. It was prepared by Management Systems

International (MSI) under the Kenya Support Program.

Professional Development Project in Kenya

FINAL PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION OF THE

TEACHER EDUCATION AND

PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN

KENYA

March 26, 2013

Contracted under Contracted under No. AID–623–I–12–00001 (Task Order No. AID–623–TO–13–

00011)

Kenya Support Program

DISCLAIMER

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the

United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

CONTENTS

Acronyms 1

Executive Summary 2

Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions 5

Project [or Program] Background 7

Evaluation Methods and Limitations 9

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 11

Annexes 36

ACRONYMS

ACE

Accelerating 21st Century

Education

ACU

AIDS Control Unit

AED

Academy for Educational

Development

AIDS

Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome

CD–ROM

Compact Disc Read-Only

Memory

CEMASTEA

Center for Mathematics,

Science and Technology

Education in Africa

CfSK

Computers for Schools

Kenya

CHD/W

Community Health

Day/Week

DASCO

District AIDS and Sexually

Transmitted Infections

Control Office

DTTC

Diploma Teachers Training

College

DVD

Digital Video Disk

EMACK

Education for Marginalized

Children in Kenya

FHI

Family Health International

360

GDA

Global Development Alliance

HIV

Human Immune Deficiency

Virus

HTC

HIV Testing and Counseling

ICT

Information and

Communication Technology

INSET

In-Service Training

Information Technology

KEMI

Kenya Education

Management Institute

KES

Kenya Shillings

KIE

Kenya Institute of Education

KII

Key Informants Interview

KISE

Kenya Institute of Special

Education

LCD

Liquid Crystal Display

MGLC

Multigrade and Large Class

MOE

Ministry of Education

MOU

Memorandum of

Understanding

NACC

National AIDS Control

Council

NESSP

National Education Sector

Support Program

NIIIC

National ICT Innovation and

Integration Center

PDC

Professional Development

Center

PEPFAR

President’s Emergency Plan

for AIDS Relief

PMP

Performance Monitoring Plan

PTTC

Primary Teachers Training

College

QAS

Quality Assurance and

Standards

SAGA

Semi-Autonomous

Government Agency

SMASSE

Strengthening of Mathematics

and Science in Secondary

Education

TAC

Teacher Advisory Center

TCF

Teacher Competency

Framework

TEPD

Teacher Education and

Professional Development

TIC

Tutor Induction Course

TSC

Teachers Service

Commission

TTC

Teachers Training College

USAID

United States Agency for

International Development

VCT

Voluntary Counseling and

Testing

YFC

Youth Friendly Center

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Teacher Education and Professional Development (TEPD) project was initiated by the Academy for

Educational Development (AED) in May 2007 with the same goal as USAID’s Strategic Objective 8,

Intermediate Result 2: to improve the practices and competencies of teachers in Kenya. The project was

designed to support the five-year Kenya Education Sector Support Program, one emphasis of which was

to improve the quality of preservice teacher education in Primary Teacher Training Colleges (PTTCs).

TEPD funding has totaled $10,514,096 in two phases with three activity areas: Teacher Education,

Information and Communication Technology (ICTs) in Education, and HIV/AIDS education. TEPD began

with the first two activities, but soon added HIV/AIDS education as President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS

Relief (PEPFAR) funding was made available. In May 2010, at the start of Phase 2, the ICT component

received a major increase in emphasis with the incorporation of a Global Development Alliance (GDA)

project, “Accelerating 21st Century Education” (ACE). The successor to AED, FHI 360, is the

implementing partner for the ACE Alliance with Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, and the Kenya Ministry of

Education (MOE). Phase 2 is now in its third and final year, with additional PEPFAR support.

Early in the project, TEPD’s five objectives were renamed “elements”:

 Element 1. To establish a framework for enhancing teacher competencies within a rapid reforms

context (Teacher Competency Framework, or TCF)

 Element 2. Improve the skills of PTTC tutors by introducing new and existing teacher education

materials that better prepare student teachers for actual school conditions

 Element 3. Improve skills of PTTC tutors through a national lecturer induction and training

program (Tutor Induction Course, TIC; Teaching Practice; and evolving in Phase 2: Professional

Development Centers, )

 Element 4. Improve skills of PTTC tutors and build capacity of PTTCs to use ICT for preservice

teacher education, and (in Phase 2) Accelerating a 21st Century Education by preparing teachers

in 23 schools and teacher trainees at the PTTCs and Diploma Teacher Training Colleges

(DTTCs) to integrate the use of technology in classrooms

 Element 5. Initiate skills-based training relevant to HIV/AIDS in preservice teacher training

programs

The four evaluation questions are the following:

1. Impact. Has TEPD achieved the objectives and outcomes stated, and did those lead to the

intended goal?

2. Compliance for Accountability. Was TEPD implemented as proposed in the program description

and workplans, including monitoring progress and use of data collected for making informed

decisions on project implementation and broader policy?

3. Sustainability and Local Capacity. Did the project build capacity of local institutions to achieve

TEPD goals and for the MOE to mainstream this approach?

4. Lessons Learned. Were there differences in how participating institutions adopted the changes

proposed by the project, and did those differences influence project impact and why?

This report is organized around the four evaluation questions, and within them the five elements.

Findings and conclusions are presented together to make clear the logic driving those conclusions.

Recommendations by element, which describe suggestions for optimizing project outcomes or taking

project initiatives to the next level, are aggregated in a separate section immediately following all findings

and conclusions.

METHODOLOGY

The evaluation team—consisting of a primary team of three, plus eight enumerators—visited all 23

Teacher Training Colleges, 6 ACE primary schools, 1 ACE secondary school, and 78 Teaching Practice

schools. The primary team conducted key informant interviews in visits to eight Primary Teacher

Training Colleges (PTTC) and one Diploma Teacher Training College (DTTC), six ACE primary schools,

one ACE secondary school, and three Teaching Practice schools, and numerous offices of the Ministry

of Education, Semi-Autonomous Government Agencies (SAGAs) and FHI 360. A total of 151 subjects

were interviewed.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Question 1. Impact and Question 3. Sustainability and Capacity

The TEPD project is diverse in both purposes and levels achievement and is best described and

understood in terms of its specific Elements. In general, however, most TEPD project participants have

found that the project trainings, materials and services have made a positive change. There is also

evidence of mainstreaming and/or adaptation of some TEPD outputs. At the same time, the project has

experienced significant challenges and difficulties, especially in the timely production and delivery of

instructional materials and the ACE project deliverables. While some objectives have been fully

achieved, others have either not been achieved or only partially achieved. Therefore, any general

summary statement about the project must be qualified.

Element 1, Teacher Competency Framework. The TCF has been developed with and accepted by the

MOE for use in its departments (e.g., Quality Assurance and Standards, or QAS) and in SAGAs like the

Kenya Institute of Education where it is now a source of guidance as they begin to revise the PTTC

curriculum. The TCF has also provided a rationale for the Tutor Induction Course. The TCF has been

incorporated by reference to its substance in the draft National Education Sector Support Program

(NESSP). Full utilization by the TSC and others may depend on official adoption through a final

stakeholders forum. The impact of the TCF is evident. It will increasingly provide norms for both

preservice and in-service systems. Sustainability: After fuller stakeholder adoption, the TCF will be

sustained. The long collaborative processes of TCF development have built understanding and capacity

in the MOE and participating institutions.

Element 2, Skills via Materials. Under this element three materials have been produced, though there

have been long delays in approvals. The MOE’s ability to implement the MGLC (printing, distribution,

training) is dependent on outside resources. The biggest impact of Element 2 so far is in working

relationships created among TEPD, SAGAs and the MOE. Sustainability: Because the manuals are

approved they are likely to enter circulation to the degree that finance can be found to print and

distribute them. The USAID–funded Education for Marginalized Children in Kenya (EMACK) project is

now using them.

Element 3, National Lecturer Induction and Training Program. This element has three components:

1) Tutor Induction Program: The impact of the TIC has been high. Many subjects reported positive

changes in teacher education such as tutor handling of trainees during teaching practice and improved

training strategies, together with improved linkage between Teaching Practice schools and the TTCs. A

large majority of the principals, Master Trainers and tutors (17 of 23 and 44 of 53 respectively) said the

TIC had “much” or “very much” positive effect on student trainees’ professional development. An

analysis of Primary Teacher Education (PTE) test results indicates an upward trend in TTC trainees’

marks in Education courses likely attributable to improved pedagogical skills acquired by their tutors.

Sustainability: Now that TIC Master Trainers are at TTCs and most staff have been through the full

course, local understanding and capacity have been built. The TIC manual is now a reference material

used by HODs when new staff arrive. Complete application of the TIC by the TSC, MOE QAS, Centre

for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa (CEMASTEA), or others may depend on

official adoption through a final stakeholders forum like that proposed for the TCF.

2) Teaching Practice: A large majority of PTTC Master Trainers and tutors and Teaching Practice

school Head Teachers think TEPD has had a positive effect on the quality of PTTC–Teaching Practice

school linkage. Teaching Practice Head Teachers and tutors agreed that Teaching Practice schools are

getting “more” value from their relationship with PTTCs. Sustainability: The Teaching Practice

structure is durable because it represents a superior way of doing one’s regular work. The newly

instituted, effective three-day annual Teaching Practice trainings/sensitizations may not be so easily

financed without TEPD, but one school suggested that if they cannot bring as many people from each

school each year, quality could be maintained.

3) Professional Development Centers: Professional Development Centers (PDCs) are resourced

virtual or physical centers at TTCs through which tutors can share ideas and work on professional

issues through action research, and for teachers from schools around the TTCs to seek professional

development and guidance. These structures are coming into being at most TTCs. Some are quite

advanced with completed action research and training projects. Large majorities of Principals and Master

Trainers agree that PDCs are having substantial positive effect on tutors and in-service teachers.

Sustainability: Because they are new, PDCs need powerful champions who share the vision of PDCs

as links between higher quality education practice and the field. They can enhance the professional

development functions of both the Teacher Service Commission (TSC) and the MOE. There is support

at the MOE for PDCs to receive some financial support but whether it is for equipment and physical

resources or for essential activities (action research, training) is unclear.

Element 4. ICT/ACE. Some colleges are more advanced in the use of ICTs than others. Among the

PTTCs that are lagging, common complaints include lack of computers and resources, inadequate

training, too few trained personnel, and lack of Internet connectivity. Positive comments far outweigh

the complaints, however, with tutors saying they personally use ICTs in teaching and learning, and many

PTTCs reported self-made instructional materials kept in digital formats. The impact of TEPD ICT

Master Trainer approach on TTCs has been varied but in many places significant, with greater impact in

preservice (PTTCs) than in-service (teachers in schools). The ACE primary school equipment model is

essentially 50 laptops and server storage stored in a locked mobile recharging station with a wireless

network. In spite of ACE’s very late start, Head Teachers, and Grade 5 and 6 ACE teachers say they

have been sufficiently trained to teach ICT–infused lessons. ACE teachers say students are more

motivated, have better attendance, and their level of performance has improved. Teachers are

experiencing excitement but also technical difficulties that often remain unaddressed between the once-

a-term service visits. Sustainability: The ICT Master Trainer and cascade approach has been effective

for PTTC tutors as have been the direct and cascade trainings for ACE teachers. TechBiz is providing

technical support to ACE. While sustaining the 20 primary and 3 secondary ACE schools is a major

issue, an even larger question for the primary sector is determining what model(s) are scalable.

Element 5. HIV/AIDS. Much of TEPD’s work in HIV/AIDS has been done through two subagreements

with CfBT Education Trust. CfBT ran trainings in: 1) operational planning for Head Teachers in managing

multimodal interventions; 2) integration and prevention; 3) implementing a “Say No to Stigma

Campaign”; 4) managing Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT); 5) quality control for cascaded

training of 16,000 first year students in HIV/AIDS prevention basics; and, 6) a revised Training Manual.

FHI 360, itself, staffed up to promote other structures at PTTCs, including Community Health

Days/Weeks (CHDs/Ws) and Youth Friendly Centers (YFCs). There has been significant integration of

HIV/AIDS awareness in education activities at PTTCs and some schools. The Master Trainings have

been effective. Trainer confidence levels are high. Sustainability: As a mainstreamed subject, all TTCs

have annual budgets that enable them to continue some of the TEPD HIV/AIDS activities beyond May

2013. They understand the various activities and can manage and produce them. Some are required

activities and there are other agencies with which the TTCs will continue to work. Others, especially

the CHDs/Ws and YFCs, are likely to require additional ongoing funds to be maintained.

Question 2. Compliance for Accountability: Comparing program descriptions and workplans,

TEPD has been implemented as proposed—with flexibility. Beginning with focus on the TCF, the TIC,

and on ICT integration, TEPD later took on new and expanded challenges that required subcontracting

(HIV) and GDA partnering (ACE). Technical issues exist: PMPs have not been used consistently and

correctly and indicators used by TEPD

do not correlate with those used by USAID/Kenya. The ACE

Alliance has not quantified the leverage contributions of the various partners as required by GDA

guidelines. Meeting output targets and delivery schedules has been an ongoing difficulty for TEPD,

especially in the area of materials development and ACE project implementation. While TEPD has been

overstretched and at times unable to hit targets in its core areas on schedule and with more effect, the

project has shown creativity in trying to respond to changes in the surrounding contexts and amplify the

value delivered to TTCs and schools (e.g., creating the PDCs, the ACE design).

Question 4. Lessons Learned, Differences in Adopting TEPD Changes: Some TTCs

demonstrate more professional progress than others in adopting changes proposed by TEPD. This may

be due in part to differences in levels of zeal with which key individuals have taken up the project and in

the way that zeal has translated into policies and practices. PTTC vision leaders can optimize results.

Seven examples from the TTC level are provided. From the level of the MOE, TSC, SAGAs there is a

range of differences in adoption. Poor inter-institutional partner communications have led to a weaker

embrace of the TCF by the TSC and Kenya Institute of Education (KIE). MOE departments appear to

suffer from “information silos.” The project is well understood in the INSET department, which is

TEPD’s point of contact within the MOE, and which has been responsible for getting the TCF into the

draft NESSP, but lack of sufficient and proper communication (e.g., between INSET and the relevant

Teacher Education department where budgets for PTTC support are now being drafted) is slowing

adoption and integration of successful and promising TEPD program components. A possible

explanation is that during the course of the project, INSET has been housed in three different MOE

directorates (QAS, Basic, Field and Other Services). FHI 360 may not have realized that INSET would

not adequately and continually involve and inform other critical departments and decision makers.

SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS

1. TEPD and the Ministry of Education should hold a joint stakeholder forum for “official” approval

of the TCF before May 2013. It would be better not to leave it to the INSET department of the

MOE to do so alone. A similar forum process should be undertaken for the TIC.

2. Since most PTTC graduates often have to wait three or four years before they are first hired as

teachers, the MOE/TSC should run a full induction course for them just before they are

engaged. MOE/TSC should also develop a program so practicing teachers are regularly brought

to inductions after three to four years of work in the schools. This would help address TSC

requirements for periodic in-servicing.

3. “Capitation fees” (per enrollment) would allow primary schools to purchase services, a) in

support of technology, as is proposed for ICT, and b) to pay for in-service training costs. (Such

“capitation fees” at secondary level are now used for SMASSE trainings held at PTTCs and

elsewhere.) Such funds would not constitute a conflict with the Constitution (with respect to

TEPD reports that all changes to the PMP were approved by the Agreement Officer Representative. USAID/Kenya indicators

were reported annually to USAID with requested as part of the Performance Plan Report.

free and compulsory basic education) since these would be budgetary allocations at the

Treasury level as part of normal funding for Free Primary Education. These funds would help

support trainings at PTTCs (possibly through PDCs) and thereby reinforce the link between

preservice and in-service.

4. USAID, its donor partners and the Government of Kenya should continue to fund the same

range of HIV/AIDS and Life Skills activities at the TTCs as have been undertaken under TEPD.

TTCs understand the rationale for these various college-based activities and can manage and

produce them. Activities most reliant on TEPD as the donor are the CHD/W and YFC (both

were unique with TEPD). USAID may join with other donors to continue to support VCT and

refresher trainings as needed.

5. Ambitious education sector projects like TEPD should report quarterly to a group of senior

Government of Kenya managers (MOE, KIE, Kenya Education Management Institute [KEMI],

CEMASTEA, Kenya National Examination Council, TSC) with feedback and briefs on progress.

TEPD should try to engage a bigger part of the MOE for feedback. The MOE can recommend

TEPD components to NESSP so they become national programs. In NESSP preservice and in-

service can be strongly linked.

INTRODUCTION

The Teacher Education and Professional Development (TEPD) project is in its sixth and final year. It is

scheduled to close in May 2013. This final performance evaluation has been requested for three primary

purposes: 1) to examine the extent to which the project’s objectives and goals have been achieved; 2) to

capture best practices and lessons learned that can be applied by Kenya’s Ministry of Education in the

future; and 3) to present findings and practical recommendations that will inform USAID’s education

project designs. The audience for this evaluation is USAID and the Ministry of Education. The evaluation

team responded to four evaluation questions (see Annex A, Statement of Work):

1) Impact. Has TEPD achieved the objectives and outcomes stated, and did those lead to the

intended goal?

2) Compliance for Accountability. Was TEPD implemented as proposed in the program description

and workplans, including monitoring progress and use of data collected for making informed

decisions on project implementation and broader policy?

3) Sustainability and Local Capacity. Did the project build capacity of local institutions to achieve

TEPD goals and for the Ministry of Education to mainstream this approach?

4) Lessons Learned. Were there differences in how participating institutions adopted the changes

proposed by the project, and did those differences influence project impact and why?

TEPD has been funded in two phases, with three emphases: 1) Teacher Education, 2) Information and

Communication Technology (ICTs) in Education, and 3) HIV/AIDS education. In May 2007, at the start

of Phase 1, only the first two activities were included. Soon after the start of Phase 1, HIV/AIDS

education was included as a component under funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS

Relief (known as PEPFAR). In May 2010, at the start of Phase 2, the ICT component received a major

increase in emphasis ($2.5 million) with the incorporation of a new Global Development Alliance (GDA)

project, Accelerating 21st Century Education (ACE). FHI 360 is the coordinating and implementing

partner for the ACE Alliance with these partners: Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and the Ministry of Education.

Table 1.1. Summary of Funding for the TEPD Project

FY2007–08

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

Total

Basic

Ed.

$1,750,000

$249,811

$2,500,000

$1,000,000

$2,029,643

$7,529,454

PEPFA

$400,000

$500,000

$684,642

$900,000

$2,984,642

Total

$2,150,000

$249,811

$3,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,714,285

$900,000

$10,514,096

Because GDA funding requires in-kind or financial matching of USAID’s contribution, the ICT

component of the TEPD project in Phase 2 represents a distinct collaborative approach to leveraging

resources and impact. Since ACE’s major technology partner companies also have long-term business

interests while supporting education in Kenya, the ACE project represents a distinct approach to

promoting sustainability and mainstreaming TEPD project elements and approaches.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, Kenya adopted the Free Primary Education Policy to abolish school fees for all children in

primary schools, in an effort to realize Universal Primary Education and attain the Education for All

goals. As a result, all fees were waived in public primary schools. This created a major influx of children,

which has strained the system. Common conditions include a lack of learning resources and classes not

being taught effectively. Despite a national average class size of 45 to 50, in some areas classes have well

over 100 students. At the same time, in sparsely populated areas, especially in the Northeast, and among

nomadic populations, classes may be very small, with children of widely different ages being taught by the

same teacher. Primary Teacher Training College (PTTC) tutors have long been recruited from

secondary school teachers to teach in PTTCs without having a structured induction program; they are

often not well prepared for their jobs. They also generally lack adult training methods and knowledge in

both the content and pedagogy that is appropriate for primary schools, and they may not be familiar

with the challenges that teachers face in classrooms.

The TEPD project was initiated in 2007 with the same goal as USAID’s Strategic Objective 8,

Intermediate Result 2: to improve the practices and competencies of teachers in Kenya. The project was

designed to harmonize with and support the five-year Kenya Education Sector Support Program, one

emphasis of which was to improve the quality of preservice teacher education. At that time, more than

45,000 past graduates of PTTCs were without teaching jobs, so the TEPD project proposed ways to

provide new services and materials for employed teachers. Further, with a new national constitution and

various new education legislation, USAID characterized the context of the education sector as one of

“rapid reforms.” This has placed demands on the project from the start until today.

The project initially had four objectives. Soon after the original cooperative agreement was signed,

additional PEPFAR funding was made available so an HIV/AIDS education component could be added. In

the first year the five objectives were renamed “Elements” and these were reordered as follows:

1. To establish a framework for enhancing teacher competencies within a rapid reforms context

2. Improve the skills of PTTC Lecturers by introducing new and existing teacher education

materials that better prepare student teachers for actual school conditions

3. Improve skills of PTTC Lecturers through a national lecturer induction and training program

4. Improve skills of PTTC Lecturers and build capacity of PTTCs to use ICT for preservice teacher

education/Accelerating a 21st Century Education by preparing teachers in 23 schools and

teacher trainees at the PTTCs and DTTCs to integrate the use of technology in classrooms, in

partnership with Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, USAID and the Government of Kenya

5. Initiate skills-based training relevant to HIV/AIDS in preservice teacher training programs

With project activities planned in both the preservice and in-service systems of teacher education, a

centerpiece of the TEPD project became creating stronger links between the two systems. TEPD

specifically proposed a Teacher Competency Framework (TCF) for increasing teacher proficiencies in

both the preservice and in-service systems. To ensure sustainability and build local capacity, Academy of

Educational Development (AED) (the original project implementer later replaced by FHI 360 through a

“novation” process) proposed working in close partnership with the MOE and a wide range of local

organizations with a view to being flexible, responsive and collaborative over the course of the project.

Planned activities included harmonizing performance standards for preservice and in-service teachers to

link preservice and in-service teacher education through a common framework (the TCF). TEPD also

proposed creating materials and training National Trainers and TTC–based Master Trainers, enabling

them to train and mentor teachers and tutors in PTTCs in a range of competencies through a National

Tutor Induction Training Program, the “Tutor Induction Course” (TIC). Forming the basis for the tutor

induction and training program were materials packages – the National Teacher Trainers Induction

Course (TIC) Modules 1 and 2. TEPD materials also included an HIV/AIDS and Life Skills Education

Training Manual. To help teachers deal with varied classroom conditions, TEPD proposed developing a

Multigrade and Large Class Teaching (MGLC) Manual. It also proposed a new Gender and Education

Teacher Training Manual to guide appropriate gender sensitive education. Finally it proposed digital

content in the form of an INSET Materials CD–ROM and video DVDs of best practices. The full set of

activities and materials was designed to improve the skills of all serving PTTC Tutors and through them

their trainees, and through both of them, improve the in-service teachers in Teaching Practice schools.

Two distinct ICT projects were also undertaken under TEPD. Phase 1 was to support all PTTCs with

ICT equipment and training. Phase 2 was designed to provide nominal ICT support to all colleges while

putting intense effort into three select TTCs, 20 primary and three secondary schools through the ACE

project (a GDA project drawing capital and expertise from Intel, Microsoft, Cisco and the MOE, with

FHI 360 managing finance and coordination).

Support from PEPFAR allowed TEPD to create an HIV/AIDS component to further the GOK’s ongoing

efforts in AIDS control and health education by integrating HIV/AIDS and Life Skills education into

preservice and in-service teacher education programs, including ICT activities. Planned subprojects

included campaigns to reduce stigma of HIV/AIDS, assisting TTCs to establish Voluntary Counseling and

Testing services, Community Health Days/Weeks, Youth Friendly Centers, and health data systems.

METHODOLOGY

The MSI primary team of evaluation consultants comprised of Stuart Leigh, Team Leader, and Edwin

Ochieng, Education Specialist, assisted by Fred Opundo of MSI Kenya (who also supervised the

enumerators) and an enumeration team including eight enumerators who had assisted MSI Kenya in data

collection on previous projects. The team traveled to project sites throughout Kenya. Enumerators

visited all 23 Primary and Diploma Teacher Training Colleges (PTTCs and DTTCs), six ACE Primary

schools, one ACE secondary school and 78 Teaching Practice schools. The three members of the

primary evaluation team visited eight PTTCs and one DTTC, six ACE primary schools, one ACE

secondary school, and three Teaching Practice schools. The evaluators also visited the offices of the

Ministry of Education, SAGAs and FHI 360 to conduct key informant interviews (KIIs) meeting a total of

151 subjects. These sites were designated based on convenience concerns as well as the need to include

a fairly representative sample of the ACE and Teaching Practice schools in the project. A list of all sites

visited is contained in Annex J, and a map of sites is in Annex K.

Before fieldwork the Evaluation Team had meetings with FHI 360 and USAID representatives in Nairobi

to shed light on the project and to review the evaluation protocols. Based on these briefings and on

review of project documents, the Evaluation Team developed an evaluation workplan and data collection

instruments (Annex O) designed to provide answers to the evaluation questions in the SOW.

Approaches engaged by the team to respond to the evaluation questions included the following:

 Desk Review. The Evaluation Team reviewed project documents sent by FHI 360 and USAID,

including but not limited to, the Cooperative Agreement and Modifications, workplans, internal

monitoring reports and evaluations, quarterly and other periodic reports, related MOE and

USAID documents, and instructional materials and teacher training manuals (see Annex P,

Partial List of Documents Reviewed).

 DTTC, PTTC, ACE and Teaching Practice School Visits. The enumerators visited all 23

TTCs and 78 individual schools they randomly selected from those nearby. While schools may

have been notified that visits might occur, no one knew in advance which schools would be

visited. Enumerators interviewed TTC principals, selected tutors, various TTC Coordinators of

ICT, Teaching Practice, Professional Development Center (PDC) and HIV/AIDS, as well as

Teaching Practice and ACE school heads, and Grade 5 or 6 ACE teachers. They entered data

using EpiSurveyor (Magpi) software on smart phones that relayed the records by SMS to a

central server. The evaluation team also interviewed individual or groups of TTC tutors, TTC

coordinators and administrators at nine TTCs to delve into the various elements of the project

to elicit responses to a wide range of questions (Annex O, Workplan).

 ICT Facilities Observations. ICT labs in ACE schools and TTCs were observed to determine

the number of facilities, equipment and resources, and to see the condition of their equipment

and what agency or project provided them. Checklists were used to assess status against a 2008

baseline study.

 Education Official Interviews. Thirty-one education officials were interviewed including DEOs,

County Directors, Directors at MOE headquarters, the Education Secretary, MOHE officials,

officials from four SAGAs (TSC, KEMI, the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE), and the National

ICT Innovation and Integration Center), from Intel and Cisco for the ACE GDA partnership,

and from VVOB, a Belgian agency supporting the Ministry of Education’s ICT department.

 FHI 360 Visit. Evaluators interviewed FHI 360 staff in their head office and at MSI’s office in

Nairobi.

 College and School Statistics. At six of nine TTCs visited by the evaluation team,

examinations performance data was collected for Year 2 students’ final grades. Exam scores for

Grades 5 and 6 at 7 ACE schools was sent from Mombasa by the Municipal Education Office.

Analysis Methods. The data collected for this report were analyzed through the following methods:

 Planned/Actual Comparisons. Comparisons have been made between program descriptions,

work plans, PMP targets and periodic performance data to inform examination of TEPD

performance relative to overall project compliance and to timely fulfillment of proposed

activities.

 Pattern/Content Analysis. Qualitative data has been examined for patterns and comparisons

made between respondents, institutional levels and sites, and generalizations and conclusions

drawn.

 Trend Analysis. Patterns have been identified in the data in the way in which change happened

over time and with the maturation and development of the project.

 Response Convergence/Divergence Analysis. Where the team noted significant divergence in

responses, follow-up interviews by phone and email were done to explain divergence in the

reporting of facts, perceptions or opinions.

 Mixed Methods Integration/Findings Synthesis. Using a mixed methods approach, data from

various methods have been integrated to arrive at findings. This synthesis process involved

convergence/ divergence analysis for examining data coming from different methods and levels in

the system.

Limitations of the Study. This evaluation seeks to clarify the project’s actual outcomes, whether these

led to the intended objective and goal, and if not, why not; and whether activities were implemented as

proposed in the program descriptions and work plans. Contextual and contingent factors are given

some attention, though it was beyond the scope of this evaluation to analyze in depth the effects on the

project of interagency and/or interministerial and intraministerial communication issues and policy

divergences. These may have impacted the pace and direction of the project. Concerns about contextual

factors remain in considering sustainability and capacity issues and the prospects for various TEPD

components for MOE “mainstreaming.” The “rapid reform” context remains very much in evidence as

various agencies negotiate the practical implications of new legislation, (e.g., the recent Teacher Service

Commission Act, the 2012 Basic Education Act, and the Kenya Institute of Education Act). There are

varying reported visions of which agencies/combination of agencies, e.g., TSC, MOE, CEMASTEA, KIE,

or KEMI will be responsible for in-service teacher training and “professional development,” however

that term is interpreted. Further, proposed reorganization and consolidation within and between the

MOE and MOHE has reanimated discussion of which departments should manage TTCs. There now is

some jockeying for position that many expect to be resolved through MOE directives in the near future,

but these issues may impede effective service delivery and project planning for some time.

Sites and KII targets were selected by the team. They were unable to interview any senior

representative of the MOE Research Unit. Therefore, the evaluation team does not have a full picture of

how policy papers from TEPD are viewed by the MOE. The team was unable to meet the Director of

Field and Other Services, to which Directorate both In-service training (INSET) and TEPD report.

Baseline information for each PTTC was provided by TEPD. The team used some of the same baseline

questions to try to assess changes over the last five years at six of the PTTCs. The baseline data were

not complete and the methods of data collection were different from those used by the evaluation team.

Since the team only had a few hours at each TTC, it used small group interviews to get current data

parallel to that of the baseline studies. Respondents in those groups included only senior staff: Principals,

Deputy Principals, Master Trainers, HIV and ICT Coordinators, and HODs. When their responses

included estimates that all tutors were exhibiting certain behaviors, these responses were recorded as

100 percent. The actual number could be less. Finally, the eight enumerators had only a brief overview

of the project before data collection. They asked questions as written in the instruments. Their ability to

clarify questions for respondents or to speak knowledgeably about the project was limited.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

The TEPD project is diverse in both purposes and levels achievement so it is best described and

understood in terms of its specific Elements. In general, however, most TEPD project participants have

found that the project trainings, materials and services have been either “useful” or “very useful” and

that the project outputs have made a positive change. There is also evidence of mainstreaming and/or

adaptation of some of the TEPD outputs at participating TTCs and schools, as well as evidence of use of

these outputs in the MOE and related SAGAs, including the TCF, TIC, ICT, and HIV/AIDS outputs.

While the accomplishments and benefits have been substantial, the project has experienced significant

challenges and difficulties, especially in the timely production and delivery of instructional materials and

the ACE project deliverables. While some objectives have been fully achieved, others have either not

been achieved or only partially achieved. Therefore, any general summary statement about the project

must be qualified. The achievement status for each objective/element is presented in TEPD Conclusions

Relative to Objectives, Goals and the Development Hypothesis.

QUESTION 1. PROGRAM IMPACT

Element 1. Establish a Framework for Enhancing Teacher Competencies

The Teacher Competence Framework (TCF) was TEPD’s first major undertaking and the basis for much

of its later work. A draft of the TCF was submitted to the MOE in February 2009 but additional

performance indicators were required. AED set a target of September 2009 for submission of the final

TCF document to the project’s “Consultative Group,” which comprises the key education SAGAs and

the MOE. This presentation did not take place until November 2012. Certain members of the

Consultative Group informed the evaluators that the process of TCF adoption is still not complete and

before the project closes, TEPD and the MOE should organize a forum with key stakeholders so the

TCF can be officially adopted for circulation. TEPD representatives expressed some puzzlement about

this information, indicating that they believed the process was complete. This may be due to the fact

that the TCF’s four central pillars, or domains, have been incorporated in the draft National Education

Sector Support Program (NESSP). Following the November presentation, Directorate approvals from

Basic and Field Services were given for circulation within MOE departments and SAGAs. The Director

of Basic Education said, “The TCF is developed. We need a donor or the MOE to print it.” Though not

a fully public document, the TCF is known in the field. It was introduced to PTTCs during the first TIC

course in 2009. Some principals and tutors are using it and, importantly, KIE is using parts of it as it plans

the revision of the PTTC curriculum. As MOE Senior Assistant Director, INSET said:

“The TCF is a document they (TEPD) came up with that cuts across all levels. It is a

document to be used by curriculum developers and the exams board and government

departments and training institutions. The TCF was shared at a forum where key

departments saw it and it was left to the various departments to circulate. On principle,

the PS had approved the document because some are using it—CEMASTEA is using it,

and KIE too, for training.”

Conclusion

The TCF is a major accomplishment. The document itself has been accepted by the MOE for use in its

departments (e.g., QAS) and in SAGAs, where it is now a source of guidance as they begin to revise the

PTTC curriculum. It has provided a rationale and touchstone for the Tutor Induction Course, the

impact of which owes something to the TCF. Fuller utilization depends on official adoption through a

stakeholder forum. Many voices support the forum idea. Some wish to see a few minor textual changes,

to be negotiated through the forum. The process of addressing changes may be important politically but

could conceivably lead to an indefinite period of delay in the official and complete adoption of the TCF.

Element 2. Improve Skills of PTTC Tutors With New and Existing Teacher Education

Materials

TEPD has produced five main educational materials. In keeping with the TEPD Performance Monitoring

Plans (PMP), three of the five materials are accountable here under Element 2. Following the structure

of the PMP, we address the “National Teacher Trainers Induction Course” (TIC) under Element 3; and

the “HIV/AIDS and Life Skills Education Training Manual” under Element 5. The three material outputs

accountable under Element 2 are the following:

A. Multigrade and Large Class Teaching Manual. This manual was written in 2009–10. Some training

has been done at TTCs using the manual. TEPD’s Year 4 PMP report (June 2011) stated the MGLC was

final and “awaiting signature of the PS for (it) to be forwarded for printing and dissemination.” It was not

approved for distribution until 2012. Distribution to the TTCs is being done by TEPD. Distribution to

targeted districts and schools is being planned and is to be done by the MOE INSET department. As

Charles Kanja of INSET noted, “TEPD was to print only for the colleges and the MOE was to print for

others.” So far TEPD has printed 2000 copies and given 1000 to MOE INSET. Those will be distributed

next month where classes are multigrade or very large and where such projects as EMACK can use the

MGLC in appropriate locations. MOE INSET has “come up with an activity to support the use of the

MGLC module.” Kanja reports 20 Teacher Advisory Center (TAC) tutors have been trained to 1)

support MGLC use and 2) train teachers in TACs and then follow-up at schools. TEPD and MOE-INSET

are waiting for the MOE to print another 5,000 copies for 23 targeted counties at a cost of 410 KES per

copy if outside resources can be identified for this purpose.

Of 23

TTC principals and deputy principals, 15 had received the MGLC materials during TEPD

trainings.

Two of six primary schools surveyed in Garissa, and one of three in Coast Province reported

receiving MGLC materials through EMACK. The others were unaware of it being in development.

B. Gender and Education Teacher Training Manual. Gender in education has been mainstreamed by

the MOE since before the start of the TEPD project and the MOE had already distributed a manual with

the same title around 2007.

TEPD drafted a revised version in 2008 in consultation with MOE, KIE,

TSC, Kenya Institute of Special Education (KISE), Garissa TTC, Migori TTC, and the National AIDS

Control Council (NACC). The writing was completed by 2009 but “was just approved the other day -

January 2013.” A single copy was located in the office of the Director of Basic Education. Eleven of 23

principals and 26 of 53 tutors said they had received a gender manual, but when asked to show it, the

only one produced was the MOE’s earlier version. Though it is approved, the TEPD gender manual has

not been printed for distribution. When asked why there was such a long delay in receiving approval for

printing the most common answer was “the bureaucracy.” Gender is carefully considered in PTTC

admissions with the Gender Index Ratio in four sampled PTTCs at 1.02.

C. Existing INSET Materials CD–ROM/DVDs. For Phase 1, AED proposed to create a “standard set

of CD–ROMs and best practice videos on DVDs with existing materials from the past eight years of

INSET programs.” By the end of Phase 1, the INSET materials had been identified and a master copy of

the CD-ROM produced entitled “INSET Materials” (dated September 2009). The CD contains an

onscreen menu for accessing scanned PDF files of many MOE modules and manuals on both educational

management and instruction. (See Annex L, Contents of INSET Materials CD–ROM). The June 2010

PMP report indicates that production of distribution copies had not yet occurred by the end of Phase 1.

The Year 2 PMP targeted 2,000 copies to be disseminated and many have now been distributed. As

reported in group interviews with six PTTCs, sufficient copies were provided for every tutor (average =

73/TTC). However, reports are mixed on its impact. In the six sample TTCs when asked to estimate

how many tutors were using the CD–ROM the four TTCs that responded representing 264 tutors

estimated that only 17 were using it (Annex B, Table 1.2.1). TEPD’s own monitoring reports indicate

that little use has been made of the CD-ROM. Though few have used it, those tutors surveyed reported

favorably on its usefulness (Table 1.2.2). After hearing complaints about its operation from a few tutors,

the team assessed the materials and noted that the scanned PDFs often have pages of different sizes that

make for difficult on-screen reading. The team did not see evidence of any DVDs produced by TEPD.

Conclusion

There have been long delays in approvals for the MGLC and the Gender manuals. The MOE’s ability to

implement the MGLC (printing, distribution, training) is dependent on outside resources. The impact of

the MGLC and the gender manuals is negligible so far and dependent on future distribution. The impact

of the CD–ROM is small, and there are utilization difficulties. The biggest impact so far of the manual

development projects is the working relationship created among TEPD, key SAGAs and the MOE.

Not all 23 colleges were targeted for all five elements.

TEPD reports that 21 colleges were to receive these materials.

Gender is a crosscutting issue and has been infused and integrated into the TTC curriculum.

In all the colleges it is evident that gender is a factor when admitting students. Sample PTTC school statistics show that the

number of male students in each college is almost equal to the number of female students. Asumbi, Kaimosi, and Mosoriot

TTCs reported that gender parity is also considered when employing new staff.

INDUCTION COURSE

“The induction course was very helpful.

What I hear is that they started with the

Principal and the Deputy Principals….

They got buy-in from the leadership.”

—Leah Rotich,

Director of Basic Education, MOE

Element 3. Improve Skills of PTTC Tutors With a National Tutor Induction Program

Tutor Induction Course. The evaluation sought to establish the impact of the Tutor Induction Course

(TIC) by first determining the existence of any earlier course. Thirty-four out of 53 of tutors reported

they were not aware of an earlier tutor training program before the new TIC was introduced by TEPD

(Annex B, Table 1.3.1).

A series of trainings for tutors forming the basis for a

National Tutor Induction and Training Program were

designed with materials packages (TIC Modules 1 and 2

manuals). Draft copies of the TIC Module 2 manual were

printed and distributed to colleges while Module 1 was

given as handouts during the first phase trainings. Both are

yet to be merged and printed for final distribution. In

visits to six PTTCs the primary evaluation team

established that Tambach, Eregi, Mosoriot, Kaimosi, Bondo, and Asumbi had received 140, 140, 71, 75,

72, and 108 copies of the manuals respectively; roughly half of these were Module 1 handouts (Annex E,

TEPD Compliance). Interviews with tutors, principals, coordinators and Master Trainers revealed that

trainings were provided for the two modules using the prescribed manuals. Inductions in Module 1 were

conducted for most tutors in service in 2009 via a cascaded approach using TEPD–trained Master

Trainers. Induction in Module 2 for most tutors took place in 2011. Those tutors posted to PTTCs after

these trainings are generally “inducted” (and taken through the manuals or parts of the manuals) by

Heads of Departments ad hoc, or they are guided to read relevant sections on their own.

With the new TIC from TEPD, many of the respondents reported positive changes in teacher education

such as tutors’ handling of trainees during teaching practice and improved training strategies together

with improved linkage between Teaching Practice schools and the TTCs. Respondents state that this

very positively impacted teaching practice and school-college relationships. Tutors widely reported

friendlier relations between themselves and student trainees. Twelve of 16 master tutors who said they

were aware of an earlier induction program described the change between the earlier approach to tutor

induction and the new TIC as “better” with only one reporting that it was “worse” (Annex B, Table

1.3.2). A large majority of the a) Principals and b) Master Trainers and tutors interviewed (17 of 23 and

44 of 53, respectively) indicated the new Tutor Induction Course had “much” or “very much” positive

effect on teacher professional development. Only two of 53 Master Trainers and tutors said the TIC had

little effect, and only three of the 53 felt that it had no effect (Table 1.3.3). An analysis of the past PTE

Education results from five of the eight PTTCs visited by the primary evaluation team indicate a general

upward trend in trainees’ performance in Education courses, which are the courses most likely

attributable to the observed improved pedagogical skills acquired by the tutors (Charts 1.3.1.to 1.3.6).

(NB: a score of Distinction 1 is highest).

Professional Development Centers (PDCs). The original idea of the PDCs was a virtual or physical

center with resources through which tutors could share ideas and work with one another on PTTC

professional issues, and for teachers from schools around the TTCs to seek professional development

and guidance. A number of PDCs are carrying out TEPD-financed action research in various areas of

educational difficulty. Some of these action research activities involve the Teaching Practice schools.

Among the subjects approved for initial research were microteaching at Mosoriot and the preparation

of teaching and learning materials at Kaimosi. Twenty-one of 23 principals reported the presence of

TP ASSESSMENT TOOL

“We now have a standardized

assessment tool…. Teachers now

mentor and assist the TP trainees, which

they did not do before. Before TEPD

the Head Teacher used to come for a

briefing, but that became expensive and

it fizzled out. Now the issue is how we

can sustain it.”

—Dean of Curriculum, Mosoriot

PDC centers in colleges. Fifty-one of 53 tutors reported having PDC coordinators. However, just 24 of

53 stated their TTC had a PDC Handbook. Nine indicated not having them and 20 did not know

whether there were any PDC Handbooks present.

Kaimosi has a particularly developed PDC through

which they recently ran a three-day TIC refresher course for all tutors. Nine of 53 Master Trainers and

tutors said TEPD had distributed materials for the PDC, although 33 of 53 were not aware of any such

materials (Annex B, Table 1.3.4). Those suggesting that INSET reference materials were provided to the

PDC by TEPD mentioned resources such as books, CD–ROMs, computers, HIV/AIDS manuals, Modules

1 and 2 TIC manuals, PDC manual and research materials.

The evaluators sought to establish the impact of PDCs on the professional development of tutors, in-

service teachers and student trainees. Twenty of 23 principals and 46 of 53 Master Trainers and tutors

thought PDCs had “much” or “very much” effect on tutors. Regarding positive effects on in-service

teachers, 16 of 23 principals and 42 of 53 Master Trainers and tutors felt the effect was “much” or “very

much.” Regarding effects on student trainees, 18 of 23 Principals and 44 of 53 tutors felt it was “much”

or “very much” (Annex B, Table 1.3.5).

Teaching Practice Activities. PTTCs report that TEPD

has improved the quality of linkage between PTTCs and

Teaching Practice schools. A majority of the Teaching

Practice School Head Teachers and PTTC Master

trainers and tutors (46 of 72 and 51 of 53, respectively;

Annex B, Table 1.3.6) think the TEPD project has had a

positive effect on the quality of linkage. Guided by TEPD,

PTTCs have invited Head Teachers, senior teachers and

at least one other teacher from the Teaching Practice

schools for a three-day (one day for each) sensitization

workshop before Teaching Practice sessions begin. Fifty-

five of 72 Teaching Practice teachers and 44 Head

Teachers reported such attendance in the recent past (Annex B, Table 1.3.7). Information gathered by

the primary evaluators from the six sample PTTCs corroborates that Head Teachers and teachers from

the Teaching Practice schools have been trained through the TEPD project to support improved

Teaching Practice: 99 Head Teachers and teachers in Tambach, 108 in Eregi, 99 in Mosoriot, 72 in

Kaimosi, 120 in Bondo and 99 in Asumbi (see Annex E, TEPD Compliance). The attributes of the

improved linkages include “good cooperation” with Teaching Practice schools providing student trainees

with improved practice through “mentoring” by the “regular” teachers. In addition, the head teachers

and teachers are now more familiar with their roles in the professional development of student trainees.

Most Teaching Practice school heads (59 of 72) feel the level of activity and cooperation between the

colleges and primary schools has improved in the recent past. Only nine school heads view teaching

practice a burden (Annex B, Table 1.3.8). Fifty-two of 72 Teaching Practice school heads and 46 of 53

Master Tutors say the project has also made it easier for TTCs to recruit Teaching Practice schools in

their programs (Annex B, Table 1.3.9). They say that after the sensitization workshops the Head

Teachers and teachers are more willing to accept trainees as they understand the value of Teaching

Practice in their schools and their roles in development of trainee teachers, thus strengthening one

TEPD reports that the PDC Handbook has not been distributed as it is still in draft form. Only tutors who may have attended

the PDC handbook (only two of them) preparation workshop could have them and may have shared with their colleagues the

draft version. It is possible that they are referring to is a set of spiral bound reading materials we provided at the early stages to

support in establishment of PDC and action research.

USE OF ICT: BONDO TTC

“Some are using smartphones to

download, which they can transfer in the

lab. One projected a map on the wall

and then traced it on manila paper—an

invention of the trainee.”

—{Attribution?}

critical linkage between in-service and pre-service. Fifty-five of 72 Teaching Practice Head Teachers

agreed that Teaching Practice schools are getting more value from their relationship with PTTCs. Forty-

one of 53 tutors concurred and 9 of them felt Teaching Practice schools are getting “much more” value

(Table 1.4.0). Finally, before TEPD, each PTTC had its own tool for Teaching Practice assessment but, as

a result of the project, Teaching Practice Directors from all PTTCs were trained and together, at a

workshop organized with KIE, Kenya National Examination Council, MOE QAS in 2011, they developed

the Harmonized Teaching Practice Assessment Tool now used in all PTTCs.

Conclusions

The impact of the TIC has been high. Although there are still no final integrated modules printed and

disseminated for the induction program, most tutors have been trained and many tutors are practicing

improved learning and teaching methods. TIC utilization as a result of all-tutor trainings has improved

tutor to trainee and trainee to in-service teacher relationships. The academic performance of PTTC

student trainees in Education courses has also improved. Professional Development Centers (PDCs)

have potential to be vitally important activity structures supporting both TTCs’ self-improvement and

primary school in-servicing, which could be mutually reinforcing with Teacher Advisory Center (TAC)

structures since TACs share this same purpose with the PDCs. Microteaching and peer teaching, in

some cases informed by PDC action research, have taken root. TEPD-designed workshops for Teaching

Practice school staff have improved functioning of the Teaching Practice system supported by the

Harmonized Assessment Tool.

Element 4. Improve Skills and Build Capacity of PTTC Tutors to Use ICT/ACE Project

There are two distinct ICT projects under TEPD. Phase 1 aimed at equal ICT support for all PTTCs.

Phase 2 provided nominal ICT support to all colleges while putting major effort into three TTCs, 20

primary and three secondary ACE schools via the ACE

project. In Phase 1, TEPD contracted Computers for

Schools Kenya (CfSK), an NGO that provides refurbished

computers to schools, to do a baseline study of PTTC ICT

needs and capacities and to train their personnel in Basic

Computer Literacy (for principals and deputy principals),

User Proficiency (subject tutors), Hardware Maintenance

and Support (IT tutors), and ICT Integration (subject

tutors and IT tutors). AED placed two Geekcorps IT

volunteers with CfSK to assist in training and in developing an ICT document (manual) for PTTCs,

leveraging International Executive Service Corps funding (projected at $334,656). TEPD reported in June

2010 that the number of Phase 1 ICT trainees was Basic Computer Literacy - 16, User Proficiency - 248,

Hardware Maintenance - 36, and ICT Integration – 20. This is lower than the 664 total specified in the

CfSK contract. CfSK provided the PTTCs with refurbished desktop computers.

TEPD equipped 20

TTCs with video cameras, printers, flash discs, handbooks, and sometime later and for some in Phase 2,

LCD projectors. Tutors report much value in the projectors that have enabled their PowerPoint

presentations, and in the computers that enable their research, lesson preparation, and administration.

Where there was no baseline data on use of computers in TC management, surveys at the six sample

colleges revealed substantial levels of reported use for planning, budgeting, keeping of records, and

monitoring and evaluation (see Annex Q, Extent to Which PCCTs Use ITCs College Management).

USAID funds were not used to pay for refurbished CfSK desktop computers that PTTCs now report being insufficient and out

of date.

Some colleges are much more advanced in the use of ICTs (e.g., Bondo, Garissa) than others (e.g., Egoji

and Kericho). Among PTTCs common complaints related to ICTs include ongoing lack of computers

and resources, inadequate training, too few trained personnel, and lack of Internet connectivity. Positive

comments far outweigh the complaints, however. TEPD provided further ICT integration training as

part of TIC Module 2 training, and 41 of 53 tutors said they personally use ICTs in teaching and learning.

Seventeen of 23 TTC principals and 44 of 53 tutors said there had been “much” or ‘very much” positive

effect of TEPD ICT training on tutors’ professional development (Annex B, Table 1.3.3). To assess

whether tutors and trainees are actually independently integrating ICT tools in their teaching, the

evaluation team asked PTTCs and ACE schools to identify “ICT materials developed either by the staff

or by the teacher trainees to use in training and learning?” (See annex O, Workplan with Instruments.)

Fourteen of the 18 PTTCs noted self-made instructional and administrative materials kept in digital

formats: MS Word, PowerPoint, Excel, video-CD, DVD, CD-ROM, and web pages. All departments

were represented with ICT, math, science and the Learning Resource Center being the most common.

Based on CfSK 2008 baseline information and current enumerator checklist data (see Annex D, Teacher

Training Colleges—ICT Equipment), net increase in the number of computers at 17 reporting PTTCs is

153 (from 719 to 872) with the average number per TTC rising from 42 to 51. There were ten TTCs

that had an average increase of 26 computers, with one experiencing no change, and six TTCs that had

an average decrease of 18 computers (Kaimoisi, Kericho, Narok, Thogoto, Kigari, Kamwenja). Some

TTCs feel little ICT benefit has reached them from TEPD. Table 1.4.1(Annex B) indicates that principals,

ICT coordinators, and tutors feel that the positive effects of TEPD ICT support have increased in Phase

2 relative to Phase 1, possibly due to the inclusion of ICT integration in TIC Module 2, and the

cumulative effects of exposure over time to the coaching of the ICT Coordinator/Master Trainer. ICT

Coordinators at all TTCs have estimated the percentages of all tutors that are using various computer

applications. Table 1.4.3 shows that in 21 of 24 reports over half of all tutors are able to use: MS Word,

Excel (14 of 24 reports), PowerPoint (18 of 24), Email (19 of 24), and scanners and cameras in 10 of 24

reports. The Kaimosi TTC has run ICT awareness workshops for hundreds of primary and secondary

head teachers, indirectly extending the benefits of TEPD ICT trainings to in-service teachers.

ACE: The inspiration for the project was a $9.3M Clinton Global Initiative Commitment from the same

partners to put ICTs in 18 TTCs, 40 secondary and 20 primary schools over four years – in line with the

MOE’s priority for secondary school computing. When funding was reduced to $5.82M, USAID’s

preference for primary schools held the primary school number at 20 as TTCs and secondary schools

were reduced to three. The new project duration was three years.

The ACE model, decided by the

ACE partnership, is essentially 50 laptops and server storage stored in a locked mobile case and

recharging station with a wireless network.

In part but not entirely due to the novation process (where

FHI 360 took over from AED and reportedly TEPD could not spend project funds for a few months),

the use of ACE equipment in schools started late. Equipment specifications that Intel provided as

recommendation to the ACE partnership were reviewed by all the partners and ready in February 2011

but review

and recommendation to move forward for purchase was not received by USAID/Kenya

until June 2011. (See Annex N: ACE Equipment Specifications). The equipment Request for Quotation

Cisco became disenchanted with the project with the loss of 15 TTCs and 37 secondary schools, the appropriate

sectors for their trainings.

Another model, Badiliko, from the British Council and Microsoft is being considered for the primary school ICT

market. Unlike ACE’s wireless approach it uses a wired thin-client design.

The review is called an ADS 548 Program-Funded IT Review. A USAID bureau reviews the procurement and

recommends to the Mission to move forward with the procurement.

went out in July and in November 2011 the contract was awarded to TechBiz. Though teachers were

soon provided laptops to prepare themselves, equipment for students was not provided in schools until

May–June 2012 well after the start of the only academic year left in the TEPD project cycle. FHI 360

quarterly reports reveal intensive training activity during the months preceding the installation of ACE

equipment. In spite of the delay, six of six Head Teachers and seven of seven Grade 5 and 6 ACE

teachers concur that they have been sufficiently trained to use the equipment as they teach ICT–infused

lessons. All these teachers and three of six Head Teachers personally use ICTs in teaching. All seven

ACE teachers find relevance and value in the ACE digital content, especially KIE’s Tafakari digital video

(Table 1.4.2, Annex B). A teacher at a special education school for the deaf noted the great value of

video in making what would otherwise be silently described concepts concrete and real for deaf

students. Speech-to-text software, however, is not working for the teachers there. There are also

reports of issues with the wireless networks. For example, the networks are unable to support many

simultaneous video streams without buffering. TEPD initially arranged for ACE school monitoring to be

done by TTC tutors. This was ineffective as teachers progressed ahead of tutors in ICT knowledge. In

August 2012 TEPD modified its approach to a peer support model, perhaps inspired by the MOE’s

secondary school “ICT Champions.” Monitoring choices have repercussions. According to the Mombasa

Area Education Officer/Mombasa District ACE coordinator, “Quality Assurance people felt left out

when they realized that the PTTC tutors were more in the program than they were.”

ACE teachers say students are now more motivated, have better attendance, and their level of

performance has improved. Teachers are experiencing excitement about their ICT–enhanced teaching

but also technical difficulties that often remain unaddressed between the once-a-term TechBiz service

visits. (See Annex R, ACE Teachers’ Comments on Their ICT Accomplishments and Challenges). All six

ACE primary schools reported having self-made materials including two schools where, in addition to

the staff producing PowerPoint presentations, primary students were making pictorial ICT materials.

TEPD is doing a learning gains study of ACE schools and control schools but results of the posttest are

not yet available; and the period of exposure may be too short for meaningful conclusions this year.

TEPD is also planning a “contextual impact study” to examine user issues. We analysed 2011 and 2012

end of year scores for Grades 5 and 6 in math and science for seven ACE schools in Mombasa. While

some schools show particular gains, the summary results are inconclusive. (Chart 1.4.1)

Conclusions

The impact of TEPD ICT Master Trainer approach on TTCs has been varied but in many places very

significant. Based on the target cohorts for TEPD ICT trainings, TEPD’s original Objective 3 (integrating

technology into preservice and in-service teacher education programs) has been achieved more in

preservice (PTTCs) than in-service (teachers in schools). The PTTC tutors themselves are “in-service”

and in that regard the in-service and preservice sectors have been served at once. Other in-service

teachers who might have benefitted are those in TP schools. While there has been some sensitization

and awareness training given to TP teachers via workshops offered by TTCs (e.g. Kaimosi), and possibly

as well by some ad hoc initiatives of PTTC student trainees during teaching practice, the impact on these

inservice teachers has not been significant. The only other target group of inservice teachers for ICT

integration training has been ACE school teachers. While the ACE component has been fully active in

schools only since May 2012, it has successfully trained over 250 in-service primary teachers and head

teachers since 2011. The fact that these teachers feel adequately trained is a significant that the MOE

may study and build on as it decides on subsequent designs for ICT systems in primary schools.

However, 250 teachers is a small number given the ACE project costs per school. And while the impact

on ACE teachers' skills is very encouraging, the impact on student outcomes is still unknown.

The ACE project was implemented late and under the pressure of time. At the start of the three-year

ACE project, TEPD had just two years left. Had TEPD not been extended, it would have ended just as

schools began using ACE equipment (May 2012). There are also ongoing usability issues at a number of

schools related to wireless networks and software. The Intel representative said that with TEPD’s time

running out there was a sense of “crisis management” in the ACE project. While there were significant

delays in starting the project occasioned by the program’s novation period, during the transition period

and beyond, the TEPD/ACE team was committed to ensuring that ACE project activities were

implemented successfully despite the experienced delays. Still, the late start means that a meaningful

evaluation will be very hard or impossible to accomplish during the life of the project. A project of this

magnitude and potential deserves a full academic year evaluation cycle and preferably two such years.

Element 5. Initiate Skills-Based Training Relevant to HIV/AIDS in Preservice Teacher

Training

Like gender, HIV/AIDS education has been mainstreamed by the MOE since before TEPD began.

Educating student trainees at PTTCs in HIV/AIDS and Life Skills is in the TTC’s Performance Contracts

and so it is not largely dependent on USAID. Funding is available from the government annually to

provide HIV/AIDS education and sensitization to every incoming trainee. The team’s attempt to assess

impact attributable to TEPD relies on trainer and trainee reports, survey data and primary video

evidence of educational activities. Much of TEPD’s work in HIV/AIDS has been done through a

partnership with CfBT Education Trust through two subagreements. CfBT managed both the DfID–

funded Primary School Action for Better Health, and the USAID–funded Secondary School Action for

Better Health (SSAPH). The Phase 1 subagreement, with a focus on training, was approved by USAID

only in Year 2. According to a TEPD PMP report at the end of Phase 1, 48 National Trainers and Subject

Lecturers, 358 Master Trainers and 38 Administrators had been trained in HIV/AIDS and Life Skills. For

Phase 2, CfBT and AED agreed that they should try to reduce the prevalent perception that CfBT’s

TEPD activities were not integrated in TEPD. A two-year Phase 2 subagreement broadened the range of

activities to include TTC trainings in 1) operational planning for a multimodal intervention, 2) integration

and prevention, 3) implementing a “Say No to Stigma Campaign,” 4) managing Voluntary Counseling and

Testing (VCT centers, 5) quality control for cascaded training of 16,000 first year TTC students. TEPD

also put a new HIV/AIDS Prevention Program Manager on staff to be a day-to-day liaison to CfBT and to

promote other structures at PTTCs: Community Health Days/Weeks (CHDs/Ws) and Youth Friendly

Centers (YFCs). TEPD’s multimode HIV/AIDS intervention approach was widely applied and regarded

very positively at both the college and community levels. Charts 1.5.1–1.5.3 TEPD HIV Components by

Respondent Type show the status of the various TEPD HIV/AIDS and Life Skills components/activities as

reported by PTTC HIV/AIDS coordinators, principals, and tutors. Notably, in Chart 1.5.2, 12 of 12

HIV/AIDS Coordinators state that TTC education practices have changed due to TEPD, and 11 of 12

feel “confident” or “very confident” that they can train other tutors in these sensitive subjects.

Seventeen of 23 TTCs have VCT center activities supported by various agencies (NACC, AIDS Control

Unit, National AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Program/District AIDS and Sexually

Transmitted Infections Control Office (DASCO)). And 22 of 23 principals report having held CHD/W

activities with one uncertain. Impressive video evidence of Bondo PTTC’s lively weeklong CHW

program was reviewed. Twenty-one of 23 principals report holding “Say No to Stigma” campaigns with

one uncertain. Of six TTCs sampled for close review, only Kaimosi had a Youth Friendly Center (YFC).

Others have identified rooms for YFCs pending finance from TEPD or others. TEPD is pursuing options

of purchasing equipment directly and delivering it to colleges before the close of the project.

HIV/AIDS and Life Skills Education Training Manual. The TEPD HIV/AIDS training manual built on

the previous CfBT manuals written under the Primary School Action for Better Health and Secondary

School Action for Better Health projects. Much new content was developed for PTTC tutors and

trainees. At TTCs, 52 of 53 tutors and 12 of the 12 HIV Coordinators reported having the manual. The

HIV Coordinator at Kagumo DTTC said, “We have one for every tutor. The manual is very

comprehensive but it does not have a table of contents and that is needed. It is so good. We use it.”

The CfBT Final Report to TEPD of their Phase 2 contract provides a balanced assessment of the impact

of their TEPD–funded activities, in which they “conclude overall, the cascading approach used by master

trainers at the college level met the minimum quality standards of an effective training program.” The

coordinator at Kilimambogo reported students having “more readiness to discuss HIV/AIDs issues…

and many are ready to go for VCT services.”

Conclusion

Partnering with CfBT was an effective management strategy that leveraged prior expertise. There has

been significant integration of HIV/AIDS awareness in education activities at PTTCs and some schools.

The Master Trainings have been effective. Trainer confidence levels are high with wide use of the

manuals. As a result of TEPD trainings PTTCs are now coordinating widely with various agencies to

provide local VCT services for students, tutors and the community. There is significant uptake of the

CHD/W idea with activities accomplished (22 of 23 TTCs) and a desire to replicate them. Finally, there

is little impact of the Youth Friendly Center concept so far.

TEPD Conclusions Relative to Objectives, Goals, and the Development Hypothesis

The evaluation team concludes that: 1) the TCF was largely achieved; 2) skills development through

materials was not achieved; 3) skills development through the TIC, Teaching Practice and PDC was

achieved; 4) skills through ICT training and equipment was partially to largely achieved (though benefits

are uneven across TTCs and TEPD is but one contributor to a larger ICT process), and ACE objectives

were partially achieved, though, with very late delivery, ongoing technical issues and incomplete

incorporation in the MOE; and 5) skills development through HIV/AIDS education was achieved.

Comparing the 2007 baseline and current situations, the vast majority of subjects report that TTC

education is much improved. This is supported by trends in student trainee test results in Education

courses over recent years. In-service teachers also report improvements in processes and relationships

between Teaching Practice schools and the TTCs. TEPD ICT has helped enable these developments.

The original development hypothesis is thus confirmed. The HIV training component was not essential

to the development hypothesis, though competencies related to HIV/AIDS widely improved.

QUESTION 2. COMPLIANCE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

The evaluation team assessed compliance on two levels: 1) how did this six-year project maintain focus

on the objectives and activities described in the Cooperative Agreement, Modifications and Supplement,

and how did it evolve in the light of new information and changing circumstances; and 2) how did it

account for project progress in various required reporting to USAID.

To characterize compliance on the first level, the team examined funding documents to extract key

aspects of the program descriptions. These were compared to correlated activities described in the

annual workplans. The team also examined the quarterly reports that give a finer grain analysis of target

setting than do the PMPs. TEPD uses quarterly reports to define, in detail, what its immediate plans are,

and what and how it has performed against the previous quarter’s targets. There is so much detail in the

20 quarterly reports that it is not productive to try to systematically analyze progress across the entire

project using those documents, though they provide important detail that has enriched this report.

Rather, for compliance analysis, the evaluators have focused on the original Cooperative Agreement

(May 31, 2007), Modification 07 (May 19, 2010), and Supplement 12 (June 6, 2012); and all workplans

provided by FHI 360 (years1–3, 05/31/2007; year 2, 08/15/2008; year 4, 07/30/2010; year 5, 08/03/2011;

and extension year 6, 08/02/2012).

The team has correlated and placed the program descriptions and workplan activities side by side (see

Annex F, Compliance for Accountability Correlations), and organized them by the five TEPD project

objectives/elements, by project phase (Phase 1, orange; Phase 2 and extension year, blue), and by project

year (2, 4, 5, 6). The sequence of activities for each element shows evolution of the project including

management recalibrations designed to attain objectives not yet attained, to attain new milestones

required by new funding, or those created responsively as TEPD managers developed a subtler

understanding of the opportunities and problems of the context. For example, there is no mention of

PDCs in the 2007 program description. However, PDCs are now seen as a critical feature of the project

and a potentially powerful structural addition to TTCs that will be instrumental in creating healthy

professional linkages within the PTTC itself, with Teaching Practice and other primary schools, and with

TAC tutors and other in-service providers. This change happened gradually. In the Year 4 workplan

PDCs are mentioned in the context of Master Tutors delivering Module 2 of the TIC, which is where

the focus of the project rightly was at the time. PDCs appear in the Year 5 workplan, however, in a

whole new light with plans for helping TTCs to identify PDC team members, initiate Action Research,

induct new tutors who come to the college, identify a room from where PDC activities can be managed,

and plans for other PDC activities and policy setting. Similar arcs of project development can be

observed for Teaching Practice.

Review of the workplans also highlights the recurrence of uncompleted deliverables. For example, the

MGLC manual that was to be field tested in year 2 was still to be finalized (along with the Gender

manual) in the Year 4 plan. The Year 5 plan shows the MGCL at the “final stage to be printed” and again

in Year 6 it remains to be printed. The impediments that the project experienced in its many areas of

operation that explain such delays may or may not be described in TEPD quarterly reports. In addition,

certain commitments of the original program descriptions are not acted on, such as that made in 2007

to measure impact over the three-year life of the project using Kenya Certificate of Primary

Examinations (KCPE) scores from 12 sample schools.

Secondly, school governance programs

mentioned in 2007 have no correlated workplan activities, though benefits may have been conveyed, for

example, through the engagement of School Management Committees in sustainability planning for ACE.

The review of workplans also shows the inclusion of new activity areas: ACE and HIV/AIDS. In year 4

TEPD starts “coordinating” ACE, which is described broadly in that plan. In the year 5 workplan

(08/03/11) TEPD is noted as “managing” ACE. The ACE project required much ongoing adjustment. At

one point in mid-2011 equipment installation was expected in September 2011 (though no contract was

signed until November 2011), and start-up in classrooms was projected for January 2012; as earlier

described, hardware installation in schools took place through at least May 2012. The HIV component

arrived in 2007 and in a year became a major creative area with significant target outputs. Management

wisely engaged CfBT for that component. The review of workplans thus shows that TEPD remained

flexible throughout implementation.

ACE GDA Issues. There has been no attempt to account for the value of the leveraged contributions

actually delivered to the project by the various partners.

While potentially significant, justifying those

amounts are, if not a hard requirement, a best practice. Accounting for the leverage contributions to a

GDA project is the responsibility of the GDA implementer, which is how the unsigned ACE

memorandum of understanding (MOU) describes the role of FHI 360.

This proposed indicator was removed not by oversight, but by design and agreement with USAID because, for a number of

reasons, it was found not possible to show a causal relationship between PTTC tutors, their trainees and KCPE Grade 8

scores.

“Leverage describes the quantifiable contributions provided by resource partners to a Global Development Alliance

(GDA)…and a mechanism for tracking / reporting that contribution,” FY2012 GDA Annual Program Statement (APS), page 15.

The ACE MOU version provided to the evaluators included Cisco Certified Network Administrator

(CCNA) training for 26 institutions, which Cisco did not provide and so is unwilling to agree to in the

MOU. When the evaluators informed them that this responsibility was still in the MOU, Cisco

expressed surprise and sent a version they edited in August 2012 that they are willing to sign which

excises that CCNA commitment. While describing an important guiding moral agreement, the MOU is

not a legally binding document.

In addition, the MOU states that USAID contributed $2.6 M in cash.

The record provided indicates rather that TEPD received $2.5 M in GDA funds.

The Project Monitoring Plans. Project progress is monitored via indicator targets in Performance

Monitoring Plans (PMP). TEPD PMPs exist for each of the six years of the project, but since Year 2 they

have not been managed in a way that allows verification of PMP targets previously set. At the end of the

first two project years, as shown in quarterly reports dated June 30, the PMPs contain actual indicator

outputs alongside the targets. This is no longer done regularly. TEPD engaged an outside firm, Microde

Consult from 2007 to 2009 to assist with M&E functions. A “TEPD PMP database was established at

AED, Shanzu and Garissa TTCs and continuous monitoring and reporting activities were initiated.”

TEPD management informed the evaluators that after Microde completed its engagement the M&E

record keeping system for PMP reporting changed. The TEPD M&E manager in Nairobi receives or

generates documentation of activities and keeps it in various forms.

Summaries are forwarded to

Washington for reporting PMP data to USAID. The PMPs, however, exhibit multiple problems. First, it

appears that the PMPs are revised annually. Between end of Year 3 (June 2010) and end of Year 4 (June

2011) the number of educators trained in basic and advanced ICT and also in integration of ICT changed

from 1200 to 220. Between Years 4 and 5 the Life of Program "number of other educators trained in

HIV/Aids Life Skills” changed from 1280 to 433 with only an additional 68 set as a target for Year 6.

Secondly, it also appears, and the preceding may indicate, that Annual Target columns are being in used

in subsequent years to record outputs, thus confusing the meaning of the column heading, “Target.” For

example, in the PMP report dated 08/02/2012 the Y4 and Y5 Target columns show for "Number of

educators reached through HIV/AIDS life skills training" the numbers 11,076 and 11,687. The same two

targets in the PMPs for years ending June 2010 and June 2011 were both 8000. There are other

instances of this type of double use of the Target columns: there are "na" insertions in a great many cells

in the PMP tables where one might expect a number or some information. Where there is information,

it is most often in the form of "achieved,” “partially achieved,” etc. A note in one PMP states that "na"

indicates "data not applicable because we either did not have a target or data will be collected at a later

stage." For example, the number of gender materials printed and disseminated in the Year 2 PMP is

2,000. This number becomes a target for year 4. In the year 4 PMP, the former year 2 target becomes

“na.” In year 5, the year 4 target is again eliminated and the 2,000 distributed copies move to year 6.

Conclusion

The TEPD project has been implemented as proposed. Since it began with a particular focus on TCF,

TIC and ICT, TEPD has taken on new and expanded challenges in arenas that required subcontracting

(HIV) and GDA partnering (ACE). The ACE Alliance has not quantified the leverage contributions of the

various partners as required by GDA guidelines. PMPs have not been used consistently and correctly.

Having a signed GDA MOU before initiating key project activities is a best practice.

Teacher Education and Professional Development (TEPD) Program, (May 2007 to May 2010), Monitoring and Evaluation,

Report of Activities, (Dec. 17, 2008, through Dec. 16, 2009).

A data-quality assessment of TEPD did not call attention to problems in data management. The TEPD M&E officer was away

from Nairobi for the whole week after the evaluators completed KIIs and we did not have a chance to inspect TEPD systems

for recording PMP data, so we rely on descriptive information from TEPD management.

PMP indicators used by TEPD do not correlate with those used by USAID/Kenya. Meeting output

targets and delivery schedules has been an ongoing difficulty for TEPD, especially in the area of materials

development and the ACE project. Delays in completing manuals may be due to TEPD’s commitment to

producing collaboratively with the MOE and SAGAs. While TEPD has been overstretched and at times

unable to put sufficient energy into its commitments to hit targets in the core areas sooner and harder,

TEPD has exhibited creativity in trying to amplify the value delivered to TTCs and primary schools (e.g.,

PDCs, ACE technologies).

QUESTION 3. SUSTAINABILITY AND LOCAL CAPACITY

Element 1. Establish a Framework for Enhancing Teacher Competencies

According to MOE INSET and TEPD, the TCF is “pegged” by reference in the draft NESSP paper and

that should assure its official adoption. The “peg” is the inclusion of the four umbrella domains outlined

in the TCF: Knowledge, Teaching Skills, Assessment and Evaluation, and Professional Values and

Behavior. (The 46 competencies are organized under these domains.) TTC uptake of the TCF has

begun. At least one PTTC has put the TCF in its Performance Contract. While some MOE and SAGA

personnel feel the document must go through one more step to be taken fully on-board by the system,

a group interview with the Teacher Service Commission (TSC) revealed that consultation and

engagement in developing the TCF was inclusive:

“One of us was a member of the TCF writing committee. It's a very good document. KIE

was right. They should take it through a forum for adoption. The process has been

inclusive (KIE, TSC, Kenya Institute of Special Education [KISE]…). While participation

was wide the MOE was shepherding it so much many felt left out when it went to the PS

for final approval. It needs Cabinet Approval. It has not been presented there yet.” TSC:

Justus Ndubi, Asst. Director; Hilary Lukhafwa, Deputy Director; Vitalis Juma, Dep.

Dir. Teacher Management Primary

“TEPD is in the NESSP since Kanja was there. The Teacher Competency Framework is

mainstreamed now.” Onesmus Kiminza, Senior Deputy Director, MOE Policy and

Partnerships

Conclusion

After fuller adoption the TCF will be sustained, even more certainly if it is found practical (e.g., the TSC

Code of Conduct is universally known among teachers and it may soon borrow from the TCF). The

long processes of TCF development have required dialog and collaboration on essential professional

issues, thus building understanding and capacity in the MOE and participating institutions.

Element 2. Improve Skills by Introducing Teacher Education Materials

The processes of developing the MGLC and Gender manuals were inclusive. For example, the Gender

manual writing team comprised of representatives of MOE (2), KIE (2), KISE (1), NACC (1), PTTCs (2).

Personal capacities built in team writing processes translate into institutional capacities as long as people

remain in their posts. The fact that it has taken four years to write and approve these manuals says

something more than “MOE bureaucracy,” but what that is remains unclear, as is the degree to which

FHI 360’s and TEPD’s modus operandi has been responsible for the level of institutional commitment

and ownership of TEPD outputs at the MOE.

“We didn’t think this was our project. This was an MOE project.” Seth Ong’uti, COP, TEPD

“FHI does not report to INSET. The MOE is just coordinating. We have delegated

implementation to TEPD on our behalf. Our role is an oversight role. In most cases we get

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CENTERS: VIEWS

FROM THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

“There are 1,052 zones, and that is too many for

resource centers, and so that idea slowed in the

past. If the TSC can equip the zones… the MOE

gave 120,000 per year per zone, and they did so

much. This is money to the TAC centers. In that

case the PDC won’t be anything but a research

center—at a higher level than the TAC center. The

colleges want to use the PDCs to solve their own

problems. On the other hand, CEMASTEA or

others could use the TTCs as training centers. This

is attractive, because accountability for trainings

would be easy, since the TAC centers often do not

even have a secretary. And you could empower the

TAC tutor to avail himself of the PDC. The PDC

would connect preservice to INSET, getting the

linkage that has been lacking.”

—Musyoka Nyamai,

Senior Assistant Director In-Service Training, MOE

reports since the MOE is represented at the planning and implementation stages. And we

get an annual report. There are generally 3 parts to those reports: TCF / Teaching Practice

/ PDC.” Musyoka Nyamai, MOE INSET

This being said, there is some indication of ownership with the INSET department preparing to integrate

the MGLC into a training campaign using the TAC system. The materials are being used by EMACK.

Conclusion

Authoring of the MGLC and Gender manuals was quick, but approval has been very slow, though finally

successful and likely sustainable. Now approved, the MGLC and Gender manuals have a good chance of

entering circulation to the degree that finance can be found to print and distribute them. Integration of

MGLC into MOE INSET and TAC practices and the use of MGLC by EMACK indicate commitment and

specific support. Development of the two manuals has furthered a working relationship between and

among TEPD, key SAGAs and the MOE. There is no indication that the process of developing of the

INSET Materials CD–ROM has built capacity. If the TIC explicitly promoted use of the CD–ROM that

might help deepen its contribution to capacity development.

Element 3. Improve Skills of PTTC Tutors Through a National Induction and Training

Program (TIC)

Tutor Induction Course. Almost all TTC tutors have been through the complete TIC, which has now

organized the way new tutors are inducted. TTCs have been urged to take all new postings through the

entire course, though this is not yet happening. If infused into annual college programs offering full TIC

refresher courses through the PDCs, the TIC could help fulfill the requirement of the TSC (the tutors’

employer) that tutors undergo some form of in-service training at least every three years, a task that

KEMI could alternatively take up.

Teaching Practice. TEPD initiated the process

of training Teaching Practice coordinators and

directors from the PTTCs on techniques of

making Teaching Practice a more productive

exercise. They developed the Harmonized

Teaching Practice Assessment tool themselves—

thus leading to ownership. The synchronization

of the tool was organized through KIE with the

MOE QAS distinguishing it as the standard tool

used by the Kenya National Examination Council

in assessing trainees’ Teaching Practice. The

periodic training of TTC tutors, Teaching

Practice school head teachers, senior teachers

and cooperating teachers before the onset of

teaching practice has built the capacity of

participating schools to support trainee teachers

and strengthened the relationship between

PTTCs and Teaching Practice schools to make

Teaching Practice even more productive.

Professional Development Centers. TEPD

helped all colleges establish PDCs. These are critical for both TTC self-improvement and for community

learning as TTCs collaborate with schools through action research. Such research has become the most

significant aspect of the PDCs. Initial action research projects were financed by TEPD and there is some

concern expressed by TTCs about their potential to maintain dynamic PDCs through an ongoing

program of action research and training using available funds. Together with tutors, TEPD developed a

PDC Handbook that has been distributed in some TTCs. Eight of 23 principals reporting said their TTC

has the handbook while 12 said they did not,

and three did not know. These PDC inputs have begun to

build capacity to manage PDC activities while promoting ownership of the concept and practice. A

three-day all-staff refresher of the Tutor Induction Course at Kaimosi (January 2013) was financed by

TEPD at a cost of about KES 187,000. It is unclear if and when TIC refreshers might be done again.

Through the Teacher Education and Development Investment Program under NESSP, the Ministry of

Education proposes to improve the pedagogical skills and enhance tutor competencies through

continuous professional development for serving teacher trainers. To this end, the MOE seeks to

establish a center for induction of teacher educators posted to TTCs on pedagogical skills and to

provide adequate and appropriate teaching/learning materials through upgrading Learning Resource

Centers in TTCs. To accomplish this the MOE may factor PDCs into the budget possibly through a

capitation model similar to CEMASTEA/ Strengthening of Mathematics and Science in Secondary

Education (SMASSE) through the Free Primary Education Policy.

The idea of PDCs is not entirely new with TEPD, as there have been resource centres in each college

and TACs in all zones in the country tasked with building teachers’ capacity. Strengthening the resources

and capacity of PDCs to be hinges and regional centers for teacher professional development—working

with TAC tutors, the MOE Quality Assurance and Standards Officer and TSC—will further reinforce

the linkage between in-service and preservice.

Conclusion

Now that TIC Master Trainers are at the TTCs and most staff have been through six days of the course,

understanding and capacity have been built. The TIC is now an appreciated reference material used by

Heads of Departments when new staff arrive. The Teaching Practice structure is durable because it

represents a superior way of doing one’s regular work. Three-day annual Teaching Practice trainings

may not be so easily financed but one school suggested that if they do not bring as many people from

each school for training/sensitization each year, it still would work. Finally, PDCs are new structures and

they need champions who share the vision of PDCs as links between higher quality education practice

and the field. There is support at the MOE for PDCs but whether it is for infrastructure only or also for

activities (action research, training) is unknown. If PDC activities were explicit in the NESSP, that would

greatly help TTCs continue to build capacity. The TIC, Teaching Practice, and PDCs are all vulnerable in

various degrees to the loss of TEPD funding.

Element 4: Improve Skills and Build Capacities at PTCs through ICTs / ACE: Integration of

ICTs

Information and Communication Technologies at Teachers Training Colleges. The President’s

office has made ICT support staff available to all Ministries. There is also the new National ICT

Innovation and Integration Centre (NIIIC) budgeted at ~KES 40M/year and now with a staff of six. NIIIC

reports that their “help desk is almost ready to take off.” Such a desk may fulfill functions like

TEPD/TechBiz’s phone support system. In the proposed 2013–14 budget in the Teacher Education and

Development Investment Program document prepared for NESSP is a specific budget request for ICTs

Not all colleges received the Handbook at the point of this evaluation.

VIEWS ON ICT SUSTAINABILITY AFTER TEPD

“After FHI 360 there should be a smooth transition.

It was good that FHI took the HT and the SMC to a

training on sustainability. At the national level we

have come up with another framework: capitation

and accessing the Free Public Education funds (As

with CEMASTEA). There is money for paper, water,

electricity, but not ICT. We have recommended KSH

100 to 200 per child. This needs to be crafted into

the NESSP.”

—John Temba, MOE ICT Integration Team Leader

“If NESSP is funded we will put up ICT for funding so

we would like a partner. If USAID pulls out we are

not prepared for a handover. The PDC's were not

catered for. We have not worked out yet how to put

up the funds to maintain the ACE project. It is

difficult to hear that they are leaving. They should

have given us a document on how much money to

schedule for each activity. We need the Treasury

there also - not just the MOE. If USAID could fund

one more year we could begin to engage the

Treasury to sustain. We are now putting in place a

new government and there are many competing

interests. We need Seth to really practically look at

the budget and there is little for the TTCs. We have

no idea if it will be funded.”

—Ms. Rotich, Director of Basic Education

and Learning Resource Centers at KES 2 million for each of 22 TTCs.

Study of ICTs is required at

both PTTCs and DTTCs, though it is not an examinable subject.

In this light, ICT training and

utilization of TEPD assets at TTCs will certainly continue. “Ownership” and ICT integration are more

important than mere presence of equipment. At Kagumo, it is a policy that each of the 25 departments

should have at least ten lessons each term that are ICT enabled. Second year students there have four

days a term when they must use the Intel Teach CD and manual. At Shanzu, the policy is that every

tutor must know how to use PowerPoint and integrate ICT in lessons. Asumbi reports, “We have

managed to buy 14 laptops as TEPD pushed internal demand.” Regarding maintenance, TTCs visited

reported that they have begun to put ICT sustainability measures in place. Kagumo budget allocates KES

400,000 for ICT maintenance, KES 1.2 million to purchase hardware and software, and KES 500,000 for

training (including ICT and HIV/AIDS for teaching and nonteaching staff). Twenty of 23 TTCs visited

(except Migori) have internal personnel who can provide at least some maintenance services beyond the

end of the project, and ten (including Migori) have such external personnel. Multiple key informant

interview subjects have suggested a capitation fee for ICT maintenance.

Accelerating 21st Century Education. Over

time the MOE intends to equip all 7,000

secondary schools with ICTs. They are

enthusiastic about getting started on primary

school ICTs and are debating the best way

forward and will be looking closely at

evaluations of the ACE and Badiliko models. In

spite of any technical difficulties they may

have, ACE teachers are using the equipment

in teaching and lesson preparation. TEPD

structured a maintenance service-level

agreement for all ACE installations between

TechBiz and the MOE. This agreement runs

through late April 2015. While two more

years of maintenance are assured, that

maintenance has not been entirely adequate

to keep all the wireless network systems

running. Nor have the TTCs been effective in

supporting ACE schools. Kagumo’s ICT

Coordinator said he was “not sure what the

ACE secondary schools are doing… It was

never clear that tutors and students should

support the schools.” Various vulnerabilities

were observed or cited by users: e.g., laptops

being unable to access the server, inadequate

bandwidth to support many students together

watching digital video over the network

(buffering), and very long repair times for

some equipment – especially items not

Basic Education Director Rotich said this line item could be used for PDC support. Would this include training and action

research costs?

It is an examinable subject at DTTCs—but only for those seeking that option in subject certification.

COMMUNITY HEALTH DAY

“We had Community Health

Day in 2011 - in fact a

Community Health Week. We

want to have one every

October.” - Principal, Tambach

PTTC

serviceable in Kenya. TEPD has sponsored sustainability workshops for ACE schools and ACE school

heads say they have discussed various plans and put some plans in place for sustaining and maintaining

the equipment. Typically those solutions rely variously on SMCs to help raise funds, constituency

development funds, and “well-wishers.” The Board of Governors at Kibarani has budgeted to maintain

ACE equipment from a KES 200,000 MOE grant they get as a boarding school. In Garissa, a Regional

ICT Support group has begun to organize under TEPD guidance. It includes representatives from the

ACE school Head Teachers and SMCs, the TTC, and the DEO. They have already dealt with such issues

as security for equipment. When schools have technical issues they cannot yet deal directly with the

MOE, they call TEPD who may escalate the issue to TechBiz for support. Significantly, the NIIIC may be

poised to take on such phone help responsibilities though they will not be decentralized to the counties

for some time. Regarding possible scaling up of ACE, unit costs can be variously computed. With

unquantified leverage at $5.82 million per 26 installations, unit cost amounts to ~$224 thousand each.

With USAID cash only at $2.5 million, the cost equals $96,000 each. TechBiz estimated that the ACE

equipment would cost around KES 3 million per school. The MOE says it may be closer to KES 4M

(about $35,000 to $47,000). The MOE ICT Integration Team is leaning toward a 2:1 or 3:1 student to

computer ratio to cut costs and address equity of provisioning. However, they report being “tired of

pilot projects” and want to get moving on a gradual rollout of some kind.

Conclusion

The impact of the TEPD ICT Master Trainer and cascade approach has been significant for PTTC tutors

as have been the direct and cascade trainings for ACE teachers. The combination of CfSK initial training

and TIC Module 2 ICT integration training has helped PTTCs get moving in ICT skills development, a

process TEPD has accelerated but that also has other drivers and which is now being carried forward by

the TTCs themselves. System vulnerabilities exist in the ACE model, including the skills needed at the

school to keep the wireless networks running and troubleshoot various issues. Monitoring and support

of ICTs in ACE schools through the MOE and TSC systems has not been mobilized, however the ICT

Champions model for secondary schools holds some potential and the NIIIC structure looks promising.

While sustaining the 20 primary and 3 secondary ACE schools is a major issue, an even larger question

for the primary sector is what model is (or models are) scalable.

Element 5. Skills-Based Training Relevant to HIV/AIDS in Primary Teachers Training

Colleges

HIV/AIDS education activities are included in all TTCs’ Performance Contracts and must be

implemented. TEPD is responsible, in some cases, for inclusion of TEPD–promoted activities in these

contracts, which TTCs have to report to the government (Office of the Prime Minister). HIV/AIDS is a

crosscutting issue and is infused and integrated in all subjects

according to the principals and tutors at the nearly all the TTCs.

All colleges reported that they have an annual budget from the

Treasury, which will enable them to continue with some of the

TEPD HIV/AIDS activities beyond May 2013, though likely at a

scaled down level if other funding is not secured. The Department

of Policy and Partnerships responsible for the AIDS Control Unit

(ACU) within the MOE said the ACU has a vote head per TTC

currently at KES 360,000 a year. The ACU trains them on how to

use these funds, which originate at the National AIDS Control Council (NACC), and designs the

programs with the TTCs. TTCs might also seek funds to continue providing antiretroviral and test kits

from MOH (DASCO), AIDS, Population and Health Integrated Assistance Plus, PEPFAR, Liverpool, and

other development partners.

There are encouraging signs that TEPD–type activities may continue at TTCs. Kagumo reported they

have an annual budget of KES 200,000 for HIV/AIDS activities. Seventeen of 23 TTCs reported they

have VCT center activities supported by the MOH and other development partners and would continue

these services, which they see as essential. TEPD has helped TTCs establish links with NACC for both

reporting and future funding. All TTCs have had some staff trained on HIV Testing and Counseling under

TEPD and are prepared to use their TEPD experience beyond May 2013. Many are hoping to have

TEPD support to do another CHD/W this year and get their YFC established. TEPD is trying to get the

PTTCs to do CHD/W this year on a reduced budget. Kibabi established a YFC using mostly their own

funds. TEPD is working on a way to purchase equipment directly and deliver them to colleges before the

end of the project.

Conclusion

Continuation of many HIV/AIDS activities is assured as some are required and there are other agencies

with which the TTCs will continue to work. TEPD has guided the initial implementation of the popular

Community Health Days/Weeks. TTCs are likely to replicate them and other trainings in future years if

funds are available. However, they are vulnerable to significant downsizing and simplification if funding is

not found. The Youth Friendly Centers, which are not yet in place in most colleges, do not have high

recurrent costs if a large spare room is available for the purpose and initial modest furnishings can be

purchased. Without some agency to push this idea for a new structure, YFCs may be forgotten.

QUESTION 4. LESSONS LEARNED, DIFFERENCES IN ADOPTING TEPD

CHANGES

Why are some colleges demonstrating more professional progress than others in adopting changes

proposed by TEPD? An answer may be found in the zeal with which key individuals have taken up the

project and in the way that zeal translates into policies and practices. A number of examples from the

TTC level:

Kaimosi. The principal has a strong personal interest in TEPD and is doing her Masters thesis on TEPD.

The college has set aside rooms for the PDC and YFC. Kaimosi is conducting trainings for hundreds of

teachers in content that the TTC Master Trainers have mastered through the TEPD project. They are

also developing their own Master Trainers in areas beyond those specified by TEPD (e.g. emerging

issues).

Bondo. The former principal reported that when TEPD started she made sure all tutors were

introduced to ICTs. Though some did not want to, about 70 percent accepted. The TTC then stopped

having secretaries type exams for the tutors. In the end even the reluctant 30 percent learned ICTs.

Then she had the support staff trained. Finally the watchmen were trained to do email and they then

better understood the importance of preventing ICT thefts.

Mosoriot. Microteaching and peer teaching “have taken root,” informed by the action research defined

by Mosoriot, but promoted by TEPD. Mosoriot has only a virtual PDC but this has not inhibited them

from incorporating the action research model that is central to initial PDC activities.

Meru. The TTC principal, who is also the Secretary of the TTC Principals’ Association, listed policies

that had been affected by TEPD: HIV/AIDS policy—having an annual Community Health Day, a Youth

Friendly Center, a Professional Development Center; a policy on interaction between the Teaching

Practice schools and the TTC, and on changes in assessment of trainees in Teaching Practice schools.

Kamwenja. The principal mentioned changes to the TTC’s Teaching Practice policy.

Shanzu. The TTC requires tutors to use PowerPoint.

Kagumo. As cited earlier, the TTC requires 10 ICT infused lessons per term for each of the 25

departments. Kagumo now also provides free Internet to students in their hostels. The principal

characterized the change brought by TEPD as “momentous.” Now tutors do their marks and

continuous assessment via computer and the registrar demands soft copies.

From the MOE, TSC, SAGA level, the evaluators have observed a range of differences. The project is

well understood in the INSET department, which has been responsible for getting the TCF into the

NESSP. However, the MOE and SAGAs appear to suffer from “information silos.” Though TEPD has

always interfaced with the MOE through INSET, INSET itself has been under three different directorates

since 2007: first QAS, then Basic, and now Field and Other Services. There appears to be a lack of

communication from INSET to other departments and directorates. Poor intra- and inter-institutional

communications has led, for example, to a weaker embrace of the TCF by the TSC and KIE, though KIE

is using it. And as noted before, the TSC felt “left out” of the process, as did KIE until 2010.

Conclusion

PTTC vision leaders can optimize outcomes at the college level. There is much more sharing needed

among directors and staff at the MOE to break down the “silo syndrome” so that an institutional

commitment to programs, as distinct from a departmental commitment, can arise more easily. Slower

endorsement of change leads to slower adoption. Mere representation from SAGAs and the MOE via

designated participants in project activities (e.g., writing workshops) without full buy-in from

management does not guarantee uptake.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The evaluation team identified the following recommendations:

Element 1. Teacher Competency Framework

1. TEPD and the MOE should hold a joint stakeholder forum for “official” approval of the TCF before

May 2013. It would be better not to leave it to the INSET department of the MOE to do so alone.

Element 2. Educational Materials

2. TEPD should fix the PDFs (for readability) in the INSET Materials CD ROMs.

Element 3. Tutor Induction Course/Professional Development Centers/Teaching Practice

3. Delivery of the TIC by PTTCs to newly engaged tutors should be better structured to guarantee

concrete and systematic induction. Full refreshers like those done at Kaimosi should be done

occasionally. (As already scheduled by TEPD, the two modules should be merged and printed for

final dissemination to colleges.)

4. TEPD and MOE should hold a stakeholder forum for adoption of the TIC (like that recommended

above for the TCF) and include prominently the TSC and MOE QAS.

5. Since most PTTC graduates have to wait three to four years before they are first hired as teachers,

the MOE/TSC should run a full induction course just before they are engaged. MOE/TSC should also

develop a program so practicing teachers are regularly brought to inductions after three to four

years of work in the schools. This would help address TSC requirements for periodic in-servicing.

Gideon Opem of KEMI suggested that, “within the TSC there should be a person who is appointed

to coordinate PDC activities.” This is a sensible recommendation that the evaluators second.

6. KIE should finish the PTTC curriculum revision for the three-year diploma course as soon as

possible and access to that course of study should qualify students to get loans from the Higher

Education Loan Board (HELB). Later government employment would assure repayment of loans.

DTTC students should also have access to those loans since they compete with university students

who have access, so this is a fairness issue.

7. The MOE should engage Treasury to provide additional budget to primary schools based on

enrollment—commonly called “capitation fees.” These funds would not constitute a conflict with

the Constitution (re: free and compulsory basic education) as these would be budgetary allocations

at the Treasury level as part of funding for Free Primary Education. “Capitation fees” per enrolment

(or an equivalent budget line for each school) would allow primary schools to purchase services not

only in support of technology, as is also proposed for ICT, but also to pay for in-service training

costs as such fees now do for SMASSE courses. Such funds would enable and support PDC trainings

and reinforce the link between the preservice and in-service sectors.

Element 4. Information and Communication Technology and Accelerating 21st Century

Education

8. TTCs: A rescan of TTCs’ ICT status should be done to see how to better equalize ICTs across all

21 PTTCs.

9. ACE: TEPD or USAID should work with the MOE to study the Badiliko project, which Microsoft is

also a partner, closely for its limitations and possible greater practicality and lower costs, and for

ways in which it might inform a follow-on to the ACE project, possibly a hybrid solution. USAID and

the MOE should consider a longitudinal study over another 1-2 years of ACE’s effects on the

performance of students and teachers.

10. ACE and any future primary school ICT: As above in regard of training, the MOE should

engage Treasury to allow primary school “capitation fees” (or an equivalent budget line per school)

for purposes of ICT purchase and maintenance. Schools should be given a budget to manage that

allows them to develop a greater sense of “ownership.” For maintenance in the near future, schools

should identify a local person to do the work—probably a private person—until the government has

a decentralized technical support system in place. The county can mandate a maintenance account

and schools can spend the money and account for it.

11. Digital Content: In consultation with the MOE’s ICT Integration Team, KIE’s Kenya Institute for

Curriculum Development should open up access to a wider universe of digital educational content.

That KIE is both the main producer and gatekeeper of educational resources constitutes a conflict of

interest that may seriously limit options for schools.

Element 5. HIV/AIDS

12. USAID and its partners should continue to fund the same range of HIV/AIDS and Life Skills

activities at the TTCs as were undertaken under TEPD. TTCs understand the rationale for these

various college-based activities and can manage and produce them. The priority activities most

reliant on TEPD as the donor are the CHD/W, YFC (both were unique with TEPD). USAID may

also join with others to continue to support VCT and refresher trainings as needed. TEPD should

reprint the HIV/AIDS manual with a table of contents.

Compliance for Accountability

13. It is not advisable to start a 3-year project when there are only 2 years left in the implementer’s

cooperative agreement, as was the case with ACE. As happened here, more time may be needed.

14. PMPs: Insert a column for “Actuals” to the right of each Target column and annually record actual

outputs. Do not change historic PMP targets. Make a note if one is renegotiated.

15. GDA: Refer to GDA guidelines and do the required accounting for/quantification of each partner’s

actual leverage contributions in monetary terms.

16. Keep a tighter focus on the original objectives rather than be pulled into projects that, while related

to the core, are tangential to the original focus and whose unforeseen problems can mushroom.

TEPD might have been able to produce even more benefit for the PTTCs with fewer activities and

more attention to the TTC’s ongoing needs. Had USAID’s $2.5M for ACE rather been programmed

as ICT support to the TTCs, their ICT equipment and integration situations would likely be far

stronger than they are today.

Sustainability and Capacity

17. Such projects should report quarterly to a group of senior GOK managers (MOE, KIE, KEMI,

CEMASTEA, Kenya National Examination Council, TSC) with feedback and briefs on progress.

TEPD should try to engage more of the MOE for feedback. The MOE can recommend TEPD

components to NESSP so they can become national programs. NESSP Preservice and In-service can

be strongly linked.

Finally, in response to USAID’s request that we highlight the main project components that need to be

“moved to the next level,” as indicated above, attention should be given (in no particular order and

without limitation) to the following: 1) the stakeholder forum (or forums) and any subsequent

activities/structures that promote the wider regular use of the TCF and the greater application of the

TIC; 2) the funded institutionalization of the PDCs with ongoing support for their action research and

in-service trainings, including trainings for Teaching Practice school leaders and TTC tutors run by the

TTCs on a regular recurring basis; 3) completion of the revised PTTC curriculum; 4) determination of

an affordable primary school ICT model that can be gradually rolled out with thorough evaluation for

iterative design; 5) printing of the targeted 5,000 copies of the MGLC manual so the MOE can realize its

value in the areas it was intended to serve; 6) finalizing the HIV/AIDS manual and the unified TIC manual

and printing and distributing both of them, as well as the Gender manual, in sufficient quantities so that

their value can be realized; 7) supporting the YFC and CHD/W so that they can take further root; and

8) equalizing to a greater degree the ICT capacities/resources across PTTCs.

TECHNICAL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

The following are a few issues that deserve consideration and appropriate action:

1. The MOE and TSC need to iron out the contradictory visions that their middle and senior

managements appear to hold about the future of their respective organizations in the “professional

development” of teachers. The MOE Education Secretary says they will be addressing this soon.

2. Can NESSP still be adjusted, and if so would inclusion of PDCs as important funded structures and

activities be possible?

3. We have the word of Ms. Rotich, Director of Basic Education, that funds could be used to support

PDCs from the same proposed budget line as for ICT and Learning Resource Centers. Would this

extend to activities or only infrastructure?

4. There is a lack of ownership of significant aspects of TEPD at the MOE. Officials appear little aware

of TEPD activities. One reason may be the information silos that the Directorates seem to work in,

who are possibly “silo-ed” more in relation to TEPD than to other activities that were more

internally motivated and designed. Another reason may be that there was no early budget mapping

of TEPD structures to inform the MOE of the costs of ownership of various activities. This would

allow them to put these activities in next year’s budget (suggestion from Ms. Rotich).

5. What are the next steps for ACE? The project needs to be effectively supported and sustained. The

findings of TEPD’s Contextual Impact Study and the imminent Badiliko evaluation need to be studied.

6. How can funds for PTTCs be secured? Because the capitation model is used for CEMASTEA

SMASSE trainings at PTTCs, this is a model various respondents have suggested could be used for

other subjects than secondary math and science (including the TIC). This would help sustain the

PDCs. Schools could then pay for INSET at the TTCs and this might help fulfill TSC requirements

for training every 3 years. Note: CEMSATEA’s mandate is broadening both in range of subject

matter and geographic service area. In its new form it may be a logical provider or conduit for TIC

trainings and PTTC/PDC support. However, whether this or another institution does the training is

less important than that a practical funding model is found and that some institutions do it.

7. The TTC Principal’s Association wants to be managed in the MOE from another department than

Basic Education—they suggest “higher” “tertiary” or “teacher education.” They feel they do not get

the support they deserve and need from Basic Education.

ANNEXES

U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523

TEPD EVALUATION APPENDICES

CONTENTS

ANNEX A STATEMENT OF WORK .................................................................................................... 2

ANNEX B: DATA TABLES..................................................................................................................... 5

ANNEX C: DATA CHARTS .................................................................................................................. 9

ANNEX D: TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGES - ICT EQUIPMENT ............................................... 13

ANNEX E: TEPD COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................ 16

ANNEX F: COMPLIANCE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY CORRELATION OF PROGRAM

DESCRIPTIONS & WORK PLANS ...................................................................................................... 29

ANNEX G SUBJECTS REACHED ........................................................................................................ 44

Mombasa ........................................................................................................................................... 44

Garissa ............................................................................................................................................... 45

Rift Valley, Western and Nyanza ...................................................................................................... 46

Central and Nairobi .......................................................................................................................... 48

ANNEX H: KEY INFORMANTS .......................................................................................................... 49

ANNEX I: NUMBER OF EACH KIND OF INTERVIEW / RESPONDENT REPORTS COMPLETED

.............................................................................................................................................................. 49

ANNEX J: COLLEGE SITES VISITED ................................................................................................... 50

ANNEX K: MAP OF COLLEGES VISITED .......................................................................................... 51

ANNEX L: CONTENTS OF INSET MATERIALS: CD-ROM .............................................................. 52

MODULES ........................................................................................................................................ 52

MANUALS ........................................................................................................................................ 52

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 52

ANNEX M: TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (PRE-

PRIMARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) ......................................................................................... 53

ANNEX N: FINAL ACE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (PROVIDED BY THE VENDOR,

TECHBIZ) ............................................................................................................................................. 62

ANNEX O: WORK PLAN (WITH DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS) .................................... 66

ANNEX P: PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .............................................................. 104

ANNEX Q: EXTENT TO WHICH PTTCS USE ICTS IN COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ................... 105

ANNEX R: ACE TEACHERS’ COMMENTS ON THEIR ICT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND

CHALLENGES .................................................................................................................................... 106

ANNEX S: INDICATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................... 107

ANNEX A STATEMENT OF WORK

A.2.1. Overview

Under this task order, MSI shall conduct a final performance evaluation of the TEPD project, primarily

to inform USAID and the GOK on what has worked and why. The final evaluation submitted by MSI

must allow USAID to accomplish three primary purposes:

1) to examine the extent to which the project’s objectives and goals – at all results levels – have been

achieved;

2) to capture best practices and lessons learned that can be applied by the Ministry of Education in the

future; and

3) to present findings and practical recommendations that will inform USAID’s Education project

designs.

The methods and the final evaluation must be consistent with and meet the standards of USAID’s

Evaluation Policy (especially Appendix I), and the USAID Forward Quality Evaluation criteria.

A.2.2. Key Evaluation Questions

The evaluation must address the following questions:

1. Program Impact: Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes stated in A.1.2., and did

those lead to the intended goal? If not, identify why not (was the development hypothesis flawed

in some way?) and provide recommendations for strengthening the development approach that

was used.

2. Cooperative Agreement Compliance for Accountability: Was the project implemented as proposed in the

program description and the work plans, including components such as monitoring progress and

the use of data collected for making informed decisions on project implementation and broader

policy?

3. Sustainability and local capacity: What evidence is there that the project did or did not build the

capacity of participating institutions to achieve TEPD goals, and for the Ministry of Education to

mainstream this approach?

4. Lessons Learned: Were there differences in how participating institutions adopted changes

proposed by the project; did those differences influence project impact and why?

A.2.3. Evaluation Design and Methodology

MSI shall utilize a design and methodology to generate the highest quality and most credible evidence that

corresponds to the questions being asked above using sound social science practices and tools used in a

manner that minimizes the need for evaluator-specific judgments.

MSI shall also consider the following important information in its design:

1. The Shanzu and Garissa PTTCs were designed as pilot institutions and were expected to be

model colleges, so must be included;

2. USAID would like to see all 21 PTTCs and 2 DTTCs in TEPD program at least surveyed; those

to be targeted for more in-depth investigation can be proposed by MSI and/or discussed with

the USAID Education Team.

3. In addition, the evaluation should include or sample the 20 primary schools linked to the project

(10 each in Garissa and Shanzu), and three secondary schools are linked to Kagumo DTTC.

B.1. KEY PERSONNEL

The evaluation team shall include one Senior Level M&E Advisor, as well as one Education, Teacher

Training and Gender expert. All team members must provide written disclosures of any prior conflict of

interest, and MSI must ensure necessary safeguards are in place to prevent any subsequent conflicts of

interest.

C.1. CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST

Deliverable

Due Date

Introductory Meeting: Upon formation, the evaluation team will

review the scope of the work, formulate any questions, propose a

schedule for meetings and field work, and articulate specific

responsibilities of individual team members. This will be presented by

the Evaluation Team and discussed in a meeting with the Education

Team, MSI staff, and the MSI Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR) for approval before field work begins.

No later than January 14,

as all field work must be

done between January 21

and Feb 9, 2013 due to

school calendar and the

Kenya elections.

Briefings of progress to date, including any issues or problems

encountered. May be conducted in person or via email as agreed at the

initial meeting.

Weekly

Presentation of preliminary findings and conclusions of the evaluation

to USAID/Kenya and key stakeholders.

No later than 4 weeks

after #1.

Draft Final Evaluation Report. USAID will provide comments on the

draft report within 7 days of receipt.

No later than 3 days after

#4.

Final Evaluation Report that incorporates responses to Mission

comments.

No later than 7 days after

receiving comments from

the COR on #5.

Note: All days are calendar days.

C.1.1. Report Format

The format for the evaluation report shall be as follows, and the report shall be a maximum of 25 pages

not including annexes. The report format should be restricted to Microsoft products and 12-point font

should be used throughout the body of the report, with 1” page margins. Four bound hard copies shall

be submitted, and an electronic copy in MS Word. In addition, all data collected by the evaluation shall

be provided to USAID in an electronic file in an easily readable format; organized and fully documented

for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. If the report contains any potentially

procurement sensitive information, a second version report excluding this information shall be submitted

(also electronically, in English).

1. Executive Summary—concisely state the most salient findings and recommendations (3 pg);

2. Table of Contents (1 pg);

3. Introduction—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 pg);

4. Background—brief overview of development problem, USAID project strategy and activities

implemented to address the problem, and purpose of the evaluation (2-3 pg);

5. Methodology—describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1 pg);

6. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—for each evaluation question (10-15 pp);

7. Issues—provide a list of key technical and/or administrative, if any (1–2 pp);

8. Annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists and tables should be

succinct, pertinent and readable. These include references to bibliographical documentation,

meetings, interviews and focus group discussions.

C.2. APPLICABILITY OF THE BASE IDIQ

All terms and conditions from the basic IDIQ apply to this task order.

C.3. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

BBFY

EBFY

Fund

Prog Area

Dist Code

Prog Elem

SOC

Amount $

ANNEX B: DATA TABLES

TABLE 1.2.1 INSET-MATERIALS CD-ROM – ESTIMATED REAL USAGE

INSET-Materials CD-ROM:

Estimated Real Usage

Tambach

Eregi

Mosoriot

Asumbi

Total

Total Tutors

264

Tutors estimated to be using

INSET CD

TABLE 1.2.2 INSET-MATERIALS CD-ROM – REPORTS OF USEFULNESS

INSET-Materials CD-ROM:

Usefulness

All Tutors

(n=53)

ICT Coordinators

(n=24)

Not Useful

Somewhat Useful

Useful

Very Useful

Don't Know

TABLE 1.3.1: AWARENESS OF AN EARLIER INDUCTION PROGRAM BEFORE THE

NEW TUTOR INDUCTION COURSE

Aware

Tutors

(n= 53)

Yes

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.3.2: CHANGE BETWEEN EARLIER TUTOR INDUCTION PROGRAMS

AND THE NEW ONE FROM TEPD

Change

Tutors

aware

(n= 16)

Much worse

Worse

No change

Better

Much better

TABLE 1.3.3 LEVEL OF THE NEW TIC’S POSITIVE EFFECT ON TEACHER

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Effect of TIC on Teacher

Professional Development

Principals

(n=23)

Tutors

(n=53)

None

Little

Somewhat

Much

Very much

Don't know

TABLE 1.3.4: AVAILABILITY OF PDCS, PDC COMMITTEES, COORDINATORS,

HANDBOOK AND MATERIALS

Response

(n=53)

PDC

Coordinator

PDC

Committee

PDC

Handbook

PDC Ref.

Materials

Yes

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.3.5: IMPACT OF PDC

PDC effect on professional

development of tutors

PDC effect on in-

service Teachers

PDC effect on

Student trainees

Principals

(n=23)

Tutors

(n=53)

Principals

(n=23)

Tutors

(n=53)

Principals

(n=23)

Tutors

(n=53)

None

Little

Much

Very much

Don’t Know

TABLE1. 3.6: POSITIVE EFFECT OF TEPD ON QUALITY OF LINKAGE BETWEEN

PTTCS AND TP SCHOOLS

Tutors

(n=53)

TP school heads

(n=72)

Yes

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.3.7: HEAD TEACHERS AND TEACHERS RECEIVED TP RELATED

TRAINING AT PTTC

Head Teachers

(n=72)

Teachers

(n=72)

Yes

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.3.8: LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AND COOPERATION AND VIEWS ON TP

Viewing teaching

practice a burden

Change in level of activity and

cooperation

Head Teachers (n=72)

Yes

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.3.9: GREATER EASE TO RECRUIT TP SCHOOLS SINCE TEPD

Tutors

(n=53)

TP school heads

(n=72)

Yes/Easier

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.4.0: VALUE FOR TP SCHOOLS IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH PTTCS

SINCE 2007

Tutors

(n=53)

TP school heads

(n=72)

Much less

Less

No Change

Much More

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.4.1 POSITIVE EFFECTS OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 TEPD ICT SUPPORT

ON TUTOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ICT Coordinator Reports

(n=24)

Principal Reports

(n=23)

Tutor Reports

(n=53)

Phase 1 (CfSK)

Phase 2

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 1

Phase 2

None

Little

Somewhat

Much

Very much

Don’t Know

TABLE 1.4.2 ACE PRIMARY SCHOOL HEADS AND TEACHERS

Question

ACE Heads

Gr. 5/6 ACE

Teachers

Yes

Have teachers been sufficiently trained to use computers

and digital educational materials provided by TEPD/ACE?

(but few)

Has ACE provided workshops to create subject-specific

lesson plans (e.g., math, science, and HIV/AIDS)?

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning?

Has the ACE content been made locally relevant?

n/a

Level of satisfaction with current maintenance services?

U-Unsatisfied, N-Neutral, S-Satisfied, VS-Very Satisfied

U-2, N-3, S-1

U-2, N-2, S-2, VS-1

TABLE 1.4.3: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NO. OF TUTORS ABLE TO USE

COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT

Percentage

Word

(n=24)

Excel

(n=24)

Excel

Formulae

(n=24)

PowerPoint

(n=24)

Scanner &

Camera

(n=24)

0-49%

50%-100%

ANNEX C: DATA CHARTS

CHART 1.3.1: GARISSA PTTC THREE YEARS’ EDUCATION

MEAN SCORES

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

Education Education Education

2010 2011 2012

GARISSA PTTC

CHART 1.3.2: SHANZU PTTC THREE YEARS’ EDUCATION

MEAN SCORES

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Education Education Education

2010 2011 2012

SHANZU PTTC

CHART 1.3.3: TAMBACH PTTC THREE YEARS’ EDUCATION

MEAN SCORES

Education Education Education

2010 2011 2012

TAMBACH PTTC

CHART 1.3.4: EREGI PTTC THREE YEARS’ EDUCATION

MEAN SCORES

Education Education Education

2010 2011 2012

EREGI PTTC

CHART 1.3.5: BONDO PTTC THREE YEARS’ EDUCATION

MEAN SCORES

Education Education Education

2010 2011 2012

BONDO PTTC

CHART 1.3.6: MOSORIOT PTTC THREE YEARS’

EDUCATION MEAN SCORES

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

Education Education Education

2010 2011 2012

MOSORIOT PTTC

CHART 1.4.1: ACE PRIMARY SCHOOLS’ 3 YEARS EXAM RESULTS ANALYSIS

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

5 6 5 6 5 6

2010 2011 2012

Bamburi Primary

Maths

Science

Linear (Maths)

Linear (Science)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

5 6 5 6 5 6

2010 2011 2012

Magongo Primary

Maths

Science

Linear (Maths)

Linear (Science)

5 6 5 6

2011 0 2012 0

Mbaraki Girls Primary School

Maths

Science

Linear (Maths)

Linear (Science)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

5 6 5 6 5 6

2010 2011 2012

Kisauni Primary

Maths

Science

Linear (Maths)

Linear (Science)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

5 6 5 6 5 6

2010 2011 2012

Makupa Primary

Maths

Science

Linear (Maths)

Linear (Science)

5 6 5 6

2011 0 2012 0

Mwijabu Primary School

Maths

Science

Linear (Maths)

Linear (Science)

CHART 1.5.1 HIV COMPONENT REPORTS FROM

PRINCIPALS

22 22

1 1

HIV/AIDS Component Outcomes - 23 Principals' Reports

Yes / Have

Don't know

CHART 1.5.3 HIV COMPONENT REPORTS FROM ALL

TUTORS

0 0 0

HIV/AIDS Component Outcomes - 53 Tutors' Reports

Yes / Have

Don't know

CHART 1.5.2 HIV COMPONENT REPORTS FROM HIV

COORDINATORS

0 0

HIV/AIDS Component Outcomes - 12 HIV Coordinator Reports

Yes / Have

Don't know

CHART 1.5.4: GENDER PARITY

1.02

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Male Female GPI

Students' Gender Ratio

Tambach

Eregi

Mosoriot

Kaimosi

ANNEX D: TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGES - ICT EQUIPMENT

TTC

Computer

Systems

Printers

Software

Computer

Lab

Internet

connectivit

Surge

protector

Scanner

Video/digit

al camera

TV set

LCD

projector

Networking

ICT usage

and

integration

in the

syllabus

Photocopie

Muranga

Baseline

Nil

Low

Endline

32 (30 Desk tops &

2 laptops)

DSTV

Eregi

Baseline

Nil

Low

Endline

71 (69 Desktops &

2 Laptops)

DSTV

Kaimosi

Baseline

Available

Nil

Few

Low

Endline

43 (40 Desk tops &

3 laptops)

DSTV

Migori

Baseline

Nil

Available

Nil

Availabl

Low

Endline

88 (80 Desktops &

8 Laptops)

DSTV

Asumbi

Baseline

Available

Nil

Availabl

Low

Endline

30 (25 desktops &

5Laptops)

DSTV

Bondo

Baseline

Available

Nil

Low

Endline

43 (40 desktops & 3

laptops)

DSTV

Kericho

Baseline

40 desk tops &

Available

Nil

Low

Endline

4 (3 Desktops & 1

laptop)

DSTV

TTC

Computer

Systems

Printers

Software

Computer

Lab

Internet

connectivit

Surge

protector

Scanner

Video/digit

al camera

TV set

LCD

projector

Networking

ICT usage

and

integration

in the

syllabus

Photocopie

Narok

Baseline

Availabl

Low

Endline

18 (14 desktops &

4laptops)

Mosoriot

Baseline

Available

Nil

Low

Endline

Tambac

Baseline

Available

Nil

Availabl

Low

Endline

77 (70 desktops & 7

laptops)

Availabl

DSTV

Moi

Baringo

Baseline

Available

Availabl

Low

Endline

77 (70 Desktops & 7

laptops)

Available

Shanzu

Baseline

Available

Nil

Availabl

Low

Endline

66 (40 desktops &

22 laptops)

DSTV

Thogoto

Baseline

Available

Telkom

wireless

Low

Endline

48 (46 desktops & 2

Laptops)

Availabl

DSTV

Meru

Baseline

Available

Nil

Low

Endline

60 desktops

Available

Nil

Kigari

Baseline

Available

Nil

Low

Endline

70 (67 desktops & 3

laptops)

Available

DSTV

TTC

Computer

Systems

Printers

Software

Computer

Lab

Internet

connectivit

Surge

protector

Scanner

Video/digit

al camera

TV set

LCD

projector

Networking

ICT usage

and

integration

in the

syllabus

Photocopie

Egoji

Baseline

Availabl

Low

Endline

53 (51 Desktops & 2

Laptops)

Availabl

DSTV

Machako

Baseline

Available

Nil

Endline

Kamwenj

Baseline

Available

Availabl

Limited

Endline

27 (25 desktops & 2

Laptops)

DSTV

Garissa

Baseline

Available

Nil

Low

Endline

59 (37 desktops &

22 laptops)

Available

Availabl

Kibabii

Baseline

Endline

105 (87 Desktops &

18 Laptops)

DSTV

ANNEX E: TEPD COMPLIANCE

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

Demo

How many administrators are there

working at this PTTC?

4 plus

finance

plus

finance

Demo

How many student trainees study

here?

1019

509 m,

510 f

1088

541 m,

547 f

1019

506 m

513 f

112

576

Demo

And how many are on the Board of

Governors?

now

dissolve

Have you received the Multigrade

and Large Class Teaching manual

from TEPD and if so how many

have you received?

to the

library

one in the

PDC

in the

library

about

20-30

Have you received a Gender and

Gender Mainstreaming in Education

manual from TEPD and if so how

many have you received?

from

MOE

w/ no

TEPD

input

in library

we have

only the

2007

one

from

MOE

from

the

MOE

2007

only,

each

dept.

about

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How many or about what percentage

of the Master Trainers re using the

gender manual?

cascade

d to 10

manual

from

TEPD

not sure

they

discuss

with the

gender

coordina

tor

all

augmen

ted by

other

material

How many or about what percentage

of the tutors re using the gender

manual?

manual

from

TEPD

10%

via

MOE

ESSP

How many tutors are employed at

this PTTC?

How many Master Trainers are at

this PTTC?

6.1

How many Departments are there in

this PTTC?

7 plus

guidance

7 plus

financ

recogniz

ed by

MOE

plus TP

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How many of the green CD-ROMs

called Teacher Education and

Professional Development INSET

materials did your PTTC receive

from TEPD in Sept ‘09?

library,

Dean

also

loans

out

copies

100

don't

know

but

estim

ate

about

How many or about what percentage

of the Master Trainers are using it?

? Only

one

they

know

of and

not

much

use

the ICT

people

got it

the rest

got it

late in

2012

How many or about what percentage

of the tutors (lecturers) are using it?

least

half

the

tutors

have

laptop

s, may

use

it…

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How many Tutor Induction Course

manuals did your PTTC receive from

TEPD?

140

module

1 and

module

140

70 of

each of

the 2

modules

54 Mod

1, 54

Mod 2

From 2009 to 2011 how many or

about what percentage of the PTTC

tutors completed Tutor Induction

Course training?

95%

82%

about 55

tutors

2 by

direct,

34 by

cascad

From June 2011 to June 2012, how

many or about what percentage of

the PTTC tutors were trained in the

Tutor Induction Course?

95%

82%

about 55

tutors

they

recall

the

conte

nt at

Kakm

ega as

mento

ring/g

uidanc

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How do you use the Tutor Induction

Course when you train with it?

see

long

notes

HODs ad

hoc

HOD

inducts

HOD

s use

only

modul

e 1

and

the

inset

disc,

modul

e 2

HODs

Do you have a PDC at this college?

launche

d Sept.

2011

yes

virtual

no room

allocated

Very

devel

oped

now

they

have a

room

we have

a room

for it

Do you have a Teaching Practice

Harmonized Assessment Tool from

TEPD?

yes

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

Was at least 1 TP director or

Educaiton Manager trained by

TEPD in improved Teaching

Practice?

Mr. Ali

three

times 2

at KIE,

Kakame

How many Head Teachers and

Teachers in your TP schools have

been trained through the TEPD

project to support improved TP?

108

36 x 3

sch., 1

day

each

HT,

ST,

Coop

120

each for

a day,

plus 54

tutors

also

trained

How many ICT modules did your

PTTC receive from TEPD in ~

2009-2010?

module

s -

small

CFSK

booklet

during

Phase 1

HODs,

HOS

were

trainees,

unable

cascade

this

Only

part

of the

T.I.C.

CfSK

prepar

notes

still

using it

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How many or about what percentage

of the PTTC staff at the

Administrator level were trained in

use of ICT in or around 2008-2010?

All 4

admin

,7Ho

D,exa

m,.

Finan

ce,

prede

cesor

went

Mom

basa

trainin

Principa

l and

Dean of

Curric.

How many or about what percentage

of the PTTC staff at the Tutor /

Lecturer level were trained in use of

ICT in or around 2008-2010?

mainte

nance

and

repair

28.40%

about

30%,

HOD &

HOS

targeted

Casca

plus

AED

direct

Mom

basa,

all

others

cascad

5 have

their

own

laptops,

all by

cascade

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How many or about what percentage

of the PTTC staff at the

Administrator level were trained in

integration of ICT into teaching in or

around 2010?

Prin,,De

Curric.

Plus

ICT,

Science

(2) at

Kakame

ga, 2

hours

only on

this

subj.

How many or about what percentage

of the PTTC staff at the Tutor /

Lecturer level were trained in

integration of ICT into teaching in or

around 2010?

about

30%,

HOD

(8) &

HOS

(13)

targeted

all

cascade

with

only 2

hours

on ICT

integrati

on as

above

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

About how many tutors that

completed the ICT training are

actively integrating the ICT skills and

knowledge acquired in the training in

their teaching?

overall,

out of

50%

about 10

of the

94%

few due

to lack

resource

From 2010 to 2012 how many In-

service Teachers / College Tutors /

Educational Managers were trained

in ICT/ACE activities?

Was the principal trained in 2010 or

2011 in ICT/ACE?

How can you tell if the students in

TP schools have improved learning

outcomes as a result of the TEPD

program?

yes

yes for

trainees

, no for

childre

yes

exams -

TP esp.

yes

What

HT, reg.

trainees

say

yes

see

them

prepa

ring

and

using

assess

change

bahavio

r, get

reports,

few

disciplin

e cases

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

How many HIV/AIDS manuals did

you receive from TEPD?

possibly

misunde

rstood

question

approx.

How many or about what percentage

of the PTTC staff and Board of

Governors were trained in

HIV/AIDS life skills?

85%

75.6

people: 1

BOG, 4

admin, 60

tutors

85%

all the

tutors,

BOG (?)

BOG

includ

2 MT,

others

and 2

BOG

all

tutors

plus

non-

teaching

staff

In 2012, how many Master Trainers ,

trainee peer educators, and Youth

Friendly Center managers trained in

HIV/AIDS life skills?

127

4 HIV

master

trainers,

3 YFC

manage

rs, and

120

"trainee

peer

educato

rs"

2 M.

Trainers,

4 YFC, 2

peer

7 MT &

YFC, 50

peers 1st

yr.

1 MT,

peers,

YFC

direct

and

peers

(14m,

14f)

3 plus

30 peers

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

Since 2007, how many or about what

percentage of student trainees were

reached with HIV/AIDS life skills

training?

"peer

support

ers"

2500

all first

year

students

100%

100

all 1st

year

1000

in 2010

About what percentage of the tutors

who complete HIV/AIDS life skills

training are actually integrating into

their teaching the HIV/AIDS life

skills and knowledge acquired

through the training?

all 7

trained

TEPD,

plus all

72 by

the

MOE

syllabus

100% of

those

trained

70%

100

all

Since 2008 how many or about what

percentage of tutors were reached

with Refresher Training in

HIV/AIDS life skills?

100

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

Have you had an HIV/AIDS

Community Health Day here? If so

please estimate the number of people

reached? How do you know?

1500

1000

trainees

, 250

nearby

school,

120

other

PTTCs,

130

commu

nity

membe

3000

1350

300

>10

In 2011 and 2012 did you have a

Youth Friendly Center here for

HIV/AIDS education?

not yet,

but one

has

been

propos

ed to

FHI

a room

is there

but no

funds or

activity

yes

in the

stude

center

TEPD Compliance Testing

Questions for PTTCs

Tambach

Notes

Eregi

Notes

Mosoriot

Notes

Kaimosi

Notes

Bondo

Notes

Asumbi

Notes

In 2011 and 2012 did you have an

HIV/AIDS Voluntary Counseling

and Testing center here?

yes

a room

is set

aside in

the

dispensa

yes

not a

fixed

center

but a

mobil

e one

with 3

traine

yes

How many or about what percentage

of the Tutors have been trained by

TEPD on HIV Counselling and

Testing?

HTC

4.5

1 tutor.

2 non-

teaching

tutor,

nurse

s, 1

lab

asst.

2 + 2

non

teaching

ANNEX F: COMPLIANCE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY CORRELATION OF PROGRAM

DESCRIPTIONS & WORK PLANS

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Ph1

A. Teacher Competence Framework

- A set of performance standards will be

created that builds on the recently

revised primary teacher education

curriculum. The aim of the Teacher

Competency Framework is to create a

linkage between pre- and in-service

training through unified, measurable

performance standards for teachers… to

create a linkage between pre- and in-

service training through unified,

measurable performance standards for

teachers.

Note: Year 1 work plan provided as part of

3-year plan in 1

proposal

- finalize analysis of the data collected from

field tests of the TCF

- work with the MOE on developing tools

to measure implementation of the

standards during year 2 including the likely

development of indicators

Note: Year 3 work plan not provided

- 1. A Integrate ICT competencies work that

has just started with GESI and MOE into

TCF SUGGESTION: Work with MOE

and MOE’s ICT in education partners

who are developing ICT teacher

competencies to integrate them with the

TCF.

- 1.B Develop performance indicators

Ph2

A. TCF

- Utilize the Teacher Competency

Framework to raise standards and

improve quality of both pre-and in-

service teachers.

- develop measurable performance

indicators in order to operationalize the

use of the TCF.

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Ph1

B. Capacity of PTTCs through materials

development and training

- B1. Capacity

- B2. Instructional methods and content

- B2a. Improved instructional practices in

all disciplines using existing in-service

materials for child- centered methods

- B2c. Improved methods and strategies

for addressing specific classroom

challenges in North Eastern and Coast

Provinces, including multi-grade, large-

class, and multi-shift classroom

situations.

- B2c. Relevant methods and strategies

used to address emerging issues, such as

HIV/AIDS, lifeskills, gender-sensitive

teaching methods and counseling, and

support for OVC

- developing training modules and new

materials in three difference areas – multi

grade instruction, large class instruction

and multi shift management.

- work with mixed Task teams from the

MOE, KIE, PTTCs and schools

- forge co-funding arrangements with the

MOE and other donors working towards

similar KESSP objectives

- field test the multi grade module and

materials at the Garissa PTTC and

associated practice schools, field test the

large class materials at Shanzu PTTC and

associated practice teaching schools

- assemble the best of existing gender

materials for use in the PTTCs

- 2.A Finalize MGLC and Gender manual

- 2.B Print and Disseminate MGLC manual

- 2.C Integrate MGLC manual into Module

2 and train on MGLC topic through the

induction program

- 2.D Collaborate with EMACK

Ph2

B. Materials:

- use/adapt existing materials developed in

Phase I to reflect the feedback from

users of the materials. Phase II of the

- program will involve incorporating these

materials into Module 2 of the Tutor

Induction Program.

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Ph1

C. Improved skills for tutors through a

national tutor induction and training

program: Tutors at all 20 PTTCs improve

their skills in adult training methods,

content knowledge and pedagogy.

- design the induction and training program

and develop training materials

- 3.A Finalize Module 2 for the induction

course

- 3.B Module 2 Induction Training

- 3. C Establish PDC, Mentoring and

Coaching

- Master Trainers will form the basis of a

PDC at each College. TEPD will also

provide these centers with reference and

training materials. The TEPD team will

work directly with KESI on the

development of the PDCs.

- 3.D Develop improved model for

Teaching Practice including Model

Classrooms

Ph2

C. TIC

- Develop and deliver the second module

of TIC to all 1,200 Tutors by the existing

cadre of National Trainers who train the

Master Trainers at the regional colleges.

- Master Trainers will form the basis of a

PDC at each College

- support practice teaching at three

primary schools near each PTTC.

- work with the KISE (Kenya Institute for

Special Education). Selected staff from

KISE helped develop the content on

special needs included in module 2.

- TEPD will work with KESI and KIE to

ensure that any curriculum that is being

reviewed incorporates TEPD ideas.

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Ph1

D. Instructional Delivery. PTTCs and

TACs use ICT for pre-service and in-

service teacher education.

- Computer labs and cybercafés at Shanzu

and Garissa PTTCs.

- TAC centers and cluster center schools.

- Small and Mobile Schools.

- sensitize and train PTTC principals and

identify required training courses and

target trainees for all 20 colleges

- roll out a sustainable method for

supporting computer labs at PTTCs,

beginning with Shanzu and Garissa with

the help of a Geek Corps Volunteer. The

strategy will likely involve designing a

business plan for each college that will aim

at creating enough income (by setting up a

cyber café or some other income

generating approach) to generate funds for

supporting internet connection and

funding for repairs of equipment.

- work closely with CFSK in adapting their

leasing model for schools (mostly high

schools) to extend to PTTCs and involve

the provision of equipment beyond just

refurbished computers (printers, DVD

cameras and players etc)

- 4.A Coordinate ACE Partnership

- 4.B Select 23 ACE Schools and Teachers

- 4.C Procure equipment for PTTCs,

DTTCs & SAGAs

- 4.D Design and Deliver an integrated

Training and Teaching Support Strategy

for ACE

- 4.E Deliver already developed Digital

Content for math and science to 23 ACE

schools

- 4.F Develop Policy Dialogue paper on

sustaining ICT at PTTCs and facilitate

Affinity Group meeting

Ph2

ICT/ACE

- TEPD will manage a public-private

partnership committed to improving the

quality of education through effective

use of technology … will manage the

training strategy and logistics, work with

MOE and KIE to make sure the content

is localized and fits the teaching

curriculum, procure the equipment,

provide follow-up and mentoring

support, help evaluate results of

integrating use of technology in

classroom teaching.

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Improve School Governance and

Community Support

- School management and governance

structures support improved quality of

teaching and learning in schools.

- Community-School Partnerships.

Partnerships between schools and

businesses, faith-based organizations,

and local NGOs create community

ownership of school improvement

programs.

Expected Impact and Sustainability

- Kenya Certificate of Primary

Examinations (KCPE) scores from a

sample of schools from the 12 clusters

targeted by USAID over the life of the

project. The SEP project has achieved a

1.7% increase in KCPE test scores; we

project that our project will achieve at

least a 3% improvement in test scores in

targeted schools by the end of the

project.

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Ph1

NOTE:

No HIV program was included at initial

funding Phase 1. With the addition of

$400K in PEPFAR funds (mid 2007) a

component was developed. Evaluators

were not provided any separate

agreement for that funding. A description

of HIV/AIDS activities can be found in

the 2008 workplan (Year 2). That

information is provided at right:

- Donna Kay LeCzel assisted a task team of

HIV/AIDS and education experts in

developing two main activities for the

additional funds ($400,000) in PEPFAR

funds. The first activity involved designing

a Community Health Day activity at each

of the colleges.

- In year 2, the program will implement a

community health day at two colleges and

invite representatives from all 20 colleges

to attend. The CHD involves a series of

activities that will culminate in a day event

intended to bringing in a full range of local

non-government and community based

organizations (NGOs and CBOs) along

with appropriate Ministry of Education

organizations such as the AIDS Control

Units of the Teachers Service Commission

and the Kenya Institute of Education, and

Ministry of Health representatives.

- Local communities and nearby primary

schools will be included in the planning

- 5.A Finalize Training Manual to be used by

Master Trainers and Tutors

- 5.B Provide training for 1,280 Tutors

- 5.C Provide support for Tutors, enable

them to guide Teacher Trainees integrating

HIV/AIDS into teaching and learning

- 5.D Implement CHD events at 19 PTTCs

and 2 DTTCs (11 per year)

- 5.E Tutor Capacity in Advocacy to Assist

Implement Say No to Stigma Campaign

- 5.F Establish Youth Friendly Centres (14)

- 5.G Train Personnel in Basic Skills to

Manage VCT Services (56 pers, 2-3 per

TTC)

- 5.H Establish & Support VCTs (in 14

TTC)

- 5.I Conduct M&E Activities

Phase 1 and 2 Program Descriptions

Work Plan – 08/15/2008 - Year 2

Work Plan – 07/30/2010 - Year 4 (Ph2)

Ph2

HIV/AIDS

- Skills based training to all Tutors &

Teacher Trainees and to build capacity

of PTTCs to support college based

HIV/AIDS activities

- Training college Tutors to effectively

integrate HIV/AIDS topics

- Indirectly training primary Teacher

Trainees to integrate

- Behavior change sensitization for the

Teacher Trainees

- Life skills education training

- Community Health Day

- Say No to Stigma” campaign 21 TTCs

- Establish VCTs at 14 colleges

- Youth Friendly Centers in 14 colleges.

and implementation of the CHD.

- TEPD identified a partner who has done

similar work in schools. TEPD developed

a SOW for Center for British Teachers

(CfBT) Education Trust to adapt their

training for in school teachers

- CfBT’s work in year 2 will be to conduct a

needs assessment in a sample of six

colleges in order to adapt materials to the

needs of lecturers. The revised materials

will then be used to train trainers in all 20

colleges. The MOE will then support

TOTs to deliver training in all 20 colleges.

TEPD PHASE 2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION – May 2010

“The expansion of the TEPD program is justified by the significant achievements across all five elements of Phase I.”

TEPD II Objective. The TEPD program will continue to support USAID’s objective of providing access to quality basic education to children from

marginalized communities. More specifically, Phase II of the TEPD program will aim to improve the quality of instruction at the PTTCs so that Teacher

Trainees can be better prepared to face the realities of classrooms in marginalized communities in Kenya.

Revised Program Elements. The TEPD team is proposing to keep the program’s five elements but update the language in each of the elements to

reflect the more ambitious objectives for the additional two years - June 2010 to May 2012.

“CHANGES IN STRATEGY” - Strengthen capacity of Master Trainers / Regional approach to TTC ownership / Sharing best practices

systematically / Sustaining innovations (establish PDCs)

No-Cost Extension Year 6 for Core

Activities, + $900K New PEPFAR funding

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

Yrs.

4-5

TCF:

- Utilize the Teacher Competency

Framework to raise standards and

improve quality of both pre-and in-

service teachers.

- Develop measurable performance

indicators in order to operationalize the

use of the TCF.

- TEPD will finalize the development of

TCF document and associated tools.

- analyze the remaining TCF data through a

task team workshop.

- international consultant will use

recommendations of TCF field reports to

refine TCF, develop TCF sample tools for

Pre-service, In-service, Curriculum, and

Quality Assurance among others to guide

- TEPD will work with MOE colleagues to

review the ICT competencies, develop

sample indicators and develop additional

tools to complete the development

process. The process will provide direction

for the MOE to develop subject-level

competencies. The document will be part

of the package to be submitted to the

MOE. Once the TCF is finalized, it will be

printed and distributed. Senior MOE and

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

Ext.

Yr.

TCF

Work with MOE colleagues to review the

ICT competencies, develop sample

indicators and develop additional tools to

complete the development process.

utility of TCF with Performance

Descriptors and provide suggestions for a

way forward.

- national consultant will take lead in the

sensitization of education managers and

will submit a completed and

comprehensive TCF document and related

tools to MOE. The consultant will further

develop TCF policy paper with the TEPD

team.

- Once the final draft of the TCF is

approved by MOE, the consultants

working closely with TEPD, will

sensitize/train education managers on the

application of the TCF using the tools.

The local consultant will also initiate policy

dialogue and point out policy related issues

with suggestions for the way forward.

SAGAs officials will also be trained on

utilization of TCF.

Yrs.

4-5

Materials:

- Use/adapt existing materials developed

in Phase I to reflect the feedback from

users of the materials. Phase II of the

- Program will involve incorporating these

materials into Module 2 of the Tutor

Induction Program.

- The multi-grade and large class module is

at final stage to be printed. Printing of the

first 2000 copies will be undertaken by

TEPD program and printed copies will be

entirely distributed to colleges.

- The INSET Unit through the TAC tutors

will conduct training on use of the

- The Multi Grade and Large Class (MGLC)

module was finalized in the last quarter of

year 5 and will be printed (2000) copies

and distributed to all PTTCs and also to

partners such as the USAID-funded

EMACK project. A small team will make

final improvements in the Large Class

section of the MGLC teacher training

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

Ext.

Yr.

Materials

- (MGLC) module was finalized in the last

quarter of year 5 and will be printed

(2000) copies and distributed to all

PTTCs

- supplementary training guide for MGLC

- Gender Manual is in the process of

being finalized and will be printed and

distributed early in year six.

materials. TEPD is working closely with

the INSET Unit and the team of writers to

ensure completion of this activity.

- collaborate with EMACK so that EMACK

can train some of their trainers to cascade

the same training to the schools and

teachers in Coast and North Eastern

province

- Inset Child –centered materials on CD

ROMs have already been distributed to

colleges. Gender training manual requires

competent editorial work. TEPD will work

in close collaboration with the MOE

Gender desk

manual/guide prior to printing. TEPD will

print the supplementary training guide

which complements the MGLC Module.

The Gender Manual is in the process of

being finalized and will be printed and

distributed early in year six.

Yrs.

4-5

TIC

- Develop and deliver the second module

of TIC to all 1,200 Tutors by the existing

cadre of National Trainers who train the

Master Trainers at the regional colleges.

- Master Trainers will form the basis of a

PDC at each College

- Support practice teaching at 3 primary

schools near each PTTC.

- Work with the KISE. Selected staff from

KISE helped develop the content on

special needs included in module 2.

- TEPD will work with KESI and KIE to

ensure that any curriculum that is being

reviewed incorporates TEPD ideas.

- The master copy/draft of the tutor

induction module combining module 1

and module 2 is ready for publishing.

- The final version will be shared with

Washington DC office for final formatting

and design work. The final version will be

distributed to colleges. Colleges will use it

for the refresher tutor induction course

with support of the PDC.

- The PDC team will be encouraged to

regularly use the module to induct new

tutors who come to the college

- College administration will be encouraged

to identify a team to lead PDC work at the

college level.

- Based on discussions with the MOE, it was

determined that improvements need to be

made to the last two (of ten) units in the

Tutor Induction Module. Once the final

two units are complete, formatted and

edited, 2,000 copies will be printed and

distributed. Support for PDC will

continue. This will include supporting

college-based training and action research,

disbursement of the 2nd and 3rd milestone

to all the 21 colleges, and enhancing

capacity of college tutors/PDC teams to

conduct action research and utilization of

results (including data analysis).

- A hand book to guide PDC teams on PDC

management and action research processes

and procedures in PTTCs will be

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

Ext.

Yr.

- Tutor Induction Course

- Improvements need to be made to the

last two (of ten) units in the Tutor

Induction Module. Once the final two

units are complete, formatted and edited,

2,000 copies will be printed and

distributed.

- Build the capacity of the PDCs

- Strengthen and support linkages

between PTTCs and TP schools,

- A team of about seven tutors will be

selected by the tutors to coordinate PDC

activities led by the PDC coordinator.

- Workshops will be conducted for the PDC

team from the 21 PTTCs and they be

trained on action research in an identified

research topic. Training these participants

on action research will be led by TEPD’s

M&E research team, TES, COP and

supported by the PDC task team.

- develop a policy paper on teacher

education and professional development.

- ensure that colleges identify a room from

where PDC activities will be managed

- work with the PDC coordination team to

develop action research proposals and

conduct the research.

- provide grants using the Fixed Obligation

Grant

- The consultative group will provide broad

policy related guidance to the development

of the PDC concept in colleges.

- Once the four pilot colleges start

operations, lessons will be quickly used to

roll out PDC activities in the remaining 17

colleges.

- strategy in improving TP in PTTCs and TP

schools will be rolled-out through

workshops

developed. A strategy to work with

MOE/INSET and research department to

support colleges to sustain TEPD-initiated

activities will be developed.

- Teaching Practice (TP) will be supported

through disbursement of the 2nd

milestone to all 21 PTTCs to strengthen

and support linkages between PTTCs and

TP schools

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

- TEPD also plans to partner with KIE in

developing a TP guide/handbook.

- A three day refresher induction courses

will be organized at the college level for all

tutors. The course will focus on how to

sustain tutor support at college level

perhaps through the PDC system.

Yrs.

4-5

ICT/ACE

- TEPD will manage a public-private

partnership committed to improving the

quality of education through effective

use of technology … will manage the

training strategy and logistics, work with

MOE and KIE to make sure the content

is localized and fits the teaching

curriculum, procure the equipment,

provide follow-up and mentoring

support, help evaluate results of

integrating use of technology in

classroom teaching.

- Continue to manage a public-private

partnership committed to improving the

quality of education through the effective

use of technology. In addition to procuring

the equipment, TEPD will provide follow-

up and mentoring support to educators,

complement the Tafakari materials by

developing a series of topic specific

learning projects that are aligned with areas

of the syllabus, and evaluate the results

- Teachers and students shall be empowered

to develop and implement sustainability

plans to manage the technology programs

in their schools. Interested Students from

- TEPD will continue to manage the ACE

partnership and implement the initiative.

Partner meetings are held on a monthly

basis to discuss and organize activities.

ACE coordinates and participates in the

meetings, and is responsible for the

minutes and coordinating follow-up

actions.

- ACE is also putting processes in place for

the sustainability and maintenance of the

equipment. These processes include

support teams, manuals, agreements and

trainings. College ICT tutors, the district

education office and other regional

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

Ext.

Yr.

ICT/ACE

- TEPD will continue to manage the ACE

partnership and implement the initiative.

- sustainability and maintenance of the

equipment: processes include support

teams, manuals, agreements and

trainings.

- workshops for developing and

integrating ICT in education resources

for teachers to use in teaching and

learning.

- workshop to create lesson plans that use

technology to teach topics in

mathematics, science and HIV/AIDS.

all classes shall be encouraged to join

Student Support Technician Clubs (SSTC)

to support usage and promote interest of

technology at their schools.

- utilize the last term of 2011 to help both

teachers and students begin to use the new

technology in teaching and learning so that

they are more comfortable and better

prepared for more formal learning

program we will introduce in the first

semester of 2012

- A core ACE activity is designing the

computer systems that will be established

in each school. A total cost of ownership

approach was used to both optimize

immediate project costs and lower on-

going support and maintenance cost

- The equipment is expected to be installed

in schools by September

- Most of the work involves direct support

to teachers in their respective stations in

the use of ICT in education, the ICT

Specialist and ICT Field Coordinator will

be spending most of their time in ACE

regions at the schools

- The ACE partners are expected to provide

support to the teachers to build confidence

to comfortably use ICT in the delivery of

the curriculum. TPED plans to encourage

the regional District ACE teams to co-opt

the local public and private sectors,

technical champions form the Regional

Technical Support Teams. The four

district education offices (Garissa,

Mombasa, Tetu and Kilifi) have each

signed a three-year service level agreement

(SLA) with TechBiz, who has the contract

for the ACE technical solution.

- Two resources are being created as

resources for the schools, 1) the ACE

Equipment Sustainability Toolkit and 2)

the ACE Equipment Handbook

- TEPD will continue to work with the

MOE to support a regional support team

approach (to include TAC Tutors) to build

school-level capacity for ongoing teacher

support. The regional teams will work with

the schools to develop sustainability plans

- ACE will organize workshops for

developing and integrating ICT in

education resources, two workshops per

region during August and December

holidays will be conducted

- A workshop will be held to develop test

bank items for the second round of

student testing for ACE.

- ACE uses an integrated framework made

up of a combination of surveys, interviews

and observations to examine changes in

the schools. These contextual evaluation

tools looking at changes and effects of

introducing technology at the regional,

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

community and parents in the

implementation of ACE activities in

schools. ACE will continue working with

other USAID funded programs in the

respective regions in areas of common

interest, synergy and collaboration e.g.

EMACK in Coast and North Eastern and

G-Youth in Garissa.

school, principal, teacher and learner levels

have been developed and used to conduct

a baseline assessment in March 2011.

Yrs.

4-5

HIV/AIDS

- Skills based training to all Tutors &

Teacher Trainees and to build capacity

of PTTCs to support college based

HIV/AIDS activities

- Training college Tutors to effectively

integrate HIV/AIDS topics

- Indirectly training primary Teacher

Trainees to integrate

- Behavior change sensitization for the

Teacher Trainees

- Life skills education training

- Community Health Day

- Say No to Stigma” campaign in 21

- integration of HIV and AIDS prevention

awareness into lessons and materials

- technical monitoring visits by experienced

and skilled Lead Trainers to mentor and

coach HIV and AIDS Coordinators

- conduct refresher training to all Tutors

with focus on integration

- Development and production of HIV and

AIDS training manual & various

integration IEC materials will be facilitated

as part of the integration process

- conduct a rigorous post training evaluation

of the integration training

- establish and equip two model Youth

Friendly (YFC) centers (Egoji and Eregi)

- ensure that the YFCs are registered as

HTC centers and receive adequate kits and

- HIV/AIDS Youth Centers

- HIV/AIDS prevention Youth Friendly

Center (YFC) services including HIV

Testing and Counseling Centers (HTC) in

TTCs and 1 secondary school

- Mainstreaming of Community Health Days

(CHDs)

- Improved Data capture/Documentation

- adapt qualitative tools for gathering data

on how HIV/AIDS interventions have

been integrated into the colleges

- M&E/Policy Mainstreaming Activities:

facilitate an ongoing mechanism and

process for policy dialogue and policy

Phase 2 Yrs-4-5 Program Description and

Extension Year Description

Work Plan – 08/03/2011 - Year 5

Work Plan – 8/02/2012 - Year 6

colleges

- establishing and managing VCTs at 14

colleges

- Youth Friendly Centers in 14 colleges.

necessary supervision by the District AIDS

Coordinators in the various Districts.

- support in the implementation of

Community Health Day Outreach Events

- Capacity building for colleges on stigma

reduction advocacy campaign

- Monitoring and evaluation as well as

strengthening networking, linkages and

partnerships

- HIV&AIDS Coordinators will be trained

to be able to provide effective leadership in

data collection, utilization and reporting

- M&E Tools to assess impact and

effectiveness of HIV&AIDS integration

into classroom instruction will be

developed

formation to improve teacher education

- internal summative evaluation will be

undertaken in January-February 2013 to

inform on the extent to which TEPD has

achieved its specified objectives.

Ext.

Yr.

HIV

- printing of the Training Manual.

- remaining three colleges will implement

their CHDD/W

- “Say NO to HIV/AIDS Stigma”

ANNEX G SUBJECTS REACHED

Mombasa

ORGANIZATION

NAME

POSITION

CONTACT

Mombasa County

Education Office

Lawrence Kaburu

County Quality Assurance and

Standards Officer

0723 955 960,

kaburu.lawrenc

[email protected]

Mombasa County

Education Office

Khamia Sheebau

Dep. County Quality Assurance

and Standards Officer

0720 933 611

FHI360 - Mombasa

Stephen Kahara

TEPD and ACE Coordinator

0721 980 264

Kibarani School for the

Deaf

Alphonce Joha

Grade 6 math teacher

0710 151 149

Kibarani School for the

Deaf

Ben Kafana

Head, Board of Governors

0712 922 648

Kibarani School for the

Deaf

Eric S. Muramba

Head Teacher

0733 902 850

Kibarani School for the

Deaf

Benjamin N. Mae/Rimba

Washe

CT Cordinators

0723 733 807 /

0729 265 154

Kilifi County Education

Office

Simon Mayande

Deputy DEO

0714 214 544

Kilifi County Ed. Off.

Mwasaru Mwashengwa

DEO Kilifi

0721 459 268

Kilifi County Ed. Off.

Ole Keis

County Education Director

0722 657 986

Kisauni Primary School

Esther Ntombi

ICT (ACE) Coordinator, Grade 6

Science teacher

0734 674 635

Kisauni Primary School

Dismus Galiavo

Asst. ICT Coordinato, Std 6

Science teacher

0720 107 502

Kisauni Primary School

Janet Kigode

Std 6 Maths teacher

Kisauni Primary School

Victoria K. Ongera

Std 5 Maths teacher

Kisauni Primary School

Rabia Kombo

Std 7 Maths teacher

0711 269 748,

rabiakombo@y

mail.com

Kisauni Primary School

Remmy Wagama

Head Teacher

0726 139 738

Mtwapa Primary

School

David Mwavita

Head Teacher, (ACE)

0718 891 522

Mtwapa Primary

School

Elphas M. Pekeshe

ACE Coordinator

0726 139 738

Municipal Education

Office (Mombasa)

Julius Mwasambu

TAC Tutor, MEO Statistician

0721 946 740,

jmwasambu@y

ahoo.com

Municipal Education

Office

Francis N. Tsuma

Municipal Education Officer

0720 553 056

Shanzu PTTC

Mr. James K. Ziroh

Principal

0722 875 687

ORGANIZATION

NAME

POSITION

CONTACT

Shanzu PTTC

Patrick M. Karibu

ICT Coordinator,

0722 688 950

Shanzu PTTC

Willy Muriuki

ACE Program Science Specialist

Shanzu PTTC

Ojwang George Aloys

Head of Education Dept., PDC

Coordinator

0713 545 881

Shanzu PTTC

Doris Kiuru

Dean of Curriculum

0722 161 639

Sparki Primary School

Nthiga Alfred

Head Teacher

0733 590 887

Sparki Primary School

Stephen Ambuka

(ACE) ICT Coordinator

0715 763 536

makhukam@ya

hoo.com

Sparki Primary School

Sarah Nyagah

Grade 6 Teacher

0710 317 579

Sparki Primary School

Edwin Kirrop

ICT Teacher

0722 699 780

TechBiz

Ketan Doshi

Chief Commercial Officer

0722 412 017

ketand@techbi

zafrica.com

TechBiz

Faraj …

Partner

0722 412 017

TechBiz

Purity

Sales Manager

0722 412 017

TechBiz

Edwin

ACE Technical Support Officer

(Mombasa)

0722 412 017

Garissa

ORGANIZATION

NAME

POSITION

TEL. CONTACT

MoE

Mr Aden Sheikh Abdulahi

County Director of Education

0721 22 99 27

MoE

Mr Noor Ibrahim

District Education Officer

0723 49 83 39

MoE

Mr Raphael Wakasiaka

District QASO

0722 47 15 20

Garissa PTTC

Dr Aden Mukhtar

Principal

0722 50 63 02

Garissa PTTC

Mr Muhamood Jama

TTC Tutor

0720 40 24 97

Garissa PTTC

Mr Lincoln Ireri

ICT Coordinator

0721 65 90 76

Garissa PTTC

Mr Abdulrahman Hamom

HIV AIDS Coordinator

0724 95 97 55

Garissa PTTC

Mr Mutia Waema

TP Coordinator

0721 83 44 88

ACE Primary Schools

Iftin Primary School

Mr Mohamed Amin

ACE School Head Teacher

0722 40 62 27

Mr Musa Mohammed

ACE School Teacher

0720 65 80 32

Mr Adan Mohammed

ICT Coordinator

0720 31 73 32

Jaribu Primary School

Mr Mohammed Gedi Hassan

ACE School Head Teacher

0724 14 35 90

Mr Gedi Hassan

ACE School Teacher

0728 15 10 10

Mr Abdi Adan

ICT Coordinator

0720 09 55 57

Bour Algy Primary Sch.

Mr Mohammed Ahmed

ACE School Head Teacher

0721 86 70 70

ORGANIZATION

NAME

POSITION

TEL. CONTACT

Mr Ahmed Bare

ACE School Teacher

0721 81 85 29

Ms Eunice Wanjiku

ICT Coordinator

0710 80 49 47

TP Primary Schools

Kazuko Primary School

Mr Abdi Elmi

TP School Head Teacher

0715 39 32 91

Ms Saadia Hussein

TP School Teacher

0720 11 69 12

Nasib Primary School

Mr Ali Amin Abdi

TP School Head Teacher

0720 70 39 17

Mr Abdi Elmi

TP School Teacher

0715 39 32 91

Umul-Kheir Primary

School

Ms Khaira Ahmed

TP School Head Teacher

0721 24 71 15

Ms Rahma Abdullahi

TP School Teacher

0722 69 75 20

Rift Valley, Western and Nyanza

ORGANIZATION

NAME

GENDER

POSITION

TEL. CONTACT

MoE

Yaphes Magara

Male

DEO- Keiyo North District

0723938677

MoE

Luka Chemoiywo

Male

Deputy DEO- Keiyo North District

0726268022

TSC

Angela Ouya

Female

TSC County Director- Bungoma

0729 488 495

MoE

Bernard Kasiwai

Male

District Staffing Officer- Bungoma

Central

0728 780 988

TSC

Paul K’okello

Male

TSC County Director- Vihiga

0722 612 133

MoE

Obed J. Guto

Male

County QASO - Vihiga

0718 763 635

Tambach PTTC

Mr. Maritim

Male

Principal

0723 023 942

Joseph San’g

Male

ICT Coordinator

0736 796 238

Jeremiah Tangui

Male

T.P Coordinator

O721 281 805

Dorcas Mulamba

Female

HIV AIDS Coordinator

0721 587 846

Moses O.Ouko

Male

Dean of Curriculum

0729 055 846

Mosoriot PTTC

Lagat C.N

Male

Principal

0722 300 341

Beatrice Bironga

Female

Dean of Students

0726 932 831

Ignatius Chisaka

Male

Gender / HIV Coordinator

0720 314 739

Luke L. Chebet

Male

PDC Coordinator

0724 224 446

Derrick Muttu

Male

Tafakari Coordinator

0721 933 548

John C. Milgo

Male

TP Coordinator

0724 115 776

Ruth Menjo

Female

ICT Coordinator

0726 165 426

Charles Chumbe

Male

Dean of Curriculum

0725 910 695

Williter Rop

Female

Deputy Principal

0726 572 561

Arogo M.P

Male

Assistant Dean of Curriculum

0714 623 247

Rinny Lelei

Male

LRC Coordinator

0722 364 033

ORGANIZATION

NAME

GENDER

POSITION

TEL. CONTACT

Kaimosi PTTC

Maryclaire Indire

Female

Principal

0721 315 515

Onzere B.M

Male

Deputy Principal

0722 637 668

Okello Zachary

Male

Dean of Curriculum

0722 826 636

Ashioya A. Irine

Female

PDC Coordinator

0722 450 251

Norbert Omogo

Male

YFC Manager

0711 549 122

Musoga Judith

Female

Dean of Students

0727 080 302

Sulungai Metrine

Female

HOD / Master Trainer

0729 594 074

Humphrey Obanda

Male

HOD / Master Trainer

0712 504 313

Thomas Kibare

Male

Finance Officer

0722 319 427

Daniel Kandawalla

Male

Master Trainer

0721 226 528

Engoke Maurice

Male

Gender Master Trainer

0725 832 715

Nyanga J. Ameda

Male

TP Director

0720 269 762

Kiplimo Ragor

Male

HOD Master Trainer

0727 874 552

Salome Ongere

Female

Assistant Dean of students

0723 406 954

Odhiambo Judith

Female

HIV AIDS Master Trainer

0727 218 091

Eregi PTTC

Elizabeth Shamalla

Female

Deputy Principal

0734 756 525

Caroline Nabiswa

Female

HIV AIDS Coordinator

0720 326 060

Godfrey Okumu

Male

ICT Coordinator

0722 879 055

Indasi Aguya

Male

TP Coordinator

0736 487 001

Florence Oruta Phd

Female

PDC Coordinator

0724 222 523

John Chirile

Male

Dean of Curriculum

0721 839 419

Peruce Abuluise

Female

Dean of Student

0733 496 229

Bondo PTTC

George F Ochieng

Male

Principal

0737 925 889

Joseph O.Muchira

Male

ICT Coordinator

0720 606 301

Ogudha David

Male

HIV AIDS Master Trainer

0724 307 474

Josiah Rachuonyo

Male

TP Director

0722 113 837

Mukoya Lorraine

Female

Dean of Curriculum

0722 565 335

George Obindo

Male

Deputy Principal

0714 267 725

Alfred J. Ochieng

Male

PDC Coordinator

0724 275 653

Asumbi PTTC

John N.Nyarorwa

Male

Deputy Principal

0715 424 444

Alice B. Opondo

Female

Dean of Curriculum

0729 049 783

Elly O. Orinda

Male

Gender Coordinator

0720 871 662

Titus Abon’go

Male

HIV AIDS Coordinator

0720 768 638

John M. Mathenge

Male

Dean of Students

0721 775 467

Tom Mose

Male

ICT Coordinator

0725 808 729

FHi360 Western

James Adede

Male

TEPD HIV/AIDS Coordinator

0727 776 813

Central and Nairobi

ORG.

NAME

GENDER

POSITION

TEL. CONTACT

Kagumo

DTTC

Joseph Ngaroga

Male

Principal

0729 435 952

Wilson Maringa

Male

HIV AIDS Coordinator

0721 225 546

Tabitha Mwaniki

Female

Dep. Dean of Students

0721 606 582

John Kiboi

Male

ICT Coordinator

0721 479 289

Gaaki Sec.

School

Gachara J. Miano

Male

Principal

0713 064 083

Simon K. Kamonde

Male

Dep. Principal

0722 440 025

Patrick N.Gatungu

Male

ICT Coordinator

0723 442 990

Intel

Suraj Shah

Male

Corporate Affairs Manager- East Africa

0722 412 277

Microsoft

Alex Nyingi

Male

0721 755 650

MoE

Enos Oyaya

Male

Education Secretary

Hadard Wanjau

Male

DEO Tetu

0722 224 908

John Temba

Male

Head ICT for Education

0722 223 490

Martin Kungania

Male

Deputy ICT for Education

0724 943 970

Kianjuri J.M

Male

Sen. Ass. Dir. Quality Assurance & Stds

0722 364 399

Eliud Onyango

Owino

Male

Senior Education Officer ACU

0722 568 819

Margaret Murage

Female

Senior Dep. Dir. Policy & Partnerships

0722 970 445

Leah K Rotich

Female

Dir. Basic Education

0723 644 810

Evelyne Owoko

Female

Sen. Ass. Dir. Quality Assurance & Stds.

0722 321 131

Christine Muchemi

Female

Ass. Director Quality Assurance & Stds.

0724 483 484

Julius Musyoka

Male

Senior Quality Assurance & Stds. Officer

0722 400 228

Charles Kanja

Male

Ass. Dir. of Education (INSET)

020 318 581

Anne Ekumbo

Female

Ass. Dir. of Educ. Primary Teacher Educ.

0733 779 214

Musyoka Nyamai

Male

Senior Ass. Dir. INSET

0716 224 225

Onesmus Kiminza

Male

Senior Dep. Director

0723 872 548

MoHE

Eunice Keta

Female

Directorate of Tech Education

0721 577 693

Josephine Waudo

Female

Research and Development

0722 459 528

KEMI

Gideon Opem

Male

Ass. Dir. Training

0714 870 953

KIE

Francis Njagi

Male

Dep. Director Basic Education

0726 746 030

Mical Otieno

Female

Ass. Dir. Applied Sciences

0720 481 130

Samuel Nyaga Jesse

Male

Ass. Dir. E- learning

0721 678 027

Reuben Nthamburi

Male

Senior Ass. Dir. E-learning

0723 269 703

NIIIC

Barnabas San’g

Male

Manager

0722 241 031

VVOB

Paul Van Otten

Male

ICT Integration Program Coordinator

0722 986 275

TSC

Justus Ndumbi

Male

Assistant Director

0722 637 501

Hilary Lukhafwi

Male

Deputy Director

0722 687 626

Vitalis Juma

Male

Dep. Dir. Teacher Mgmt. Primary

0722 227 566

FHI360

Charles Juma

Male

FHI Senior TEPD ACE Coordinator

0722 518 966

ANNEX H: KEY INFORMANTS

Organizations / Category

Number

Ministry of Education (MOE)

SAGAs

Teachers’ Service Commission (TSC)

TTC Staff

Primary and Secondary School Staff

GDA Partners

Sub-contractors

Others (VVOB)

TOTAL

151

ANNEX I: NUMBER OF EACH KIND OF INTERVIEW /

RESPONDENT REPORTS COMPLETED

Interview / Respondent Reports

Completed

Number

Principals check list

Master Trainers and Tutors check list

ICT coordinators check list

Ace HT check list

Ace T check list

TP Heads check list

ICT PTTC Observation Checklists

ICT Self-made Educational Materials check list

MOE Officials

ANNEX J: COLLEGE SITES VISITED

Province

College

Enumeration teams

Central

Kagumo DTTC

All

Central

Murang’a PTTC

Enumerators only

Central

Thogoto PTTC

Enumerators only

Coast

Shanzu PTTC

All

Eastern

Kamwenja PTTC

Enumerators only

Eastern

Kigari PTTC

Enumerators only

Eastern

Kilimambogo PTTC

Enumerators only

Eastern

Kitui PTTC

Enumerators only

Eastern

Machakos PTTC

Enumerators only

10.

Eastern

Meru PTTC

Enumerators only

11.

North Eastern

Garissa PTTC

All

12.

Nyanza

Asumbi PTTC

All

13.

Nyanza

Bondo PTTC

All

14.

Nyanza

Migori PTTC

Enumerators only

15.

Rift Valley

Kericho PTTC

Enumerators only

16.

Rift Valley

Moi Baringo PTTC

Enumerators only

17.

Rift Valley

Mosoriot PTTC

All

18.

Rift Valley

Narok PTTC

Enumerators only

19.

Rift Valley

Tambach PTTC

All

20.

Western

Egoji PTTC

Enumerators only

21.

Western

Eregi PTTC

All

22.

Western

KaimosI PTTC

All

23.

Western

Kibabii DTTC

Enumerators only

ANNEX K: MAP OF COLLEGES VISITED

ANNEX L: CONTENTS OF INSET MATERIALS: CD-ROM

MODULES

METHODOLOGY / MODULES SBTD

1. Kiunzi Huru Cha Kiswahili

2. Social Studies Module For Primary School Teachers Social Studies

3. Teaching And Learning English In The Primary Classroom English Module

4. Teaching And Learning Mathematics In The Primary Classroom Maths Module

5. Teaching And Learning Science In The Primary Classroom Science Module

METHODOLOGY MODULES SBTD PROFESSIONAL

1. Education And Law Module IV

2. Financial Management Process In Schools

3. Guidance And Counseling Module

4. Human Resource Management In Primary Schools Module III

5. Life Skills Education For The Youth

6. School Empowerment Headteachers Module

7. School Management Committee Induction And Training Manual

8. School Safety And Facility Specifications

9. Teaching And Learning In The Primary Classroom Core Module

10. Training For School Management - Management For Resources No.4

MANUALS

1. Karhp Facilitation Manual A Training Guide For The Ministry Of Health

2. Life Skills Education For Behaviour Change

3. Key Resource Teachers Professional Development Package

REFERENCES

1. Early Childhood Development Service Standard Guidlines For Kenya

2. Emerging Issues In Education Module 5

3. Gender And Education Investment Programme

4. Gender Awareness Supporting Both Girls And Boys In The Learning Unit IV

5. Gender In Education

6. Gender Issues In Education Unit III

7. Gender Issues In English Unit VI

8. Gender Issues In Science Unit VI

9. Gender Policy In Education Bk II

10. Gender Policy In Education July 2007

11. Kenya Education Sector Support Programme 2005-2011

12. Mitigation Of The Impact On HIV/Aids

13. Peace Education Programme Story Book

14. School Cluster System Manual

15. School Improvement And Early Childhood Development In East Africa

16. Teachers Promotion Course Syllabus P3 P2 P1 AT IV Diploma

17. The Effects Of Free Primary Education On The Quality Of Education In Kenya

ANNEX M: TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (PRE-PRIMARY, PRIMARY AND

SECONDARY)

1. TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (PRE-

PRIMARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)

Background

Education and training provider’s world over face a rapidly changing societal and economic environment.

There is an increasing demand to find new ways to equip teachers, students and workers with competencies

and skills they need for the knowledge based society and economy. These dynamic needs call for

development of a human resource in education and training with high capabilities of providing quality

education. Kenya is working towards provision of this human capital capable of delivering on the national

goals and aspirations, a responsibility given to education and training sector of the economy. Training of

effective teachers remains a critical and effective strategy in providing quality education. There is need to

ensure that education and training programmes are geared towards development of skills, knowledge,

attitudes and values in teacher trainee’s requisite for development of abilities to effectively cater for the

learning needs of the Kenyan child. Teachers need to acquire innovative approaches in the teaching/learning

process to enable learners cope with the dynamics of the 21

century. This is a key step in transformation of

the country into a knowledge economy as envisioned by Kenya’s vision 2030.

Current Situation

Currently, Secondary Education teachers are trained in the two Public Diploma Colleges at an annual rate of

540 trainees. This is in addition to diploma teachers from private colleges and graduate teachers trained by

both public and private universities. Demand for placement in public diploma colleges has been on the rise.

This is supported by the fact that there are more than twenty (20) private diploma colleges in Kenya. There is

therefore need to expand the existing facilities and training opportunities by setting up additional Public

Diploma in Education colleges. This is to address not only the current need but also the growing need for

teachers in tandem with the national population growth.

Diploma in Secondary Education is a three (3) year course for holders of aggregate of C+ and above at

KCSE. The trainees take either Art-based or Science-based subjects alongside support courses such as

communication skills, HIV & AIDS, ICT, among others. The trainees specialize in two teaching subjects to

enhance specialization, while they spend 7 months on teaching practice to enhance acquisition of practical

pedagogical skills. The trainees are eventually assessed by the Kenya National Examination Council and

issued with a Diploma certificate upon successful completion of the course.

The Public Primary Teacher Training Colleges which are 22 in number offer a P1 two year’s certificate course

and three teaching practice sessions of 3 weeks each is undertaken. Currently, the enrolment in these colleges

stands at 17,999 students. There over 88 private teacher training colleges.

The qualification for a P1 certificate is C (plain) and above. However, most of the candidates admitted to

PTTCs have C+ (plus) and above, and are therefore eligible for a degree course. As an affirmative action, the

totally deaf/blind students are admitted with a C- (minus) grade. The P1 certificate will be upgraded to

Diploma in Primary Education as soon as the Kenya Institute of Education develops the curriculum. The

PTE course is examinable by KNEC upon which a P1 certificate is issued.

POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Constitution of Kenya 2010 is categorical on the provision of Basic Education as a human right, under

the Bill of Rights, and the responsibility of providing this education lies on the Government. Further to this,

the draft policy on education echoes the sentiments of the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2005, and Vision 2030:

The quality of learning in Kenyan schools is contingent upon the quality of its teachers, and therefore pre

service and in-service teacher training must be modernized and reformed with a shift to competency based

approach.

It further calls for the establishment of teacher education and development standards, based on acceptable

principles that will ensure optimal delivery of competency based education for the benefit of the learners.

Vision 2030 lays emphasis on quality education and training. Under this vision, Kenya hopes to provide a

‘globally competitive quality education and training to her citizens, for development and enhanced individual

well being.’

Issues and Challenges

 Lack of clear national policy on teacher education that guide teacher training by the various service

providers – Universities, Diploma and certificate teacher training colleges. As a result the various

teacher trainers have different entry requirement and duration for the training.

 The national growth in population which calls for commensurate growth in teacher training

opportunities. There is need to match teacher demand and supply.

 The need to review the Diploma Secondary teacher education curriculum.

 The need to review the Curriculum for Diploma in special needs education to bring it in tandem with

the current trends

 The need to upgrade the P1 certificate to Diploma in primary education as per the recommendations

in the new education policy, and vision 2030.

 There is lack of a college for teacher educators. These trainers are not prepared as trainers, but

secondary school teachers.

 Need for pedagogical skill upgrading in form of capacity building for the serving teacher trainers

 Need to harmonize entry requirement and duration of training at Diploma level.

 Need to enhance ICT integration in teacher development.

 The theory and practice disparity. Universities reserve 3 months teaching practice for a four-year

course, Diploma colleges reserve 7 months for a three-year course, while P1 certificate course

reserves 3 teaching practice sessions of 3 weeks each.

 There is need to re-engineer the teacher education courses to cater for theory and practice. This calls

for the establishment of a post university/college centre for pedagogical skills development for

teachers.

 The need to change the instructional practice from teacher centered approaches to learner-

centered/collaborative learning.

 The uncoordinated upgrading of diploma and primary teacher training colleges to constituent

colleges of universities

 Need to invest in adequate teaching learning and physical resources

 Need to expand the number of Diploma and Primary teacher training colleges to meet the growing

demand.

 Primary and Secondary education teachers are inadequately trained in special needs education despite

the Ministry embracing the philosophy and practice of inclusive education.

 Inadequate funds for teacher education development

 Most of the teacher training colleges have old and dilapidated physical facilities. Four others are

under construction after the former colleges were taken over by Universities.

 Mushrooming of private TTCs at all levels of teacher education that affects quality hence the need

for an intensified curriculum supervision

OBJECTIVES

Strategic objective

To improve the quality of teacher training in order to produce effective and adequate teachers for pre-

primary, primary and secondary education

Specific objectives

 To Develop the theoretical and practical knowledge about the teaching profession

 To acquire knowledge, skills, values and positive attitudes towards the teaching profession

 To develop in the teacher the ability to communicate effectively, develop individual talent, adopt to

change and appreciate innovation

 To prepare a reflective teacher who can instill in the learner life skill education, education for

sustainable development and appreciate technology among other emerging issues

 To prepare a teacher with a high competency level who is able to interpret the syllabus and

implement the curriculum.

 To prepare in the teacher the ability to develop in the learner a sense of national values, citizenship

and inter- relationships at the national and international levels

 To foster in the teacher understanding and promotion of the national goals of education and enable

to impart to the learners

 To prepare teachers who are responsive to the needs of learners with special needs.

 To build a firm foundation for further education and training.

Strategies to address the Constraints

 Develop and implement a national comprehensive policy on teacher education at different levels –

ECD, Primary, Secondary and Post-Secondary

 Construction and rehabilitation of Teacher training colleges

 Institutionalize alternative modes of curriculum delivery and explore new ones.

 Develop a mechanism for attracting the best brains into the teaching profession to inject

innovativeness in the teaching sector

 Undertake an in-depth study of teacher education focusing on improving the quality of teachers and

teacher educators

 Upgrade the P1 certificate curriculum to Diploma curriculum, in liaison with KIE.

 To review the curricula for all diplomas for teachers; diploma in ECD, Diploma in secondary

education and Diploma in special need education

 Ensure every teacher training programme has a component of special needs education.

 Build the capacity of the Principals and BOG members in management

 Improve the quality of curriculum delivery by providing adequate and appropriate teaching/learning

materials, enhancing transport and upgrading ICT and LRCs in teacher training colleges

 Enhance awareness of emerging issues such as HIV/AIDs, gender, drug and substance abuse,

among tutors and students in teacher training colleges.

 Enhance the financial stability of teacher training institutions through provision of grants for

personal emolument for BOG employees, and bursary assistance for bright and needy students

 Develop an effective monitoring and Evaluation plan for Teacher Education

 Reform the teacher education curriculum to reflect the aspirations for constitution, and Vision 2030

with a shift to competency based approach

 Upgrade the capacity of the existing teacher educators to meet the required standards

 Improve the pedagogical skills and enhance competencies through continuous professional

development

 Create linkages with post-secondary teacher training institutions on matching supply of teachers of all

subjects.

 Introduce compulsory internships for teacher trainees for a specified period before registration

 Expand access to special needs education training through decentralization of training institutions to

the counties.

 Harmonize entry requirement, duration of training and teaching practice for teacher training of the

same level

 Upgrading the Kenya Institute of Special Education to develop, train and award certificates and

diplomas in special need education for ECD, primary and secondary teachers.

Log frame

Narrative Summary

Performance

Indicators

Means of Verification

Critical

Assumptions

Sector Goal

Goal:

To produce

qualified &

adequate teachers

for basic education.

 Improved

pupil/teacher

ratio

 75% of

graduating

trainees attain

credit &

above in TEE

examination

 TSC staffing

returns.

 TEE and KCPE

results

 ESQAC assessment

reports

 TSC will

ensure fair

distribution

of teachers

across the

country.

 Other factors

impacting

negatively on

quality

education

will be

addressed by

the relevant

sub-sectors.

OUTPUTS

Output 1.

Policy formulation

Activities

1.Develop a

comprehensive Teacher

Education policy from

ECDE to University

level

Management issues

addressed and policy

formulated

Comprehensive Policy

document on teacher

education available and in

use.

There will be

goodwill and

active

participation by

all the Key

players in teacher

education

Narrative Summary

Performance

Indicators

Means of Verification

Critical

Assumptions

Output 2.

Modernized teacher

training institutions

TTCs

Activities:

1. Construction of

two diploma

Colleges and

completion of 5

PTTCs

2. Rehabilitation of

infrastructure in

the old Colleges

3. Equipping the

TTCs with

modern physical

facilities ( Desks,

Chairs,

tables,etc) and

teaching/learnin

g materials(

Buses,

Computers,

books)

Modern & adequate

facilities

Adequate and modern

equipment

Tender documents for

construction and supply of

equipment

Funds will be

available

Universities will

cease taking over

the TTCs

Narrative Summary

Performance

Indicators

Means of Verification

Critical

Assumptions

Out Put 3

Teacher

Competencies

Activities

1.streamline admission

qualification to TTCs

2. facilitate continuous

professional

development for serving

teacher trainers through

capacity building and

pedagogical skills

upgrading

3. Establish a centre for

induction of teacher

educators posted to

TTCs on pedagogical

skills

4. Establish compulsory

institute for teacher

trainees

5.Liase with institutions

on development of an

action plan for

retraining of teachers

6.Identify teachers for

Special needs education

in-service program at

KISE

7. Upgrade P1

curriculum to Diploma

8. Review the diploma

cur

ricula for ECD,SNE

and Secondary

education

 Improved

quality and

performance

in schools

 Institutes for

Pedagogy,

CPD, and

teacher

educators

 Diploma

curricula in

PTE in

implementati

 ECD, SNE

and DSTE

reviewed and

implementati

on.

Performance records,

syllabuses and ESQAC

assessment reports

Availability of

funds and

commitment on

the part of

teachers

Narrative Summary

Performance

Indicators

Means of Verification

Critical

Assumptions

Output 4.

Quality of

management in TTCs

enhanced.

Activity:

1. Train Principals on

education management.

2. Conduct a study

focusing on

quality of

teachers and

teacher

educators. .

3. Create linkages

with post

secondary

teacher training

institutions.

4. Conduct

workshops on

cross cutting

issues eg.

HIV/Aids,

Gender, Drug &

Substance abuse,

etc.

 Result based

management

 Effective

integration of

cross cutting

issues in

schools

 Implementation

progress reports.

 Attendance lists &

workshop reports.

 Monitoring reports.

The organs in charge

of training will carry

out their tasks

Output 5

Enhanced financial

stability of TTCs.

Activities.

i) Provision of grants to

TTCs for salaries for

BOG employees.

2) Provision of funds

for bursary support.

3. Resource

mobilization through

income generation,

fundraising and seeking

support from partners

-% of workers paid

-% of needy students

awarded bursary

% of funds accrued

-Receipts and

documentation/pay rolls,

bursary returns.

- M & E records

-Fees registers

- Records

-Audit reports

Initiatives

will be

undertaken

Narrative Summary

Performance

Indicators

Means of Verification

Critical

Assumptions

Out Put No. 6

Program

Implementation

team(PIT) and

program

implementation

system (PIS)

established, installed

and in operation

Activities.

1. Create a

Directorate of

Teacher

Education

Enhanced

coordination of

teacher training

Approval Report

Output: 7

Monitoring and

Evaluation

Activities

1.Develop and conduct

annual monitoring

framework for tracking

progress in program

implementation

2.Disseminate findings

to stakeholders

Teacher Education

programmes

monitored

No. of Circulars to

institutions

Programme approval forms,

monitoring reports

Monitoring reports

 Available

required

human

resource

 Adequate

funding

Itemized Costing (Ksh. Millions)

ACTIVITY

Frequency

Unit type

Unit cost

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18

TOTAL

Management Training

for P

principals & BOG

W/Shop

Ksh

Conduct workshops on

cross cutting issues

w/shop

Ksh.

5.5

11.5

Construction of 7 new

TTCs

Grant(Ksh)

Ksh.

700

710

720

730

740

750

4351

Rehabilitation of old 18

TTCs

Grant

(Ksh)

37.4

38.

41.

43.2

197

Provision of Tuition &

Teaching practice

materials

Grant

(ksh.)

45.7

51.

53.

55.3

250.1

Improvement of

ICT/LRC

Grant

(ksh.)

45.7

51.

53.

55.3

250.1

Provision of Transport

for Teaching Practice &

co curricula activities

for 30

Bus

Ksh.

300

600

Equipment for TTCS(

desks, Chairs,etc

Grant(ksh)

Ksh

0.5

Establish a centre for

teacher educators and

teachers

Ksh

2000

Establish internship

institute

Ksh.

2000

Provision of Grant for

payment of salaries for

BOG employees for

PTTCs

Grant

(ksh.)

325

Provision of Grant for

Diploma TTCs

Grant(ksh)

345

Provision of Bursary

assistance for needy

students

Grant

(ksh.)

150

Development of policy

guidelines for teacher

education

W/Shop

Monitoring &

Evaluation

6.5

7.5

TOTAL

10344.6

ANNEX N: FINAL ACE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

(PROVIDED BY THE VENDOR, TECHBIZ)

Items

Proposed Specification

Variances if

any

Warranty

Option

Upgrade

Quoted

Student

Laptops -

Primary

Schools:

960

Intel Clamshell Classmate PC 10.1

• Intel® Atom N550 1.5GHz

• 2GB DDR2

• 160GB Hard Drive

• Windows 7 Starter

• 10.1” 1024 x 600 color widescreen LCD

• 10 / 100M Ethernet

• 802.11 b/g/n WLAN

• Water Resistant Keyboard

• 2 Button Touch Pad

• High capacity 6-cell battery / AC Adapter

• Integrated 2 channel audio

• Built-in speaker and microphone

• 276.6 x 237.7 x 34.7 / 1.54 lbs.

• 3 x USB / 1 SD Slot / 1 VGA Port

• 1.3 Megapixel Webcam

• Education Software Stack pre-loaded

• power cord with Kenya Compatible plug

Same

specs as

contractor

3 years

Student

Laptops –

Secondar

y Schools

& TTCs:

210

EarthWalk eBuddy™ Semi-Rugged

Laptop

Semi-Rugged 15” Laptop or equivalent

• Anti-shock mounted 15.4” WXGA LCD

• Intel® Core Duo ™ T2080 – 1.7 to

2.4GHz CPU

• Minimum 120 GB Anti-Shock mounted

hard disk drive

• 2GB Memory

• Anti-Shock / Locking DVD/CD-RW

combo drive

• Integrated Intel® graphics with accelerator

chips

• Integrated Intel® audio with speakers and

jacks

• Integrated Ethernet 10/100/1000 Mbps

• Integrated Wireless 802.11a/b/g

• 3 USB ports + standard I/O ports

• 9-Cell 6600mAh Lithium-Ion Battery

• Reinforced hinges for screen

• Windows 7 Starter

• power cord with Kenya compatible plug

Same

specs as

contractor

3 years

Items

Proposed Specification

Variances if

any

Warranty

Option

Upgrade

Quoted

Classmate

Convertib

Intel Convertible Classmate PC

• Atom N450 1.66GHz Processor

• Intel® NM10 Express Chipset

• 2GB RAM

• 250 GB HDD

• Windows 7

• Water resistant 10.1” 1024 x 600 Touch

Screen

• 10/100M Ethernet

• 802.11b/g/n WLAN

• 6-cell battery

• Integrated audio, built-in speaker and digital

mic.

• 268 x 214 x (32 ~ 39.5) mm

• 2 x USB 2.0 ports, 1 SD slot, VGA port, 1

half sized mini-card slot and 1 full sized mini-

card slot

• Camera: 1.3 MP (rotate)

• Bluetooth/3G/GPS/WiMax

• Flash 70cm/HDD 60 cm

• Teacher Education Software Stack pre-

loaded

• power cord with Kenya Compatible plug

Same

specs as

contractor

3 years

Mobile

Compute

Earthwalk Flexcart 24

• High Efficiency Power Management

(HE™)

• Integrated 802.11 b/g/n wireless access

radios

• LAB DIMENSIONS Color: Black

(Standard*) with Silver Handles *Optional

colors available Work Surface Ht: 107.9 cm /

42.5” Handle Ht: 113.03 cm / 44.5” Width:

101.6 cm / 40” Depth 72.65 cm / 28.6”

Weight: Approximate* 136 kg / 300 lbs.

• LAPTOP COMPARTMENT

DIMENSIONS Height: 6.85 cm / 2.7”

Width: 30.5 cm / 12” Depth 38.1 cm / 15”

• Power cord with Kenya Compatible plug

• Hardened steel latch and key lock

Same

specs as

contractor

1 years

Yes to 3

years

Items

Proposed Specification

Variances if

any

Warranty

Option

Upgrade

Quoted

Attached

Network

Storage

Servers

Synology DSJ10j-NAS

• 2 - 1 TB drives of storage capacity

• Ethernet 10/100/1000 Mb/s capable

• 230/240 volt AC

• CPU Frequency: 800GHz

• Memory: 128MB

• Internal HDD1: 3.5” SATA(II) X2 or 2.5”

SATA/SSD X2

• External HDD Interface: USB 2.0 port X3

• LAN: Gigabit X1 and Wireless Support11

• Max User Accounts: 512

• Max Groups: 128

• Max Shared Folder: 256

• Max Concurrent Connections(SAMBA,

FTP, AFP): 64

• Wireless adapter

Same

specs as

contractor

2 years(1

year on

HDD)

LED

bulbless

datashow

projector

Casio 2,500 lumen XGA Green Slim

Projector XJ-A240

• 110/240 volt AC auto-sensing

• 1800:1 contrast ratio

• DLP technology

• XGA (1280 x 800) resolution

• Power cord with Kenya

Same

specs as

contractor

3 years

LaserJet

printers

HP LaserJet P2035n Printer

• Resolution: min 600 dpi

• Print speed 30ppm

• Wireless connectivity 802.11 b/g/n

• 240 volt 50 Hertz ACE - power cord with

Kenya compatible plug

• Wireless adapter

• USB cable

• 1 additional toner cartridge

Same

specs as

contractor

1 years

Yes to 3

years

Scanners

1 years

Yes to 3

years

Surge

protector

124

Tripplite SUPER60MNIB

• Minimum AC suppression joule rating =

600-1400

• Minimum 6’ cord

• 6-8 outlets

• Maximum clamping voltage 150

• Plastic housing

• AC suppression current rating 85,000 amps

• Power cord with Kenya compatible plug

*Instead of

Rugged

Metal

Housing

the product

is Heavy

plastic

Lifetime

Warranty

Items

Proposed Specification

Variances if

any

Warranty

Option

Upgrade

Quoted

Power

line

condition

ers

Tripp Lite Line Conditioner LR 1000 Line

conditioner - 1000 Watt

• 240 volt input

• Power cord with Kenya compatible plug

Same

specs as

contractor

2 years

(Unit

replacem

ent

Hi-Gain

WiFi

signal

booster

Alfa USB Wi-FI Antenna with range

booster covers 50m

Similar to

what is

required

1 year

Handheld

digital

video

cameras

Sony Bloggie Touch Video Camera

• Video Camera - 4 GB, 2 hour

• Video Rechargeable Battery

• Video USB extension cable

• Camera case to hold camera and accessories

Same

specs as

contractor

1 year

Digital

cameras

Canon PowerShot A1200 – camera kit

• 2 AA batteries

• 12.1 Mpixels and 4x digital zoom

• 1 GB SD “film” memory card

• Rechargeable battery system

• Camera case for the kit

• USB Interface Cable IFC-400PCU - Digital

Camera Solution CD-ROM - Canon

Warranty

• Table Top Tripod

Same

specs as

contractor

1 year

Anti-

virus/Ant

i-Malware

software

AVAST! Anti-virus solution

Same

specs as

contractor

N/A

ANNEX O: WORK PLAN (WITH DATA COLLECTION

INSTRUMENTS)

Work Plan

TEPD Evaluation Activity

January 25, 2013

BACKGROUND

A final performance evaluation of the Teacher Education and Professional Development project will be

conducted in Kenya from 15 January to mid-March 2013. The process will actively engage stakeholders and

project participants from USAID-Kenya, the Kenya Ministry of Education (MOE) and related Semi-

Autonomous Government Agencies (SAGAs), the contractor, FHI360, the three GDA partners in the

Accelerating 21

Century Education (ACE) - Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco, and other support

companies/agencies in an analysis of the impact, benefits, processes and outcomes of the TEPD activity

from its inception to the present day.

MSI’s review of TEPD has identified two phases and three distinct but integrated functional areas of project

emphasis: Teacher Education, Information and Communication Technology (ICTs) in Education, and HIV-

AIDS education. At the start of Phase 1 only the first two activities were included. Soon after the start of

Phase 1 the HIV/AIDS component was integrated into the project. Three years later, in Phase 2, the ICT

component received increased emphasis with the incorporation within TEPD of a new Global Development

Alliance (GDA) project, “Accelerating 21

Century Education” (ACE). Fhi360 is the Coordinating Partner for

ACE, together with other implementing ACE partners: Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco. Because the GDA

funding mechanism requires in-kind or financial matching of USAID’s contribution, the ICT component of

the project in Phase 2 represents a distinct collaborative approach to leveraging resources, motivation,

engagement, and change. Because these major technology companies also have long-term interests in doing

business while supporting education in Kenya, the ACE project represents a distinct approach to promoting

sustainability and the mainstreaming of TEPD project elements and approaches. The evaluation will seek

evidence relevant to assessing the role of the inclusion of the GDA funding format, especially as it may bear

on sustainability and local capacity development (Question 3).

Table 1: Timeline of TEPD

2007-2010

2010-2012

2012-2013

 Phase 1

 USAID then later PEPFAR

 Phase 2

 USAID / PEPFAR / USAID

GDA

 Phase 2 Extension Year

 No-Cost Extensions

The MSI evaluators are Stuart Leigh, Team Leader and Edwin Ochieng, Education Specialist. The full team

for the evaluation comprises Fred Opundo of MSI-Kenya (who will be the enumerator supervisor) and a

number of enumerators who have assisted MSI-Kenya in data collection on previous projects. The evaluation

team will travel to project sites throughout Kenya visiting all of the Primary Teacher Training Colleges

(PTTCs) that have been the main focus of this project.

OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION

The 6-year long TEPD project is coming to a close and this evaluation needs to inform the MOE as it

considers if and how to mainstream some or all of the project’s activities and approaches. The evaluation also

needs to address issues in Cooperative Agreement compliance and lessons learned to inform USAID as to

how subsequent projects may benefit from successes and challenges met by the TEPD project. This

evaluation is being carried out for accountability purposes and to document lessons learned and best practices

and provide recommendations to inform evidence-based future programming. The principal deliverables of

the consultancy will be an oral debriefing and written report, the first draft of which will be submitted to

USAID-Kenya on March 1. The evaluation will provide answers to a set of questions posed by USAID

Kenya and assess the execution and outcomes of the TEPD project with special focus on the four evaluation

stated in the scope of work related to:

1. Program Impact

2. Cooperative Agreement Compliance for Accountability

3. Sustainability and local capacity

4. Lessons Learned

The performance of the recipients of the Cooperative Agreement (AED and subsequently Fhi360) is at the

heart of this evaluation. However, with substantial interest expressed by USAID and the MOE in the

possibility of mainstreaming the materials, methods and technical provisioning approaches demonstrated by

TEPD and ACE, as part of this evaluation some effort will be made to assess the past and potential future

roles of the ACE partners who are likely to remain engaged with the MOE after the end of the TEPD

project.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will examine whether and to what degree the project achieved intended results over the period

from mid-2007 to the present. MSI will assemble multiple sources of evidence, representing a range of

perspectives. Various secondary and primary data will be gathered and analyzed using a mix of methods.

Evaluation Design

The evaluation design will, where possible, utilize a “before” and “after” design to determine what changed as

a result of project activities at three distinct levels:

 The institutional level, i.e., how the MOE’s and related SAGAs strategies, procedures and human

capital changed over the course of the TEPD; special focus will be put on the Primary Teacher

Training Colleges, the Practice Teaching schools with which they regularly engage, and the schools

that have been in the ACE pilot cohort. Levels of

 The operational level, i.e., how MOE’s various structures (e.g. PTTCs, DTTCs) changed in their

educational approaches and management thinking with regard to primary teacher preparation over

the course of the TEPD; and how this occurred in relation to the activities of the TEPD project.

This will involve close investigation of the TEPD project work plans and project objectives and

elements. Performance will be examined in terms of the degree to which intended results were

achieved as well as conformance with expectations about the schedule for implementing activities,

producing outputs, and achieving outcomes.

 The educational outcomes level, i.e. while at this stage we do not expect that pre / post-test score

data will be available to assess changes in the educational outcomes for any of the indirect

beneficiaries, we will seek any that may be available for direct beneficiaries. In the expected absence

of such data our largely qualitative research will focus on reported comparative and/or absolute

learning outcomes for both direct and indirect beneficiaries. We will also seek data on reported

changes in outcomes in motivation, attitude, professionalism, teacher competencies, HIV-AIDS

awareness, and ICT utilization.

To the degree that baseline study data is available and comparable to data we are able to gather during the

very short time window available for evaluation fieldwork, MSI will utilize former studies and secondary data

from the implementing partners to support before/after analysis. MSI anticipates that it will be possible to

estimate change over the project period using a mixed method approach for reconstructing the baseline

situation “before” the TEPD and for characterizing the status of the institutional, operational and teacher

education outcomes “after” nearly six years of TEPD implementation.

Data Collection

To ensure completeness and validity of the evidence, the evaluation team will use a mix of data collection

methods in this evaluation. Table 2 identifies this range of methods and associates them with the evaluation

questions. Additional detail on each method and its application in this evaluation is provided below.

Table 2: Data collection methods for the four evaluation questions

Data Collection Methods

Evaluation Questions

Secondary Source Data

1,2,3,4

Site Visits (utilizing mixed methods)

1,3,4

Group Interviews

1,2,3,4

Key Informant and other Individual Stakeholder Interviews

1,2,3,4

Observation

1,2,3

Due to security concerns related to the upcoming national elections and ongoing risks in travel to certain

areas, evaluator travel has been limited in both duration and geographic range.

Still, USAID has requested that all 21 PTTCs and 2 DTTCs be visited. In order to include all 23 colleges in 8

provinces as well as many other institutions in the short period allowed for the evaluation, the team is relying

on two main data collection strategies. The first is through a full range of collection methods to be conducted

by the Team Leader and the Education Specialist aided by MSI evaluation support staff. The second strategy

involves use of a number of standard instruments that will be administered by local enumerators who will be

sent to all 23 sites with mobile phones that can transmit questionnaire and checklist data to the MSI team via

EpiSurveyor software. This procedure was used successfully by DTS with the same enumerators to assess and

monitor various USAID youth projects, including TEPD. Consequently certain forms specific to assessing

TEPD exist as does a substantial set of data that we understand is available to integrate into our analysis.

Because these data were gathered just 5-7 months ago, we do not expect to re-administer the same forms.

Rather we have developed a new series of questions for various classes of respondents, which are driven

entirely by the current evaluation questions. (See Annex 2: Evaluation Tools)

The following data collection methods will be used:

1. Desk review of TEPD project documents, including the Cooperative Agreement Modifications,

work plans, internal monitoring reports and evaluations, quarterly and other periodic reports, GDA

partner reports, related MOE and USAID documents, and instructional materials and teacher

training manuals;

2. In-depth debriefings, face-to-face and video conference meetings with TEPD project management in

Nairobi and with USAID Education team members charged with TEPD project oversight, and with

face-to-face meetings with TEPD regional staff;

3. Discussions and structured interviews with a wide range of MoE officials who are responsible for

integrating TEPD and ACE processes and assets into operations at various levels (e.g., national,

provincial and district, zone);

4. Site visits to (21) PTTCs and (2) DTTC(s) and to a sample of Practice Teaching primary schools. All

(3) secondary schools attached to Kagumo DTTC will be included in the sample. Visits will take

place in (8) provinces and X Districts (to the extent security limitations permit) to observe PDC and

other facilities and TEPD assets in use, supported as appropriate by structured observation

checklists;

5. Discussions and structured interviews with PTTC Principals, Deans of Curricula, PTTC and DTTC

Professional Development Center (PDC) Coordinators, Teaching Practice Directors, HIV-AIDS

Coordinators, and Master Trainers, Head Teachers of both primary and secondary schools, and

Teachers, supported as appropriate by use of structured questionnaires;

6. Discussions and structured interviews with SAGAs that have been closely involved with the

development of the TEPD project, especially regarding the Teacher Competency Framework (TCF);

supported by Key Informant Interview (KII) guides/protocols;

7. Discussions and structured interviews with staff of the ACE GDA partner companies, (Microsoft,

Intel, Cisco); supported by KII guides/protocols;

8. Examination of a representative sample of digital and printed instructional materials and descriptive

documents related to the planning of those instructional materials;

For each of the four main Evaluation Questions relevant data types and their sources have been designated

(see the matrix below, “Getting to Answers”). These data will be subjected as appropriate to data analysis

including frequency distribution and cross tabulation, content analysis, trend analysis, planned and actual

comparison, and response convergence divergence analysis. These data will form the basis for findings, which

will form the basis for conclusions; which in turn will underpin recommendations.

Data Analysis

The evaluation will employ a variety of analysis methods, including:

Planned/Actual Comparisons: Comparisons will be made between workplans and PMP targets on the one

hand and periodic performance data as reported both internally and to USAID on the other. These

comparisons will inform examination of TEPD performance relative to timely fulfillment of proposed

activities.

Pattern/Content Analysis: We will be asking the same or similar questions of people from many levels

within the education system. Qualitative data will be examined for patterns so that comparisons can be made

between respondents, institutional levels and sites and so that generalizations and conclusions can be

supported by noted convergences between various levels of the system and various interest groups. MSI will

not use qualitative analysis software but will instead review interview notes by hand to code and identify

patterns of response across individuals and groups.

Trend Analysis: We will seek in the data patterns in the way in which change happened over time and with

the maturation and development of the project. For example, as greater confidence in the effectiveness of the

outputs and methods there might well have been an upswing in acceptance of the project that is traceable in

the numbers of participants seeking project assistance.

Response Convergence / Divergence Analysis: On common questions the team will take note of the

degree of convergence/divergence in responses. Divergent responses may prompt follow-up interviews by

phone, email or in person to try to explain divergence in the reporting of facts, perceptions or opinions.

Mixed Methods Integration / Findings Synthesis: In mixed methods evaluations an essential element of

the data analysis involves integrating data from various methods to arrive at findings. This synthesis process

sometimes involves a form of convergence/divergence analysis for examining data coming from different

methods and levels in the system. Where different methods produce conflicting evidence, MSI will, to the

extent possible examine why these data conflict.

Getting to Answers

Evaluation Questions

Type of

Answer/

Evidence

Needed

(Check one or

more, as

appropriate)

Methods for Data Collection,

e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key

Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey

Sampling or Selection Approach,

(if one is needed)

Data Analysis

Methods, e.g.,

Frequency

Distributions, Trend

Analysis, Cross-

Tabulations, Content

Analysis

Data Source(s)

Method

1. Program Impact:

Has the project achieved the

objectives and outcomes stated in

A.1.2., and did those lead to the

intended goal? If not, identify why

not (was the development

hypothesis flawed in some way?)

and provide recommendations for

strengthening the development

approach that was used.

√

Yes/No

TEPD Baseline

report, ACE

Assessment Report,

Quarterly reports,

Agreements, PMPs,

FHI, USAID, MoE

KIE, KISE, KEMI

Tutors / Lecturers,

HIV-AIDS

Coordinators,

Records/

Document reviews,

Questionnaires

(Tutors /Lecturers),

Key Informant

Interviews and

Structured

Observation

Checklists

Questionnaires:

Census for colleges, Simple

random for schools

Key Informant Interviews:

Purposive based on criterion

sampling strategy

Structured Observation

Checklists:

Census for colleges, Simple

random for schools

Frequency

distribution, Cross

Tabulation and

content analysis for

KIIs

√

Description

√

Comparison

√

Explanation

2. Cooperative Agreement Compliance

for Accountability:

Was the project implemented as

proposed in the program

description and the work plans,

including components such as

monitoring progress and the use of

data collected for making informed

√

Yes/No

TEPD Baseline

report, ACE

Assessment Report,

Quarterly reports,

Agreements, PMPs,

FHI, USAID, MoE,

KIE, KISE, KEMI,

Tutors / Lecturers,

Records/

Document reviews,

Questionnaires(Tut

ors /Lecturers),

Key Informant

Interviews

Key Informant Interviews:

Purposive based on criterion

sampling strategy

Questionnaires:

Census for colleges, Simple

random for schools

Frequency

distribution, Cross

tabulation and

content analysis for

KIIs

√

Description

√

Comparison

√

Explanation

Data from evaluations are a deliverable and methods should indicated how data will be captured, i.e., for focus groups USAID requires a

transcript.

Ministry of Education Officers including County Directors of Education, District Education Officers, TAC Tutors, Quality Assurance and

Standards Officers

KEMI (Kenya Education Management Institute) was previously called the Kenya Education Staff Institute (KESI).

Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms

Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality)

Evaluation Questions

Type of

Answer/

Evidence

Needed

(Check one or

more, as

appropriate)

Methods for Data Collection,

e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key

Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey

Sampling or Selection Approach,

(if one is needed)

Data Analysis

Methods, e.g.,

Frequency

Distributions, Trend

Analysis, Cross-

Tabulations, Content

Analysis

Data Source(s)

Method

decisions on project

implementation and broader policy?

HIV-AIDS

Coordinators,

3. Sustainability and local capacity:

What evidence is there that the

project did or did not build the

capacity of participating institutions

to achieve TEPD goals, and for the

Ministry of Education to

mainstream this approach?

√

Yes/No

TEPD Baseline

report, ACE

Assessment Report,

Quarterly reports,

Agreements, PMPs,

FHI, USAID, MoE,

KIE, KISE, KEMI,

Intel, CISCO,

Microsoft

Records/

Document reviews,

Key Informant

Interviews,

Structured

Observation

checklist

Key Informant Interviews:

Purposive based on criterion

sampling strategy

Questionnaires:

Census for colleges, Simple

random for schools

Structured Observation

Checklists:

Census for colleges, Simple

random for schools

Frequency

distribution and

Cross tabulation,

Content analysis for

KIIs and Probability

of Sustainability

Analysis

√

Description

√

Comparison

√

Explanation

4. Lessons Learned:

Were there differences in how

participating institutions adopted

changes proposed by the project;

did those differences influence

project impact and why?

√

Yes/No

FHI, USAID, MoE,

KIE, KISE, KEMI,

Intel, CISCO,

Microsoft

Key Informant

Interviews

Key Informant Interviews:

Purposive based on criterion

sampling strategy

Content analysis for

KIIs

√

Description

√

Comparison

√

Explanation

Description

Comparison

Explanation

Draft Table of Contents Format for TEPD Evaluation Report

1. Executive Summary – the most salient findings and recommendations (3 pg)

2. Table of Contents (1 pg)

3. Introduction—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 pg)

4. Background—brief overview of development problem, USAID project strategy and activities

implemented to address the problem, and purpose of the evaluation (2-3 pg)

5. Methodology—describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1 pg)

6. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—for each evaluation question (10-15 pp)

7. Issues—provide a list of key technical and/or administrative, if any (1–2 pp)

8. Annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists and tables should be

succinct, pertinent and readable. These include references to bibliographical documentation,

meetings, interviews and focus group discus

Evaluation Tools / Instruments

Contents:

1. Summary table of interview subjects, instruments, and person(s) responsible

2. Questionnaires (prior to layout for EpiSurveyor)

2.1 Questions for Primary and Diploma Teacher Training College Principals

2.2 Questions for PTTC and DTTC Master Tutors and Tutors

2.3 Questions for PTTC and DTTC ICT Coordinators

2.4 Questions for Accelerating 21

Education (ACE) School Head Teachers

2.5 Questions for Accelerating 21

Education (ACE) Teachers

2.6 Questions for Teaching Practice School Heads

2.7 Questions for Secondary School Head Teachers

2.8 Questions for Ministry of Education and SAGA Officials

3. KII Guides

3.1 Indicative Questions for Ministry of Education and SAGA Officials

3.2 Indicative Questions for Global Development Alliance and Other NGO Partners

4. Checklist

1. Summary Table

Interview subject type / Domain

Instruments

Responsible

TTC Principals

Questionnaire /

KII Guides / (MSI evaluators only)

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

TTC Tutors

Questionnaire / KII Guides

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

Ministry of Education Officials

Questionnaire /

KII Guides (MSI evaluators only)

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

SAGA officials (KIE, KISE, KEMI)

KII Guides

MSI evaluators

Practice Teaching (PT) school Head

(include Kibarani School for the Deaf)

Questionnaire /

KII Guides (MSI evaluators only)

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

Practice Teaching (TP) school teachers

Questionnaire (same as head teacher

optional self-administered)

Enumerators

ACE school Head Teachers

Questionnaire / KII Guides

(MSI evaluators only)

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

ACE school teachers

Questionnaire (optional self-admin.)

Enumerators

GDA Partners / ACE project staff

(Intel, CISCO and Microsoft)

KII Guides

MSI evaluators

ACE ICT facilities at schools or

colleges

Structured Observation Checklist

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

ICT facilities at schools or colleges

(non-ACE)

Structured Observation Checklist

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

PDC center facilities

Structured Observation Checklist

Enumerators /

MSI evaluators

Parents - Kibarani School for the Deaf

Group Interview / (Principal also to be

interviewed by enumerator)

MSI evaluators

2. Questionnaires (prior to layout for EpiSurveyor)

2.1 Questions for PTTC and DTTC Principals (58)

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

What kind of changes have come to teacher education as a result of the new

Tutor Induction Course from TEPD? Give examples.

Text

What Information and Communication Technology (ICT) equipment was

provided by TEPD to your College?

Text /D.K.

Is there a Professional Development Center (PDC) in your college?

Y/N/D.K.

Do you have a PDC coordinator?

Y/N/D.K.

Do you have a PDC committee?

Y/N/D.K.

Where do you hold most PDC activities?

Text /D.K.

Have you received a PDC handbook?

Y/N/D.K.

Were INSET reference materials provided to your PDC by TEPD? If so

what were they?

Y/N/D.K. &

Text

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of TTC Tutors?

Very neg.

/neg./no change

/pos./very pos.

/D.K.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of in-service teachers?

Very neg.

/neg./no change

/pos./very pos.

/D.K.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of student trainees?

Very neg.

/neg./no change

/pos./very pos.

/D.K.

Has the TEPD project affected the quality of the linkage between the TTC

and TP schools? If so how?

Y/N/D.K. &

Text

Has it become easier for TTCs to recruit / find TP partner schools since

TEPD began? Why or why not?

Y/N/D.K. &

Text

Since the 2007 start of the TEPD project do TP schools think they are

getting less, the same, or more value from their relationship with the TT

College?

Much less, less,

no change, more,

much more

/D.K.

How useful are the digital educational materials provided on CD-ROM by

TEPD?

Not useful/

somewhat

useful/ useful/

very useful

/D.K.

Impact: Year 6

What are the main changes that the TEPD project has made in the way TT

Colleges prepare teachers?

Text /D.K.

Has TEPD developed any new teaching and learning materials for your

college? Which ones?

Y/N/D.K. &

Text

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or

materials? If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N/D.K. &

Y/N

Are you aware of an earlier tutor training program before this new Tutor

Induction Course was introduced by TEPD?

Y/N/D.K.

How would you describe the change between the earlier tutor training

program and the new one that came from the TEPD project. The new one

is…

Much worse,

worse, no

change, better,

much

better/D.K.

Have you received the Gender and Education Teacher Training Manual? If

not do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N/D.K. &

Y/N

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for action research

from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less,

no change, more,

much

more/D.K.

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for data capture and

analysis from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less,

no change, more,

much

more/D.K.

What support or ideas have you received from the TEPD/ACE project

about how to sustain TEPD-initiated activities after the project ends in May

2013? Please give an example.

Text

Impact: ICT

Do you have a reliable internet connection in your school?

Y/N /D.K.

Do you have an internet connection in your school that is generally

accessible to both tutors and student trainees?

For Tutors / for

trainees / for

both /D.K.

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of your computers and

software?

Very unsat./

unsat. / neutral /

satis. / very satis.

/D.K.

Is there a plan in place for sustaining and maintaining the equipment?

Y/N /D.K.

Who will maintain the equipment in the future after the TEPD project ends

in May 2013?

Text

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Have most of your tutors been sufficiently trained to be able to use

computers and the digital educational materials provided by TEPD?

Y / N / only a

few /D.K.

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff or

from TEPD or from another external group? How frequently is the

equipment serviced?

Internal / TEPD

/ External /D.K.

Never / rarely /

occasionally / as

needed /D.K.

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life Skills

Education training manual? When did you begin using it?

Y/N/D.K. ,

Year/D.K.

Are Youth Friendly Center activities held in your College for HIV

education?

Y/N/D.K.

Are there Voluntary HIV/AIDS Counseling and Testing (VCT) services

offered by your College?

Y/N/D.K.

Has TEPD helped your College create an ICT based HIV/AIDS data

collection system?

Y/N /D.K.

Has the college conducted refresher training on HIV/AIDS prevention

integration in teaching? (for Master Tutors to help student trainees do it in TP )

Y/N/D.K.

To what level are HIV/AIDS Master Tutors confident that they can train

fellow tutors?

Not at all con. /

somewhat con. /

Neutral / conf. /

very confident

/D.K.

Have HIV education practices changed due to TEPD? How?

Y/N /D.K. &

Text

Has there been a "Say No To Stigma" campaign in your college"

Y/N /D.K.

Does your institution hold an annual Community Health Day?

Y/N /D.K.

If your college has not yet held a Community Health Day does it have a one

in its current plan?

Y/N /D.K.

Does the College have a Community Health Day Handbook provided by

TEPD?

Y/N /D.K.

Have College staff received training in conducting Community Health

Days? (Coast, Garissa, Kagumo)

Y/N /D.K.

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the TEPD program?

Text / D.K.

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project?

Text / D.K.

To what level is the new Tutor Induction Course having a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development?

Which outputs are examples of this? (e.g. trainings, materials)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K. +

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support received from

TEPD before June 2010 (before ACE project) had a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development? Why?

(Includes support by Computers for Schools Kenya - CFSK & GeekCorps.)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K. +

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support received after

June 2010 (after start of ACE project) had a positive effect on Teacher

Professional Development? Why?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / 419D.K.

+ Text

To what level are the outputs of the TEPD project having a positive effect

on children with Special Needs? Which outputs? Can you give an example?

(Question among others for School for the Deaf parents, admin., teachers)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K. +

Text

To what level has TEPD affected MOE Key Resource Teachers? How has

it done so?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K. +

Text

Are MOE National Trainers capable of implementing the main TEPD

trainings unassisted by TEPD (induction training support, MGLC training,

etc.)?

Y/N / D.K.

Have any of your college’s policies been affected by TEPD? If so how?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Has your institution planned to continue TEPD activities beyond May

2013? Which ones?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Has your institution budgeted for continuing TEPD activities beyond May

2013? Which activities?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Where do you expect the funds will come from to continue these activities?

Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given to

the education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/ less /

no change /

more / much

more / D.K.

Currently the TEPD program is being managed from a central location. Do

you foresee any issues arising for implementing TEPD activities as the

education system decentralizes to the county level. In what way?

Y/N, Text

2.2. Questions for Master Tutors, Tutors and HIV Coordinators

(46)

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

What kind of changes have come to teacher education as a result of the

new Tutor Induction Course from TEPD? Give examples.

Text, D.K.

Is there a Professional Development Center (PDC) in your college?

Y/N / D.K.

Do you have a PDC coordinator?

Y/N / D.K.

Do you have a PDC committee?

Y/N / D.K.

Where do you hold most PDC activities?

Text / D.K.

Have you received a PDC handbook?

Y/N / D.K.

Were INSET reference materials provided to your PDC by TEPD and if

so what were they?

Y/N / D.K.&

Text

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of TTC Tutors?

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

/ D.K.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of in-service teachers? (e.g., teachers employed

at TP schools)

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

/ D.K.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of student trainees?

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

/ D.K.

Has the TEPD project affected the quality of the linkage between the

TTC and TP schools. If so how?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Has it become easier for TTCs to recruit / find TP partner schools since

TEPD began? Why or why not?

Y/N / D.K.&

Text

Since the 2007 start of the TEPD project do TP schools think they are

getting less, the same, or more value from their relationship with the TT

College?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

more / D.K.

How useful are the digital educational materials provided on CD-ROM

by TEPD?

Not useful/

somewhat

useful/ useful/

very useful /

D.K.

Impact: Year 6

What are the main changes that the TEPD project has made in the way

TT Colleges prepare teachers?

Text / D.K.

Has TEPD developed any new teaching and learning materials for your

college? Which ones?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or

materials? If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N / D.K. &

Y/N

Are you aware of an earlier tutor training program before this new Tutor

Induction Course was introduced by TEPD?

Y/N

How would you describe the change between the earlier tutor training

program and the new Tutor Induction Course The new one is…

Much worse,

worse, no

change, better,

much better /

D.K.

Have you received the Gender and Education Teacher Training Manual?

If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N / D.K. &

Y/N

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for action

research from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

more /D.K.

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for data capture

and analysis from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

more /D.K.

What ideas have you received from the TEPD project about how to

sustain TEPD activities after the project ends? Please give an example.

Text / D.K.

Impact: ICT

Do you have a reliable internet connection in your school?

Y/N / D.K.

Do you have an internet connection in your school that is generally

accessible to both tutors and student trainees?

For Tutors /

for trainees /

for both /

D.K.

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of your computers and

software?

Very unsat./

unsat. / neutral

/ satis. / very

satis.

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning? If so, how?

Y/N, Text

Have most of your tutors been sufficiently trained to be able to use

computers and the digital educational materials provided by TEPD?

Y / N / only a

few / D.K.

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for

your institution?

Y/N / D.K.

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff or

from TEPD or from another external group?

Internal /

TEPD /

External /

D.K.

How frequently is the equipment serviced?

Never / rarely /

occasionally /

frequently / as

needed / /

D.K.

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life

Skills Education training manual? When did you begin using it?

Y/N , / D.K.

Year

Has TEPD helped the PTTC create an ICT based HIV/AIDS data

collection system?

Y/N / D.K.

Has the college conducted refresher training on HIV/AIDS prevention

integration in teaching? (for Master Tutors to help student trainees do it in TP)

Y/N/ D.K.

To what level are HIV/AIDS Master Tutors confident that they can train

fellow tutors?

Not at all con. /

somewhat con.

Neutral / conf.

/ very confident

/ D.K.

Have HIV education practices changed due to TEPD? How?

Y/N / D.K.

& Text

Does your institution hold an annual Community Health Day?

Y/N / D.K.

Has there been a "Say No To Stigma" campaign in your college"

Y/N / D.K.

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are 3 the main accomplishments of the TEPD program?

Text / D.K.

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project in your

school?

Text / D.K.

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support received from

TEPD before June 2010 (before ACE project) had a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development? Why?

(Includes support by Computers for Schools Kenya - CFSK & GeekCorps.)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K.

+ Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support received after

June 2010 (after start of ACE project) had a positive effect on Teacher

Professional Development? Why?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K.

+ Text

To what level is the new Tutor Induction Course having a positive effect

on Teacher Professional Development?

Which outputs (trainings, materials) are examples of this?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K.

+ Text

To what level has TEPD affected MOE Key Resource Teachers? How

has it done so?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much / D.K.

+ Text

Are MOE National Trainers capable of implementing the main TEPD

trainings unassisted by TEPD? (e.g., induction training support, MGLC,

etc.)

Y/N / D.K.

Have any of your college’s policies been affected by TEPD? If so how?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Has your institution planned to continue TEPD activities beyond May

2013? Which ones?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Has your institution budgeted for continuing TEPD activities beyond

May 2013? Which activities?

Y/N / D.K. &

Text

Where do you expect the funds will come from to continue these

activities?

Text, / D.K.

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given

to the education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/ less

/ no change /

more / much

more / D.K.

Currently the TEPD program is being managed from a central location.

Do you foresee any issues arising for implementing TEPD activities as

the education system decentralizes to the county level. In what way?

Y/N, Text /

D.K.

Questions for ICT Coordinators - 42

2.3 Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

What kind of changes have come to teacher education as a result of the new

Tutor Induction Course from TEPD? Give examples.

Text

What Information and Communication Technology (ICT) equipment was

provided by TEPD to your College?

Text

Is there a Professional Development Center (PDC) in your college?

Y/N

Do you have a PDC coordinator?

Y/N

Do you have a PDC committee?

Y/N

Where do you hold most PDC activities?

Text

Have you received a PDC handbook?

Y/N

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of TTC Tutors?

Very neg.

/neg./no change

/pos./very pos.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of in-service teachers?

Very neg.

/neg./no change

/pos./very pos.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the

professional development of student trainees?

Very neg.

/neg./no change

/pos./very pos.

Has the TEPD project affected the quality of the linkage between the TTC

and TP schools? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Has it become easier for TTCs to recruit / find TP partner schools since

TEPD began? Why or why not?

Y/N & Text

Since the 2007 start of the TEPD project do TP schools think they are

getting less, the same, or more value from their relationship with the TT

College?

Much less, less, the

same, more, much

Were INSET reference materials provided to your PDC by TEPD and if so

what were they?

Y/N & Text

How useful are the digital educational materials provided on CD-ROM by

TEPD?

Not useful/

somewhat useful/

useful/ very useful

Have your teachers been sufficiently trained to be able to use the computers

and digital educational materials provided by TEPD or ACE?

Y/N

Impact: Year 6

Has TEPD developed any new teaching and learning materials for your

college? Which ones?

Y/N & Text

What are the main changes that the TEPD project has made in the way TT

Colleges prepare teachers?

Text

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or

materials? If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

Are you aware of an earlier tutor training program before this new Tutor

Induction Course was introduced by TEPD?

Y/N

How would you describe the change between the old tutor training program

and the new one. The new one is…

Much worse,

worse, no change,

better, much better

Have you received the Gender and Education Teacher Training Manual? If

not do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for action research

from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less, no

change, more,

much more

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for data capture and

analysis from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less, no

change, more,

much more

What support or ideas have you received from the TEPD/ACE project

about how to sustain TEPD-initiated activities after the project ends in May

2013? Please give an example

Text

Impact: ICT

Do you have a reliable internet connection in your school?

Y/N

Do you have an internet connection in your school that is generally

accessible to both tutors and student trainees?

For Tutors / for

trainees / for both

Are your computers networked via a local area network (LAN)?

Y/N

What percentage of your total number of tutors are able to use a

Wordproceessor (like MS Word or other)?

Percentage

What percentage of your total number of tutors are able to use a

spreadsheet or other program to make charts (like MS Excel or other)?

Percentage

What percentage of your total number of tutors are able to use a

spreadsheet or other program to perform mathematical calculations (like

MS Excel or other)?

Percentage

What percentage of your total number of tutors are able to use Presentation

software (like Powerpoint or other)?

Percentage

What percentage of your total number of tutors are able to send and receive

email and receive attachments?

Percentage

What percentage of your total number of tutors are able to use scanners,

digital cameras to capture save and manipulate digital images?

Percentage

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of your computers and

software?

Very unsat./ unsat.

/ neutral / satis. /

very satis.

Is there a plan in place for sustaining and maintaining the equipment?

Y/N

Who will maintain the equipment in the future after the TEPD project ends

in May 2013?

Text

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning? If so, how?

Y/N, Text

Have most of your tutors been sufficiently trained to be able to use

computers and the digital educational materials provided by TEPD?

Y / N / only a few

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for your

institution?

Y/N

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff or

from TEPD or from another external group? How frequently is the

equipment serviced?

Internal / TEPD

/ External

Never / rarely /

occasionally /

frequently / as

needed

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life Skills

Education training manual? When did you begin using it?

Y/N , Year

Has the college conducted refresher training on HIV/AIDS prevention

integration in teaching? (for Master Tutors to help student trainees do it in TP )

Y/N

Have HIV education practices changed due to TEPD? How?

Y/N & Text

Has TEPD helped you create an ICT based HIV/AIDS data collection

system?

Y/N

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project in your

school?

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support received from

TEPD before June 2010 (before ACE project) had a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development? Why?

(Includes support by Computers for Schools Kenya - CFSK & GeekCorps.)

None/ little /

somewhat / much

/ very much +

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support received after

June 2010 (after start of ACE project) had a positive effect on Teacher

Professional Development? Why?

None/ little /

somewhat / much

/ very much +

Text

To what level is the new Tutor Induction Course having a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development?

Which outputs (trainings, materials) are examples of this?

None/ little /

somewhat / much

/ very much +

Text

Are MOE National Trainers capable of implementing the main TEPD

trainings unassisted by TEPD? (e.g., induction training support, MGLC,

etc.)

Y/N

Have any of your college’s policies been affected by TEPD? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given to

the education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/ less /

no change / more

/ much more

2.4 Questions for ACE School Head Teachers - 40

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

How many computers were provided by TEPD or ACE to your school?

Number

How useful are the digital educational materials provided on CD-ROM

by TEPD?

Not useful/

somewhat

useful/ useful/

very useful

Have your teachers been sufficiently trained to be able to use the

computers and digital educational materials provided by TEPD or ACE?

Y/N

Impact: Year 6

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or

materials? If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

Have you received the Gender and Education Teacher Training Manual?

If not do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

What support or ideas have you received from the TEPD/ACE project

about how to sustain TEPD-initiated activities after the project ends in

May 2013? Please give an example

Text

Impact: ICT

Do you have a reliable internet connection in your school?

Y/N

Is the internet used by only teachers or by both teachers and students?

teachers / both

teachers and

students

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of your computers and

software?

Very unsat./

unsat. / neutral

/ satis. / very

satis.

Is there a plan in place for sustaining and maintaining the equipment?

Y/N

Who will maintain the equipment in the future after the TEPD project

ends?

Text

Do you have an ACE Sustainability Toolkit? If not do you know about

it?

Y/N & Y/N

Do you have an ACE Equipment Handbook? If not do you know about

it?

Y/N & Y/N

Has the ACE basic computer training content been effective?

Y/N

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning? If so, how?

Y/N, Text

Have most of your teachers been sufficiently trained to be able to use

computers and the digital educational materials provided by TEPD or

ACE?

Y / N / only a

few

Has the ACE project provided workshops to create subject-specific

lesson plans (for example on math, science, and HIV/AIDS)?

Y/N

Has your school established a Student Support Technician Club?

Y/N

Did your school have a math and science pre-test and post-test in late

2012 that was created by ACE and the MOE for grade 5 and 6?

Y/N

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for

your institution?

Y/N

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff

or from TEPD or from another external group? How frequently is the

equipment serviced?

Internal /

TEPD /

Another

External

Never / rarely /

occasionally /

frequently / as

needed

Which of the ACE ICT contributions have been most helpful

(computers, software, networking, all equally)? Why?

Computers /

software /

networking /

internet / all

equally, Text

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life

Skills Education training manual? When did you begin using it?

Y/N , Year

Has your institution held a Community Health Day?

Y/N

If you have not yet held a Community Health Day does your institution

have a one in its current plan?

Y/N

Do you have a Community Health Day Handbook provided by TEPD?

Y/N

Has your school been involved with Community Health Day (CHD)

activities with the nearby PTTC / DTTC?

Y/N

Have you received training in conducting Community Health Days?

(Coast, Garissa, Kagumo)

Y/N

Has TEPD helped you create an ICT based HIV/AIDS data collection

system?

Y/N

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the TEPD program in your

school(s)?

Text

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the ACE project in your

school(s)?

Text

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project in your

school?

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support of the ACE

project received after June 2010 (after start of ACE project) had a

positive effect on Teacher Professional Development? Why?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level are the outputs of the TEPD having a positive effect on

children with Special Needs? Which outputs? Can you give an example?

(Question among others for School for the Deaf parents, admin., teachers)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level has TEPD affected MOE Key Resource Teachers ? How

has it done so?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

Are MOE National Trainers capable of implementing the main TEPD

trainings unassisted by TEPD? (e.g., induction training support, MGLC,

etc.)

Y/N

Have any of your school’s policies been affected by TEPD? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Has your institution planned to continue TEPD activities beyond May

2013? Which ones?

Y/N & Text

Has your institution budgeted for continuing TEPD activities beyond

May 2013? Which activities?

Y/N & Text

Where do you expect the funds will come from to continue these

activities?

Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given

to the education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/ less

/ no change /

more / much

Currently the TEPD program is being managed from a central location.

Do you foresee any issues arising for implementing TEPD activities as

the education system decentralizes to the county level. In what way?

Y/N, Text

2.5. Questions for ACE Teachers - 28

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

How many computers were provided by TEPD or ACE to your school?

Number

How useful are the digital educational materials provided on CD-ROM by TEPD?

Not useful/

somewhat

useful/

useful/ very

useful

Impact: Year 6

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or materials?

If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

What support or ideas have you received from the TEPD/ACE project about how

to sustain TEPD-initiated activities after the project ends in May 2013? Please give

an example

Text

Impact: ICT

Do you have a reliable internet connection in your school that is accessible to both

tutors and student trainees?

Y/N

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of your computers and software?

Very unsat./

unsat. /

neutral / satis.

/ very satis.

Is there a plan in place for sustaining and maintaining the equipment?

Y/N

Who will maintain the equipment in the future after the TEPD project ends in May

2013?

Text

Do you have an ACE Sustainability Toolkit? If not do you know about it?

Y/N , Y/N

Do you have an ACE Equipment Handbook? If not do you know about it?

Y/N , Y/N

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning? If so, how?

Y/N, Text

Have you been sufficiently trained to be able to use the computers and digital

educational materials provided by ACE or TEPD?

Y/N

Has the ACE content been made locally relevant?

Y/N

Has the ACE project provided workshops to create lesson plans on math, science,

and HIV/AIDS?

Y/N

Has your school established a Student Support Technician Club?

Y/N

Did your school have a math and science pre-test and post-test in late 2012 that was

created by ACE and the MOE for grade 5 and 6?

Y/N

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for your

institution?

Y/N

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff or from

TEPD or from another external group? How frequently is the equipment

serviced?

Internal /

TEPD /

External

Never / rarely

occasionally /

frequently / as

needed

Which of the ACE contributions have been most helpful (computers, software,

networking, all equally)? Why?

Mult. choice,

Text

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life Skills

Education training manual? When did you begin using it?

Y/N , Year

Has your institution held a Community Health Day?

Y/N

If you have not yet held a Community Health Day does your institution have a one

in its current plan?

Y/N

Do you have a Community Health Day Handbook provided by TEPD?

Y/N

Has your school been involved with Community Health Day (CHD) activities with

the nearby PTTC / DTTC?

Y/N

Have you received training in conducting Community Health Days? (Coast,

Garissa, Kagumo)

Y/N

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the ACE project in your school(s)?

Text

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project in your school?

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support of the ACE project

received after June 2010 (after start of ACE project) had a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development? Why?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given to the

education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/

less / no

change / more

/ much more

2.6 Questions for Teaching Practice School Heads - (or Deputy Heads if Head Teacher is

absent)

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

Has the TEPD project affected the linkage or relationship between the TTC

and the TP schools. If so how?

Y/N, Text

Has it become easier for TTCs to recruit / find TP partner schools since

TEPD began? Why or why not?

Y/N, Text

Have you received in-service training at the PTTC? If so, what was the

content of that training?

Y / N , Text

Have the teachers on your staff in this school received in-service training at

the PTTC? If so, what was the content of that training?

Y / N , Text

If so, about how many teachers from this school have gone for in-service

training at the PTTC? About what percentage of your total number of

teachers is that?

Number, %

Since the 2007 start of the TEPD project do TP schools think they are

getting less, the same, or more value from their relationship with the TT

College?

Much less, less,

no change, more,

much more

Have MOE Quality Assurance Officers been affected by the TEPD project?

If so how?

Y/N & Text

Have Teacher Advisory Center (TAC) tutors been affected by the TEPD

project? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Do you view teaching practice a burden or a learning opportunity for all?

How?

Y/N, Text

Has the level of activity and cooperation between the colleges and primary

schools changed in the recent past? How?

Y/N, Text

Have there been meetings between tutors and teachers from your school to

discuss professional issues? How frequently?

Y/N, Much less,

less, no change,

more, much more

What preparation is carried out in advance with the primary schools before

trainees are sent to the school for TP?

Text

Impact: Year 6

What are the main changes that the TEPD project has made in the way the

TT Colleges prepare teachers?

Text

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or

materials? If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N, Y/N

Have you received the Gender and Education Teacher Training Manual? If

not do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

Impact: ICT

Do you personally use Information and Communication Technology in

teaching and learning. If so, for what purposes do you use it?

Y/N, Text

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life Skills

Education training manual? When did you begin using it?

Y/N, Year

Has your school been involved with Community Health Day (CHD)

activities with the nearby PTTC / DTTC?

Y/N

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What do you consider the three major achievements of the TEPD project

?(prompt: “considering its Tutor Induction Course”, etc.)

Text

What in your view were the major challenges of the TEPD project?

Text

Suggest ways for improving the benefits of the project

Text

To what level are the outputs of the TEPD project having a positive effect

on the education of marginalized children? Which outputs are examples of

this? (e.g., trainings, materials)

None/ little /

somewhat / much

/ very much +

Text

To what level has TEPD affected MOE Key Resource Teachers ? How has

it done so?

None/ little /

somewhat / much

/ very much +

Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given to

the education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/ less /

no change / more

/ much more

Can you suggest ways for improving the benefits of the project?

Text

2.7 Questions for Secondary School Principals (16)

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

Have Quality Assurance Officers been affected by the TEPD project? If so

how?

Y/N & Text

Has the TEPD project affected the linkage or relationship between the

DTTC and your school. If so how?

Y/N, Text

Have you received in-service training at the DTTC? If so, what was the

content of that training?

Y / N , Text

Have the teachers on your staff in this school received in-service training at

the DTTC? If so, what was the content of that training?

Y / N , Text

If so, about how many teachers from this school have gone for in-service

training at the DTTC? About what percentage of your total number of

teachers is that?

Number, %

Since the 2007 start of the TEPD project do you think your school is getting

less, the same, or more value from its relationship with the TT College?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

Impact: Year 6

Has your institution received the Multi-Grade and Large Class module or

materials? If not, do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N, Y/N

Have you received the Gender and Education Teacher Training ManualIf not

do you know about one that is being developed?

Y/N & Y/N

Impact: ICT

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning. If so, how?

Y/N, Text

Do you have a reliable internet connection in your school?

Y/N

Do you have an internet connection in your school that is generally accessible

to both tachers and students?

For teachers

only / for

both teachers

and students

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of your computers and software?

Very unsat./

unsat. / neutral

/ satis. / very

satis.

Is there a plan in place for sustaining and maintaining the equipment?

Y/N

Who will maintain the equipment in the future after the TEPD project ends

in May 2013?

Text

Have your teachers been sufficiently trained to be able to use the computers

and digital educational materials provided by TEPD or ACE?

Y/N

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for your

institution?

Y/N

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff or

from TEPD or from another external group? How frequently is the

equipment serviced?

Internal /

TEPD /

External

Never / rarely

occasionally /

frequently / as

needed

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Has your institution received an HIV and AIDS prevention and Life Skills

Education training manual? If so when did you begin using it?

Y/N, Year

Are Youth Friendly Center activities held in your nearby DTTC for HIV

education?

Y/N

Are there Voluntary HIV/AIDS Counseling and Testing (VCT) services

offered by your DTTC?

Y/N

Has your school been involved with Community Health Day (CHD) activities

with the nearby DTTC?

Y/N

Have HIV education practices changed due to TEPD? How?

Y/N & Text

Has your institution participated in an annual Community Health Day?

Y/N

If you have not yet participated in a Community Health Day, does your

institution plan to do so?

Y/N

Do you have a Community Health Day Handbook provided by TEPD?

Y/N

Has your school been involved with Community Health Day (CHD) activities

at the nearby DTTC?

Y/N

Have you received training in conducting Community Health Days? (Coast,

Garissa, Kagumo)

Y/N

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the TEPD project in your school?

Text

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project in your

school?

Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given to

the education and training of diploma level teacher educators (tutors) by the

MOE?

Much less/

less / no

change / more

/ much more

2.8 Questions for Ministry of Education Officials (Province, District, Zone, etc.) - 34

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Responses

Have you received training or orientation in use of the new Teacher Competency

Framework?

Y/N

How do you distinguish between teachers who have the competencies and those

who do not?

Text

What kind of changes have come to teacher education as a result of the new Tutor

Induction Course from TEPD? Give examples.

Text, D.K.

Are you aware of the Professional Development Centers that have been created at

many of the PTTCs with the support of the TEPD project?

Y/N

Have you received or seen a Professional Development Center handbook?

Y/N

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the professional

development of TTC Tutors?

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the professional

development of in-service teachers?

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the PDC on the professional

development of student trainees?

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

How would you describe the effects or impact of the Tutor Induction Course on

the professional development of student trainees?

Very neg.

/neg./no

change

/pos./very pos.

Has the TEPD project affected the quality of the linkage between the PTTCs and

Teaching Practice schools? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Since the 2007 start of the TEPD project do TP schools think they are getting less,

the same, or more value from their relationship with the TT College?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

How useful are the digital educational materials provided on CD-ROM by TEPD?

Not useful/

somewhat

useful/ useful/

very useful

Impact: Year 6

Has TEPD developed any new teaching and learning materials for

PTTCs? Which ones?

Y/N, Text

Are you aware of an earlier tutor training program before the new Tutor Induction

Course was introduced by TEPD?

Y/N

How would you describe the change between the earlier tutor training program and

the new one that came from the TEPD project. The new one is…

Much worse,

worse, no

change, better,

much better

What are the main changes that the TEPD project has made in the way TT

Colleges prepare teachers?

Text

Do you have a direct role in assessing the performance of tutors at PTTCs or

DTTCs, or do you receive indirect reports from others about tutors’ performance?

No information

/ indirect info.

/ direct info.

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for action research from

before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

How would you describe the change in tutors’ capacity for data capture and

analysis from before the TEPD project (2007) to the present time?

Much less, less,

no change,

more, much

What support or ideas have you received from the TEPD/ACE project about how

to sustain TEPD-initiated activities after the project ends in May 2013?

Please give an example?

What support or ideas do you or others in the MOE have about how to sustain

TEPD-initiated activities after the project ends in May 2013? Please give an

example

Impact: ICT

Do you have or have you seen an ACE Sustainability Toolkit? If not do you know

about it?

Y/N , Y/N

Do you have or have you seen an ACE Equipment Handbook? If not do you

know about it?

Y/N , Y/N

Do you personally use ICT in teaching and learning? If so, how?

Y/N, Text

Has the ACE training and education content been made locally relevant?

Y/N

Has the ACE project provided workshops to create lesson plans on math, science,

and HIV/AIDS?

Y/N

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for your

institution?

Y/N

Who maintains the ICT equipment – someone from your internal staff or from

TEPD or from another external group? How frequently is the equipment

serviced?

Internal /

TEPD /

External

Never / rarely

occasionally /

frequently / as

needed

Which of the ACE contributions have been most helpful (computers, software,

networking, all equally)? Why?

Mult. choice,

Text

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Have the TTCs conducted refresher training on HIV/AIDS prevention

integration? (for Master Tutors to become Lead Master Trainers to help student

trainees do it in Teaching Practice )

Y/N

How does the MOE view the appropriateness of the tools created for integrating

HIV/AIDS interventions in teacher training colleges?

Not favorably /

somewhat fav /

Neutral / fav. /

very favorably

To what level are HIV/AIDS Master Tutors confident that they can train fellow

tutors?

Not at all con.

/ somewhat

con. /

Neutral / conf.

/ very

confident

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

Is the TCF well incorporated in MOE guidelines and policies and so that it will

continue to be employed after the end of the TEPD project?

Y/N

Are MOE National Trainers capable of implementing the main TEPD trainings

unassisted by TEPD (induction training support, MGLC training, etc.)?

Y/N

What are the 3 main accomplishments iof the TEPD program in your schools?

Text

What are the key challenges in implementing the TEPD project in your schools?

Text

To what level is the new Tutor Induction Course having a positive effect on

Teacher Professional Development?

Which outputs are examples of this? (e.g. trainings, materials)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support that schools and

colleges received from TEPD before June 2010 (before the ACE project) had a

positive effect on Teacher Professional Development? Why?

(Includes support by Computers for Schools Kenya - CFSK & GeekCorps.)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support of the ACE project that

schools and colleges have received after June 2010 (after start of ACE project) had

a positive effect on Teacher Professional Development? Why?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level are the Teacher Competency Framework activities of the TEPD

project having a positive effect on Teacher Professional Development?

Which outputs (trainings, materials) are examples of this?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level are the outputs of the TEPD project having a positive effect on the

education of marginalized children? Which outputs (trainings, materials) are

examples of this?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level are the outputs of the TEPD project having a positive effect on

children with Special Needs? Which outputs? Can you give an example?

(Question among others for School for the Deaf parents, admin., teachers)

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

To what level has TEPD affected MOE Key Resource Teachers ? How has it done

so?

None/ little /

somewhat /

much / very

much + Text

Since TEPD began has there been a change in the level of priority given to the

education and training of teacher educators’ (tutors’) by the MOE?

Much less/ less

/ no change /

more / much

Have any MOE policies been affected by TEPD? If so how?

Y/N & Text

Currently the TEPD program is being managed from a central location. Do you

foresee any issues arising for implementing TEPD activities as the education

system decentralizes to the county level. In what way?

Y/N, Text

Has your institution planned to continue TEPD activities beyond May 2013?

Which ones?

Y/N & Text

Has your institution budgeted for continuing TEPD activities beyond May 2013?

Which activities?

Y/N & Text

Where do you expect the funds will come from to continue these activities?

Text

3. KII Guides

(EVALUATOR GUIDE ONLY)

Below are incomplete guide consisting of indicative questions that may be asked of education officials or

GDA partners as appropriate by the evaluators only (not by enumerators).

*** For KEMI (recommended to speak with Gideon Otem??)

3.1 Indicative Questions for Ministry of Education Officials

What are the implications of TEPD on the many schools not involved with TTCs as TP schools?

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the TEPD program?

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the ACE project?

Have TEPD activities provided models or resources that will remain relevant for education of

marginalized children for some time?

To what degree has TEPD affected MOE Key Resource Teachers ? How has it done so?

To what degree has the MOE Research Department benefitted from TEPD? How? How does

this relate to the future of the PDCs?

Will TEPD programs and approaches remain appropriate and adaptable to an increasingly

decentralized system?

Did the mission / project always receive the estimated funds, and in time?

Are MOE National Trainers capable of implementing the main TEPD trainings unassisted by

TEPD? (e.g., induction training support, MGLC, etc.) ***

3.2 Indicative Guide Questions for GDA (ACE Project) Partners or other NGO Partners

Impact: Professional Development of Teachers

Response

Impact: Year 6

What support or ideas do you have or have you discussed with the MOE or

other GDA partners about how to sustain TEPD-initiated activities after the

project ends in May 2013? Please give examples.

Text

Impact: ICT

Is there a plan in place for sustaining and maintaining the equipment?

Y/N

Who will maintain the equipment in the future after the TEPD project ends in

May 2013?

Text

Do you have an ACE Sustainability Toolkit? If not do you know about it?

Y/N & Y/N

Do you have an ACE Equipment Handbook? If not do you know about it?

Y/N & Y/N

Has the ACE training and education content been made locally relevant?

Text

Has the ACE project provided workshops to create lesson plans on math,

science, and HIV/AIDS?

Y/N

Has your school established a Student Support Technician Club?

Y/N

Did your school have a math and science pre-test and post-test in late 2012

that was created by ACE and the MOE for grade 5 and 6?

Y/N

Has the County or District formed a regional ICT support system for your

institution / program? Explain.

Y/N

Which of the ACE contributions have been most helpful (computers,

software, networking, all equally)? Why?

Mult. choice,

Text

Impact: HIV/AIDS

Mainstreaming and Sustainability

What are the 3 main accomplishments of the ACE project?

Text

To what level has the ICT equipment and training support of the ACE project

that you have provided after June 2010 had a positive effect on Teacher

Professional Development? How do you know? Evidence?

None/ little

/ somewhat

/ much /

very much

+ Text

Have any MOE policies been affected by TEPD? If so which ones? If so

how?

Text

100

3. OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

Observer’s Name _______________________________ Date: ________________________

Name of the PTTC / DTTC / School ______________________________________________

INSTRUCTIONS

 The information should be collected through observation and informal discussion with the individuals who are

directly responsible for the areas of interest.

 The enumerator should provide information in the spaces provided.

POPULATION AND PHYSICAL FACILITIES

1. What is the current teacher or tutor population? _______________________________

2. What is the current student or trainee population? _______________________________

3. Please fill in the table below by indicating figures within the corresponding boxes, where

applicable.

Facilities / Equipment

No.

Condition

(1-5)

Which agency/project

provided this equipment?

1. Computer lab(s)

a) Computers(desk-tops)

b) Surge protectors

c) User friendly software

d) Lighting in the lab

e) Printers

f) Copiers

g) Scanners

h) Internet connectivity

2. Lap Tops

3. LCD/projectors

4. DSTV

5. Digital camera(s)

Resource Materials

101

* 1 - Very Poor, 2 - Poor, 3 - Fair, 4 - Good, 5 - Very Good

Comments

________________________________________________________________________

4. a) Other than the computer lab (or labs) are there any rooms with information and

communication technology (ICT) equipment?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

b) Are these separate ICT rooms in a usable condition?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

c) Comments

________________________________________________________________________

5. To what extent do students and tutors have access to the computer lab/ ICT room for the

purposes indicated below? Use score scale of:

(1) Not at all (2) Small extent (3) Large extent (4) Very large extent

Indicate the number of your choice in the corresponding boxes below.

ICT Usage

Individuals

Tutors

Students

a) Lesson plans / lessons

b) Practice with ICTs

c) Surfing the internet

d) Sending/ receiving e-mail

e) Typing notes

f) Preparing for exams

g) Doing assignments

1. Tafakari Mindset KIE Materials

2. INSET reference materials on CD

3. ACE Equipment tool-kit

4. ACE Equipment handbook

102

ICT Usage

Individuals

Tutors

Students

h) Other (specify)

6. What arrangements does the college / school have in place for maintaining available facilities and

resource materials?

a) Facilities / equipment

________________________________________________________________________

b) Resource materials

________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE

103

4. ICT MATERIALS (locally created) CHECKLIST

We have been asked by USAID to visit Teacher Education and Professional Development (TEPD)

projects they fund and to collect information that will help them to better understand what those projects

are doing for education. The information you share will not be shared with anyone but USAID.

Therefore, your participation and the data you share with us will not affect your relationship with TEPD,

which is providing services to you. Your answers will be used to improve the program but will not make

you more or less eligible to get any extra services or funding. Your name will not be quoted in the report

and your answers will not be judged either right or wrong. Please fill in the form and return it to our

enumerators.

Identification data

Date of visit:

Name of Institution:

Name of respondent:

County:

Gender of respondent:

Constituency /

District:

Contact of respondent:

Position of respondent

1. Do the various departments have ICT materials developed either by the staff or by the

teacher trainees to use in training and learning?

1. YES [ ] 2.NO. [ ]

YES

, please find out and indicate the name of the resource material or describe it, whether the developer is a

staff tutor

or a

trainee,

and the format of the material.

Please include materials from as many different departments as you can.

1.Resource material

2.Developer

3.Department

4.Format of material

104

ANNEX P: PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

List of Documents Sought and Reviewed

Date

Source

ACE Baseline Assessment conducted March 2011

FHI

Baseline Survey Report 2007

MSI/USAID

CD-ROM

FHI

Examples of Phase 2 materials adapted Phase 1 materials based on

feedback

FHI

FHI TEPD Factsheet

July / 12

Web

FY2012 Global Development Alliance (GDA) Annual Program

Statement

2012

WEB

Gender manual as co-produced with MOE

FHI

Getting to Answers / Statement of Work: Evaluation Design and

Baseline.

2012

MSI

Grant and Cooperative Agreement and Extension Year 6 Program

Description

5/30/12

MSI/USAID

10.

Harmonized TP Assessment Tool

Colleges

11.

HIV & AIDS training manual

FHI

12.

Literature Review Model: Evaluation Design and Baseline Study

Implementation for Municipal Services

2011

MSI

13.

Map of all project sites

FHI

14.

Multi-grade manual

FHI

15.

Performance Indicators for TCF (Phase 2)

FHI

16.

Performance indicators for the TCF

FHI

17.

PMP for Phase 1 with actual annual outcomes against each

reported to USAID

FHI

18.

PMP for Phase 2 with actual annual outcomes against each

reported to USAID through year 5

FHI

19.

Pre-ACE project equipment profile for each ACE beneficiary

school.

FHI

20.

PT School profiles pre-TEPD

FHI

21.

PTTC profiles (pre-TEPD) mentioned in 3

quarterly report

FHI

22.

Sample Tutor Induction course materials / Agendas

FHI

23.

Team Planning Meeting Agenda (1/15-1/21)

1/15/13

MSI

24.

TEPD – ACE Request for Quotes

7/12/11

Web

25.

TEPD Cooperative Agreement

5/31/07

MSI/USAID

26.

TEPD developed Profiles of each PTTC (from Phase 1)

FHI

27.

TEPD First Quarterly Report (Phase 1)

Web

28.

TEPD Internal evaluation forms / survey instruments

FHI

29.

TEPD M&E regular periodic reports to TEPD COP

FHI

30.

TEPD Modification of Assistance Phase 2 Program Description)

5/17/10

MSI/USAID

31.

TEPD Phase 2 Monitoring Plan

8/2/12

MSI/USAID

32.

TEPD PMPs (all since 2007)

FHI / USAID

33.

TEPD Quarterly Reports since March 2008

FHI / USAID

34.

TEPD report on INSET materials (Q 3 report)

35.

TEPD Second Quarterly Report (Phase 1)

Web

36.

TEPD semiannual and annual reports - all

FHI / USAID

37.

TEPD Third Quarterly Report (Phase 1)

4/30/08

Web

38.

TEPD Year 6 Workplan

7/30/12

MSI/USAID

39.

USAID Education Strategy 2011-2015

Jan. / 11

Web

40.

USAID Evaluation Statement of Work

MSI

41.

USAID TIPS for Building a Results Framework Number 13, 2

ed.

2010

Web

105

ANNEX Q: EXTENT TO WHICH PTTCS USE ICTS IN COLLEGE MANAGEMENT

Tambach

Mosoriot

Kaimosi

Eregi

Bondo

Asumbi

Sub