Report on the existing ECE models and implementation status of the ECD policy provisions

REVIEW OF THE 2007 EDUCATION SECTOR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT POLICY

AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS

Project Milestone 2 Report

Report on the existing ECE models and implementation status of the ECD policy provisions

Submitted to the Ministry of Education and Sports

By Cambridge Education

August

2017

List of Acronyms

CAO Chief Administrative Officer (head of a district)

CCCP Community Childcare Programme

CCT Centre Coordinating Tutor

CE Cambridge Education (the implementing agency)

CMC Centre Management Committee

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DEO District Education Officer

DES Department for Education Standards

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

DIS/SI District Inspector of Schools

ECCE Early Childhood Care and Education

ECD Early Childhood Development

ECE Early Childhood Education

FBO

Faith-based Organisation

FP ECD Focal Point

GPE Global Partnership for Education

LABE Literacy and Basic Education (a NGO working with home-based centre groups)

MoES Ministry of Education and Sports

MoGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development

NDP National Development Plan

NGO

NIECD

QF & AS

Non-government organisation

National Integrated Early Childhood Education Policy

Qualifications Framework and Accreditation System

RTI Research Triangle Institute

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

ToR

UNESCO

Terms of Reference

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UPE Universal Primary Education

Nomenclature

Throughout this Report, Cambridge Education uses both the term Early Childhood Development (ECD) and Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). ECD is prominent in reference either to international and regional practice (where services are often integrated across sectors) and also in reference to the current context in Uganda where ‘ECD Centres’ have been set up in response to the 2007 Policy. ECCE is referenced both in line with the proposed scope of the revised policy (i.e. defining the future scope of Ministry of Education and Sports interventions), as well as to focus the attention on early learning, early years stimulation and education, and educational elements of packages for pregnant mothers, future mothers, parents and communities.

The decision to use the acronym ‘ECCE’ was determined both by the use of this term in the Project ToR, and also as a result of the inception phase discussions, where the MoES and other partners clarified that the policy must address the needs of children from conception to the age of 8. As a result of this determination, a broader focus on care and education is more appropriate than a restricted focus on education alone (i.e. encompassing ECCE, not just ECE). While the policy recommendations will aim to be complementary to the role of other government ministries and to align with the National Integrated ECD Policy, it is not the intention of this process to provide policy and standards in relation to early childhood health, social development, etc. These are clearly the responsibilities of the other relevant line Ministries.

The Problem Statement

An ECCE policy aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals’ framework should enable better quality early childhood care and education opportunities for all children up to the age of 8, in an equitable and inclusive manner, using trained and qualified teachers.

Uganda has an ECD policy and education law which focuses on regulation of the provision of Early Childhood Education (ECE). Under this policy, the provision of ECE is in the hands of private providers and NGOs. The effect of this policy and approach has been:

• limited access to ECE since not all children are given ECE;

• underage enrolment under UPE;

• an expensive ECE system;

• and poor learning outcomes for learners in later stages. Uganda lags behind her East African region counterparts in ECD delivery. Kenya has 53.5% access, Tanzania has 35.5% access while Uganda only had 9.5%1 access by 2014.

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 4) considers ECCE as a key aspect of broadening inclusion for all learners in education. While the National Development Plan (NDP 11) proposes public investment in ECCE, this proposal is in line with the 2016 NIECD Policy and Uganda Vision 2040.

In order to address the above gaps, there is need to reconsider both the policy and legal stance on the delivery of ECCE. This calls for the review of the 2007 ECD Policy and the Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act of 2008, to provide for standardised quality training and support of ECCE teachers and caregivers, and greatly improved access.

The Project Objectives

The Ugandan Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) under the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) has contracted Cambridge Education (CE) to review the Ugandan education sector’s 2007 policy on Early Childhood Development (ECD). The project has the following objectives:

1. To generate evidence to validate implementation of the current ECD policy.

2. To draft an ECCE policy and operational guidelines.

3. To draft an annualised 10-year costed action plan for the proposed ECCE policy.

4. To develop a Qualifications Framework and Accreditation System for ECD training with a costed implementation plan.

Executive Summary

The Stages of this Project’s Implementation

The project is divided into the following stages:

• Milestone 1 which was the inception phase when CE established working procedures with the Ugandan MoES, agreed on a revised Problem Statement and Project Objectives, and laid out its plans to deliver recommendations for a realistic Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) policy and implementation guidelines.

• This phase, Milestone 2, has focused on the delivery of primary baseline information on the processes and practices, provisions, models, costs and capacity in providing ECCE services across Uganda; and on producing a detailed documentary review (secondary data) that complements the findings of the primary research, to be able to make independent assessments on the status of implementation of the education sector ECD Policy. This will provide a situational analysis and map the current status of ECCE services and training in Uganda.

• Milestone 3, is the phase will commence in September, following approval of Milestone 2, and will emphasise the process of consultation and consensus-building to conclude with recommendations for a revised ECCE Policy, Guidelines and Qualifications Framework and Accreditation System.

• Milestones 4 and 5 will then culminate with the revised Policy package.

Navigating this Report

The report is structured as follows:

• Section 1 provides an overview of the main learnings that can be drawn from International, Regional and Ugandan literature and experience.

• Section 2 summarises the findings of the research undertaken under this project.

• Section 3 outlines the research methodology adopted and provides comprehensive information on the approach and limitations.

• Section 4 highlights the conclusions on the current status of the policy implementation and possible opportunities for how the ECCE sector could develop in the future.

Key Findings

Section 1: Introduction

In this section, we draw from secondary literature sources to summarise the rationale for investing in ECCE and to provide some examples of good global practice in ECD policy frameworks and service provision (related to Project Objective 2), costing and financing of ECCE (related to Objective 3), and training of ECCE practitioners (related to Objective 4).

1.1 The Rationale for Providing Good Quality Early Childhood Education Services and Training

Early childhood development is internationally defined as the provision of health and nutrition, stimulation and care, safety and protection, and education for children from conception to eight years old. There is now a wealth of research to prove the importance of investing in ECD in order to:

• Ensure children’s brains develop to their full potential. Evidence shows that in the first 5 years of their lives, the physical and cognitive development of children’s brains proceeds at a rapid pace that will not be repeated again during their lifetime. At this absolutely crucial stage of brain development, poor health and nutrition, inadequate care and stimulation, and a stressful environment can lead to a trajectory of poor health and schooling outcomes for the rest of a child’s life, and thus perpetuate the poverty cycle.2 The response must be to stimulate and encourage cognitive development through play, interaction and non-formal, flexible and innovative learning approaches, and not through formalised and organised settings that are traditionally associated with formal education.

• Reduce inequality, increase wages, and ultimately, increase economic growth.3 According to economic research, investing in ECD is ‘one of the smartest investments a country can make’4 and the sooner the investment is made, the greater the returns.

• Improve the efficiency of primary schooling by improving school readiness. There is a close statistical link between low levels of pre-primary participation, inefficiencies in early primary grades and poor cognitive skills. Underage admissions in already overcrowded and poorly resourced primary schools lead to low achievement, grade repetitions and systemic inefficiencies and so costly wastage5

The introduction of pre-primary classes can increase children’s readiness to learn, reduce pressure on early grade teachers and improve children’s chances of progressing through the school curriculum.6 A recent RTI pilot study in Uganda suggests that early entry into Primary 1 (and the possible resulting repetition) is being used as a substitute for pre-primary education due to the lack of pre-primary schooling options. It also indicated that children who attended pre-primary were less likely to repeat in Primary 1.7

• Increase gender parity by freeing older siblings (most often girl children) to attend school, allow young mothers to complete their education, and enable women to take up jobs and generate income for their family. 8

The benefits of quality ECD extend well beyond the child alone. Societies also gain from improved school performance, stronger economies, reducing inherent disadvantage and inequality, and a safer and more inclusive society. 9 10 11 12 13

These benefits are recognised in global commitments, most notably through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which state in target 4.2 that:

By 2030 ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.’

The indicators for Goal 4.2 include:

• participation in organised and supported learning environments (one year before the official primary entry age); and

• number of years of free and compulsory pre-primary education guaranteed in legal frameworks.14

However, gaps in pre-primary enrolment have continued to exist not only among, but also within countries, especially between urban and rural areas. A key reason for such inequality is that despite the broad benefits to society and the economy, many countries, including Uganda, have yet to expand provision of preprimary education and ensure its universal access.15 Furthermore, the evidence is clear that in a private system of provision, poor children tend to receive either no ECCE provision, or at best, provision of much poorer quality of pre-primary education than their peers.16

The 2007 ECD policy of Uganda is based on the recognition that early childhood education is part of the basic education cycle and that all children have the right to basic education. It also indicates an understanding of the benefits of ECCE for success in school and perpetuation of national heritage and values for the future. However, this report will highlight the ongoing bottlenecks and shortcomings that are ultimately hampering Uganda from realising a quality ECCE system and from also achieving the country’s human capital development needed to support Vision 2040.17

1.2 Drawing Evidence and Experience from Good Global Practice

There are five key instances of global best practice in ECCE that emerge from the evidence we have examined and which are relevant to Uganda. These are:

1. Policies should encourage an empowering, interdisciplinary and child-centred approach to the provision of services (including health, nutrition, hygiene, social protection and early stimulation).18

2. The role of parents, families and other caregivers19 should be emphasised in interventions in order to support early child development (including building on positive traditional child rearing practices and cultural beliefs).20

3. Stakeholders must recognise that quality is essential and that poor quality ECD services will not deliver positive child outcomes21 and may even be detrimental to the development of the child; that there is a need for common agreed standards and in-built mechanisms for monitoring and assuring quality; and that there is a balance to be achieved between expanding access and not sacrificing quality. As stated in Uganda’s Constitution the aim is ‘to provide quality educational services to all children including those under the age of compulsory schooling in the country’.

4. The sector should use and build upon existing entry points and delivery platforms (health and nutrition services, social protection systems, community structures, primary schooling).22

5. The Government of Uganda should prioritise the most disadvantaged and hardest to reach to ensure equity and maximum value for investment.23

Practice 1: Taking an interdisciplinary and child-centred approach

In Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Malawi and Lesotho ECD policies have been adopted that integrate services across different sectors, in recognition of the need for a wide range of services in many diverse settings. As well as being interdisciplinary, the needs of young children change as they progress through different developmental stages. The ECD services map in Table 1 below shows the essential interventions across all domains of development, following an age-based continuum. The developmental stages align with those used in the Ugandan National Development Plan life-cycle approach to human capital development, splitting the 0 – 5 years age range into two ranges recognised internationally as differentiated in terms of services. As recognised by the 2007 ECD Policy and the National Integrated Early

Childhood Development (NIECD) Policy of 2016, progress in one domain is a catalyst for development in others.24

Table 1: Essential interventions across the ECD age continuum

Pregnancy 0 – 2 years 3 – 5 years 6 – 8 years

Accesstoplaymaterials andbooks

Early Childhood Care & Education

Food Security & Nutrition

Protectiveand supportive environment

Micronutrient supplements

Preventionoflowbirth weight

Child Protection Accesstosocialservices topreventandaddress riskfactors

Earlyantenatalcare

Preventionofmotherto-childtransmission

Primary Health Care, Sanitation & Environment

Birthpreparation

Mentalhealth screeningand informationtoreduce substanceabuse

Family Strengthening & Support

Maternityandfamily responsibilityleave

Preparationfor parenting

Earlystimulation (caregiverstouch,talk, listenandrespondto children)

Groupprogrammes

todevelopsocialskills

Developmentofearly literacyand

mathematicsskills

Promotionofexclusivebreastfeeding(0–6 months)andoptimalfeedingsupportthereafter

Growthmonitoringandtreatmentofsevere malnutrition

Birthregistration

Childprotectionservices

Postnatalcare

Routineimmunisation

Screeningfordevelopmentaldelay

Integratedmanagementofchildhoodillness

Accesstosafewaterandenvironmentalsanitation

Accesstoquality educationinearly grades

Careandsupport servicestoaddress barrierstolearning

Nutritioneducation

Schoolnutrition programme

Schoolhealthservices (healthpromotion, screeningandreferrals

Childcareservicesforworkingorwork-seekingcaregivers

Parentingeducation

Appropriatereferralandothersocialsupport(includingsocio-economic strengthening)

Source: Adapted from Berry, L. (2013)25 and National Integrated ECD Policy Action Plan of Uganda (20162021)

In each of the countries mentioned above, there is a lead ministry, which has overall management and governance responsibility for the delivery of the ECD policy, a coordination structure that is replicated at regional and local levels, and the necessary resource to realise policy goals. In terms of both service and training provision in Uganda, there is a lack of clarity over the coordination and leadership of ECD services as a whole and a lack of reliable information about exactly what organisations are available, who is accessing them, and how these are monitored. Structures need to be in place to address these bottlenecks in information and be able to support a fully integrated approach.

Practice 2: The roles of parents, families and communities

ECD policies generally recognise the primary responsibility of the family for childcare and development but also the public sector duty to support the family in this role, especially in situations of rapid socioeconomic change including changing family structures, urbanisation, poverty, political instability and disease. Building on local understandings and priorities for child rearing is essential for contextually appropriate programming and achieving the commitment needed for service take up and for engaging parents in activities that promote their children’s development. Home environment is the strongest predictor of educational outcomes.26 27 In Uganda’s case, there is a need for assessing the most appropriate model for prenatal and 0-to-3 services. As the findings of this report highlight, formalised, organisational settings for the stimulation of children under the age of 3 is expensive and not as appropriate or as effective as investing

in the education and support of parents, families and communities to take care of their children independently and at home.

Practice 3: Ensuring quality delivery

While increasing access to ECD has been the primary policy goal for many nations, evidence has shown that the quality of provision is often inadequate. For example, when ECD centre programmes lack qualified teachers, an effective curriculum, and a supportive learning environment, child learning gains may not be realised or sustained into longer-term learning outcomes.28 29 Improving quality is a major challenge, at all levels of education. For instance, Cambodian children who had attended state pre-schools with bettertrained staff and more educational resources performed better on developmental measures than children in either community pre-schools or home programmes. But even where programmes might be regarded as being of poorer quality by standards used in higher income countries, children in disadvantaged circumstances benefitted.30

Since quality has been found to be associated with qualifications and training of teachers/caregivers, and structured and child-appropriate curricula and instruction,31 there is a need to improve the provision of training, support and mentoring,32 assessment and monitoring, and the currency of qualification and accreditation standards.

Countries such as England, New Zealand and the United States (with the National Association for the Education of Young Children - NAEYC), have developed professional standards for early childhood workers, which are usually brief statements describing levels of experience, scales of competence, and ultimately what the practitioner needs to know and be able to do. In these countries, while there are age-specific areas of focus, the profile is on a continuum with other parts of the teaching profession and thus attract similar parity of esteem for early childhood teachers.

In Latin America, many countries have adopted intensive processes of monitoring trainees’ progress once they are practicing professionals, which is passed on to employers after a set period and then becomes part of continuous professional development and staff planning processes. In Honduras, the education of children from birth to six years old is generally carried out in non-formal or non-academic programmes, where the ECCE teacher, facilitator or coordinator is a member of the community. ECCE teachers are somewhat akin to community workers, specialising in work with rural communities. They are normally supported by senior ECCE Professionals assigned to provide them with mentorship and to guide their development.

In the case of Uganda, the ECD Caregiver Training Framework (2012) already contains a set of profiles for each level of qualification. These profiles outline the desirable knowledge and application of knowledge, but, as the findings will indicate, more needs to be done to ensure both the quality of initial training, as well as the practice of ongoing support, monitoring and professional development, to fully realise the potential of these profiles. In turn, until such issues are addressed, the value of qualifications, the status of ECD practitioners in the work-place as a whole, the ability to attract high calibre candidates to the profession, and the opportunities for building career pathways, are all hampered by the perception that training in ECD is of poor quality.

Practice 4: Building on existing platforms

A key consideration for rapid scale up of ECCE services within contexts of competing demands on the fiscus is the use of existing delivery platforms and institutional infrastructure for this purpose. In the context of ECCE for older children and in line with the indicator for SDG 4.2, a Grade Zero has been introduced in a both in in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the world. For younger children (0 – 2 years) education of parents in ECCE practices has been included in health sector initiatives, maximising contacts with the health sector.

In resource-constrained contexts work towards addressing equity issues is necessarily one of progressive realisation towards a comprehensive national system. In some countries the growing, often incompletely regulated, private sector leads to increasing inequities. Strategies often employed to address this involve having equitable government policies targeting the most disadvantaged groups; more effective governance including of the private sector; integration of ECCE initiatives within national policy alleviation strategies and with health and social development strategies33, and building upon existing training and capacity enhancing efforts.

Practice 5: Prioritise the hardest to reach

UNESCO data indicates that across all regions except South Asia, children in the richest households are at least twice as likely – and in some regions three times as likely – to be enrolled in pre-primary school than children from the poorest households.34 These disparities have implications for government policies, pointing to the need to target ECD interventions, and specifically pre-primary schooling, to those children most in need. Current unequal outcomes are problematic not only from a child rights and fairness perspective, but also with regards to economic efficiency. The economic value of ECD programmes is often highest for those least likely to receive services.

In Uganda, as in many other countries in the region and beyond, while policy is guided by the principle of equitable access to ECD services for all children, there are significant challenges in achieving this. While access increased significantly between 2007 (when there was a net enrolment rate of 2.5%) and 2011 (NER 23%), it was unequally distributed with 20% of children in rural areas having access, compared with 52% in urban areas.35 International evidence indicates that in Uganda, as elsewhere, investment in ECD needs to simultaneously address three key aspects: the information deficit, affordability and accessibility. The ECD Policy 2007 and NIECD Policy 2016 have committed Uganda to more effective governance as a strategy and integration of ECCE with health and welfare services. However, there is no clear targeting strategy for the most disadvantaged, even though this group is most likely to benefit from state-driven ECD interventions

1.3 Examining Expenditures on ECCE around the world

Surveys of spending37 on ECCE suggest that such expenditures are funded from a variety of sources. Businesses, NGOs, FBOs, community organisations and the public sector all play a part in funding ECCE programmes, although the mix of these funding sources varies across countries. In almost all countries across the world, parents pay at least some fees, but there is considerable variation in the proportion that this constitutes of overall cost.

The public sector can play four principal roles to varying degrees. They are:

1. As an ECCE service provider. Providing some ECCE Centres/infrastructure/places directly, although not necessarily bearing the full cost of this provision: of the twenty countries for which Levin & Schwartz (2006)38 provide consistent information, twelve have national or local government providing 50% or more of the total number of ECCE places. However, of these, five countries are identified as charging fees while the balance between public funding and fees is undefined in five other cases. Only Cuba has no private sector involvement in ECCE provision.

Research indicates that the wealthier countries of Western Europe and North America have public sector expenditures on ECCE amounting to approximately 0.7% of GDP1 ‘while low and lower middle-income countries spend 0.08% of GDP on pre-primary education’1 – nearly ten times less as a proportion of GDP.

2. As an ECCE funder. Providing grants/subsidies to parents and/or providers to reduce the costs that they would otherwise have to cover from other sources: These may take the form of universal benefits that provide free provision for all children usually for a limited number of hours39 or they may be

targeted, as in Sweden, where parents pay fees according to a sliding scale.40 The public sector may also use such payments to encourage behaviour to support children’s development. Of particular interest is a randomised controlled trial in Karamoja, which showed a positive impact on cognitive development of cash transfers linked with pre-school enrolment.41

3. As an ECCE training provider. Delivering and/or subsidising training for ECCE professionals (either provided free or at some cost).

4. As an ECCE regulator. Developing and implementing a regulatory framework within which ECCE providers must operate.

Section 2: Analysis and Findings

2.1 Service Delivery Types

Key Findings on Service Delivery Types:

1. The majority of ECD Centres surveyed were nursery schools.

2. Differentiation into the five types of ECD education centres is often confused by ECD professionals and service providers. Day care centres are not commonly available, particularly in rural areas, which, when supported by international evidence, signifies a greater need for educating pregnant mothers, parents and communities than for providing formalised centres for 0-3 year olds.

3. Where ECD classes are attached to primary schools, in many cases they are not currently conforming to MoES standards and are not appropriately structured and resourced for young children.

The sample that informs the quantitative research in this study consisted of 143 ECD Centres spread across ten districts. Additional respondents were interviewed at National, District and Sub-County levels, as illustrated by Figure 2 below.

Of the 143 ECD Centres included in the sample, 69% (99) were located in rural settings and 31% (44) were in urban settings. The ECD centres that were sampled fall under the five categories of service provision as defined in policy, as highlighted in the Chart below where the overall sample was constituted by 39% (56) nurseries schools/kindergartens, 24% (35) by classes attached to a primary school, 24% (34) communitybased centres, 8% (11) day care centres, and 5% (7) home-based centres.

Figure 1: Modes of Service Delivery in the Survey

Figure 2: Stakeholders and Geography covered in the Research

Here we briefly profile the five different types (or modes) of early childhood education delivery that are specified in the 2007 ECD Policy.

1. Nursery Schools are the most common form of service. They fall into two categories, which were sampled separately:

(a) 24% of the sample were those based in lower primary schools (both private and public); and

(b) 39% of the sample were those sited independent of a primary school which were found to be all privately owned.

Respondents indicated that parents often prefer nursery schools which are part of primary schools as then “children mostly go with their brothers and sisters” (DEO). Co-location also “secures transition to the lower primary in the same centre” (CAO). It is worth noting that some of the private nursery schools also have a day care function as well. Respondents indicated that there is a limited amount of formalised after-school care but that children often stay anyway in school in the afternoons, especially if they are travelling home with siblings. Where nursery schools are based in lower primary schools in the sample these were often privately run as a private enterprise.

From the findings of this research, it appears that when nursery schools are part of a primary school the infrastructure is often unsuitable for their age group (and would not conform to the MoES standards) because these centres had not been designed for such young children. In addition, there is a tendency not to differentiate the children by age, but include all the ECD children in a single classroom. Equally, the curriculum used is often what is familiar to the teachers – that is the P1 curriculum – which is inappropriate for pre-primary children. This was also the case in some, but not all, of the privately run independent nursery schools.

However, this aside, when interviewed about their impressions of the various types of centres, the Researchers said stakeholders indicated a preference for attaching ECD Centres to public primary schools, albeit with physical autonomy. For example, in Moroto, preference is given to primary schools as the children can access the feeding schemes and it is claimed to be easier to transition between ECD and primary phases; in Arua, many people live a long distance from urban centres (where most private ECD facilities are sited) and thus primary schools can provide better access as well as existing structures upon which to develop an ECD Centre; and in Kabale and Nakasongola respondents raised issues around the fact that young children need to be with their older siblings, and the prohibitive cost of fees charged by private ECD Centres.

2. Community-based ECD centres are often started with the support of an NGO or FBO and over time become community led. Most of the researchers indicated that community-based centres tended to have more child friendly settings and provided a better-quality service than many of the nurseries, though there were examples of poor quality community-based centres as well. An important feature of this form of provision is that there is more engagement of parents in the centre management than in other types, particularly through their engagement with the Centre Management Committee structures. CMC members are selected by parents but are self-managed. They usually consist of nine members with a Chairperson. In faith-based supported centres, the board will regulate and support the CMC.

3. Home-based centres, which consisted of only 5% (7) of the sample, are often actually private nursery schools based at an individual’s house and opened in response to the lack of services and infrastructure in that community. Therefore, they are often wrongly assigned by the authorities as home-based centres. A good example of genuine home based ECD centres in the sample were those established and operated by the Literacy and Basic Education NGO (LABE). LABE inspired centres worked closely with groups of women in rural areas who open their

houses, often in turn, to house an ECD centre for their children. LABE trains the parents to be effective.

4. Day care centres cater for the youngest children but were also uncommon in the sample (8%, 11). This is because caring for young children is more costly than older children, and thus parents can be unwilling to pay the extra costs, and also because there are few women working in formal jobs in rural districts. More significantly it seems that community members see little value in ECD services for under 3s because of the more common practice of caring for very young children in the home. As one rural-based official explained “Communities are ordinary and not elites so they see no reason to waste money on ECD as they can take care of their own children” (CAO). Day care centres are more common in town because “in town someone cannot go to work with a child”.

2.2 Ownership of ECD Centre Premises

Key Findings on Status of Ownership of ECD Centres

4. A large majority, 70%, of ECD Centres sampled were under private ownership, with only 8% sited on public land and 22% in community centres.

Of the 143 centres sampled, 42% (60) were accommodated in privately owned structures, 22% (31) were housed in community centres, 17% (24) in a faith-based organisation facility, 8% (11) in a public facility (mostly public primary schools), and 9% (13) in a personal or family house. 2% (3) centres were classified as ‘other’ meaning their ownership status may have been denied or unknown by the respondent. Using the categorisation of ‘private’ used in the policy, this means that 97 of the centres would be considered to be privately run and owned, 31 community owned, and only 11 fall into the category of public ownership. However, those in public primary schools were often run as an income-generating project by the school or by an individual (often a member of staff). See Figures 3, 4 and 5 below for an illustration of this split of public and private ownership of ECD Centre premises overall, in rural areas, and in urban areas. These charts also illustrate that there is a broadly similar pattern of provision when comparing rural and urban areas, although proportionately rural areas are more likely to have ECD provision through community centres and public facilities than urban areas which were more likely to have privately owned centres.

Figure 3: Public and Private Ownership of ECD Premises

This indicates that the private sector has responded to the challenge to provide ECD Centres across the ten districts surveyed, while the basis from which to build the public sector development of ECCE capacity is very limited. This finding is confirmed when we consider the payment for the premises of the ECD Centres, with only 7 (5%) being paid for by government, while the remainder either do not pay for their premises (31%, 44) or are paid for by parents, the owner, the community or an NGO – particularly faith based organisations.

This is further confirmed by the fact that only 7 (5%) of the centres were reported to have been set up by government, all the rest being set up by communities, NGOs or particularly individuals, with fully two thirds (66%, 94) of the centres established by an individual or group of individuals.

Figures 4 & 5: Types of ECD Sites in Rural and Urban Areas

So, a large number of the ECD Centres sampled were nursery schools, most often established by individuals, and usually sited in a privately-owned structure or community centre. Given that there are no reliable national statistics for types and ownership of pre-schools, and given that the sample districts were selected on a stratified randomised basis from all the districts in the country, we can extrapolate that this split between different types is probably reasonably representative of the split nationally across Uganda.

2.3 Profile of Senior Members of Staff in ECD Centres

Key Findings on the Profile of Senior Members of Staff in ECD Centres

5. 40% of the most senior people in the 143 ECD Centres were untrained.

6. Over two thirds of Senior Staff were between 26 and 50 years old.

7. 41% of respondents were male.

Below, Figure 6 supplies an overview of the statistics gathered profiling the respondents to the survey questionnaire delivered in the ECD Centres. The researchers were instructed to target the most senior member present on the day of their visit to the Centre, and, as illustrated in Figure 6, the majority of these were Head Teacher/Head Caregivers (78% of the 143 respondents). Of these respondents 116 reported that they are responsible for the management of the centre, often alongside teaching (115), caregiving (63) and administration (107) responsibilities.

The fact that a minority of respondents (22; 16%) were aged between 18 and 25 may indicate that in an environment with low pay and high levels of volunteerism, young people can rise rapidly to head up such a centre. Furthermore, given how genderised working with pre-school children is internationally, it is perhaps surprising that 58 (41%) of the respondents were male. This runs counter to views expressed by respondents in the universities who train ECD teachers who asserted that the field is dominated by women as it is under-paid and job security is generally poor. However, the relatively high proportion of males holding these positions in the centres may relate to the seniority of the position that they hold (as owner or head teacher) as well as the relatively secure employment profile of the respondents, with 51% (73) of the respondents being permanent staff (or owning the centre), while a further 30% (43) were on fixed term contracts which were in many cases renewable annually.

When asked what their next job would be after leaving their current job, of the 139 who responded 66% (92) of the Heads indicated that they would like to continue serving in the ECD sector, albeit, in different capacities. Of that 66%, a 38% (35) would like to teach, 22% (20) plan to open up their own ECD centre, 16% (15) wish to continue as Centre managers, and a few (would like to revert to providing medical/health support, caregiving and social support.

Figure 6: Profile of the Senior Members of Staff interviewed at the ECD Centres

2.4 Human Resources: Teachers, Training and Qualifications

Key Findings on Teachers, Training and Qualifications

8. Senior members of staff at ECD Centres are under-qualified for their positions by international standards.

9. 62% of teachers / caregivers, distributed across both rural and urban areas, claim to have an ECD Teacher’s Certificate. The exact nature and quality of such certification is unclear.

10. In-service training, and even much of the initial training for ECD teachers, is conducted by private institutions, often for profit.

11. Career pathways are not well understood and accessed by practitioners, and the current pathways are peppered with dead-ends and bottlenecks.

12. The quality of applicants enrolling on certificate and degree courses in ECD is often poor.

ECD Staff Qualifications and Training

As also highlighted in Figure 6 above, Heads generally exhibited low qualification levels. 29% had no further education, 35% had a one-year certificate, 22% had a two-year diploma and only 12% had a degree. Given that the respondents are senior members of the ECD teaching fraternity, they are generally under-qualified for their position, by international standards. Further just over a half possess no qualification in ECD, with only 3 (2%) respondents having a degree specifically in ECD. Furthermore, the training and qualifications of teachers/caregivers who were part of the focus group interviews varied widely. 62% (89) across both rural and urban sub-counties reported that they had an ECD Teacher’s Certificate. However, when this was triangulated with data from the colleges and data on the institutions that the teachers had attended, it became clear that many had been trained on short courses which do not lead to a qualification, often in private colleges which are not subject to quality control. Further, the research indicated that some ECD lecturers and college principals were not clear about what constitutes qualification to be an ECD teacher.

Fully 18% of teachers had no training. There were hardly any with the Community Child Care Certificate and Child Care Certificate qualifications, and relatively few with diplomas. What the data does show is that a majority of ECD teachers in the sample have experienced some training, albeit much of it is in the form of short in-service courses. Furthermore, the data indicates that teachers/caregivers in the rural subcounties were as likely to have experienced some ECD teacher training as their urban counterparts. This finding may have been influenced by the purposive sampling process.

Irrespective of the training that teachers have accessed, observations of inadequate and sometimes abusive teaching practices suggest that the quality and standardisation of training are key problems. This is likely to stem, in part, from the fact that much of the training available to ECD teachers is in the form of short courses which are more about imparting large amounts of information using a lecture mode, rather than about building skills and capacity in ECD teaching. As one national ECD NGO official commented,

All are trained, but don’t know ECD. Some institutions are training with no system. They are not professional. University based courses are too academic. Training should be done at Primary Teacher Colleges – we need specialist courses there and linked to a career.

Although largely privately driven by NGOs and private colleges, there is an active in-service training scene prevailing in most districts reviewed, with 59% (84) of Heads of centres reporting that their staff have received in-service training over the last two years, and a quarter of the centres reporting having staff on training at the time of the review. Most training takes place during school holidays and only 26% of the training reported was through government or public entities.

Training Needs

The Learning Framework was most often mentioned by national and district respondents and Heads of centres as the focus of capacity building. Training on the ECD curriculum, play-based learning, how to motivate children and use of resources, in descending order, were also mentioned by Heads. In focus groups, teachers identified their own training needs as being ‘how to use the Learning Framework’, lesson planning and scheming, record keeping, development and use of play materials, handling disabled children, and training in phonics. The demand for training in handling children with disability is well-judged, as only four teachers in the 143 centres have been trained in handling disabled children, while 50% (70) of the centres reported having at least one child with disability amongst their enrolment.

In reference to their own training, Heads indicated a need for training in leading and managing staff and administrative skills, particularly accounting and handling resources.

It was reported that training often depends on funding support from NGOs. Support and training strategies employed by CCTs to improve teaching, in addition to one-on-one support and coaching, included organising ‘cross’ visits to share good practice, and peer group meetings to help centres in remote areas to keep up to date with policy and new developments.

Some of the CCT respondents feel that they have achieved some success through training, as one stated, (The centres) have very good discipline and I can see them planning on a daily basis. Their classroom environments were ‘talking’ with lots of play materials for the children.

Indeed, the observation by researchers of a session at 131 of the ECD Centres recorded relatively positive interactions between teachers/caregivers and children. See Figure 7 below.

These findings must be treated with caution given that the researchers are not ECD specialists and that they observed only one session at each Centre. Furthermore, the evidence on underage enrolment and repetition at primary schools (refer to section 2.6 below) is indicative of lack of access and ongoing poor quality delivery at ECD Centres. Particularly on the issue of quality, much closer monitoring, and ongoing training and supervision is necessary.

Accessing Training

Among the 187 teachers who sat in focus group interviews, 62% (116) reported that they have a qualification in ECD, with the research showing that this proportion of ECD teachers have received some sort of training from CSOs, school owners and training institutions. However, only about 30% had certification from formal training institutions. While some of these were trained by reputable universities, such as Kyambogo and Makerere, or by effective CSOs, such as the Aga Khan Foundation, or at public teacher training colleges, many cited their training institution as being ones that are apparently private and unregistered with TIET and not affiliated to either Makerere and Kyambogo Universities. Among the heads of the ECD centres 50% (70 of the 141 who responded on this question) had some ECD qualification, with 39% (56) of the overall sample having a certificate in ECD. Taking both the heads of institutions and the teachers together a slight majority (51%) report having some qualification or training in ECD. This is perhaps higher than anticipated, but it also means that nearly half of the ECD teachers/managers in these districts,

Figure 7: Observations of ECD Centre sessions

which were purposively selected based in many cases on the intensity of their ECD provision, have no ECD qualification at all.

Based on data provided by the 83 ECD Centre heads who indicated their staff had received in-service training in the last 2 years, it appears that ECD education personnel depend on a wide range of institutions for capacity building. NGO/CBO are the leading providers/facilitators of in-service courses, followed by public training colleges, private training colleges, government, and centre owners.

For teachers/caregivers in the survey who were not upgrading or participating in any in-service courses, lack of funds was cited as a barrier to additional training. Several had wanted to upgrade their certificate to the diploma. However, there is little incentive to invest in further training as interviewees reported that it does not normally lead to career progression, such as promotion to primary school teacher or an opportunity to head the pre-school (as this is a private enterprise).

A number of respondents made observations about training supply. At the district level, some districts are well provided with training institutions and have been targeted by the MoES for training. There are also several training programmes conducted by NGO partners in all the districts visited. Training providers are mostly urban based (only Wakiso has a number of rural-based institutions) and some sub-counties and the whole of Kalangala and Buyende districts have no institutions at all so that teachers/caregivers have to travel to other districts for training.

The absence of training institutions in the district is a significant setback in trying to implement the policy guidelines. (DE0)

Many of the training institutions are private and apparently, although unregistered, charge a lot of money for training, even though their adherence to acceptable standards is limited, so that as one DEO asserted,

All the teaching institutions available are privately owned, are located in urban areas and expensive. Most of the ECD teachers in this district can’t afford to pay for themselves since they earn little money (DEO)

Attempts to engage the ECD centres in training are sometimes met with resistance. Some CCTs reported that teachers and owners will not attend meetings if there is no lunch or transport for them. This limits where and when they can meet and train.

In the public teacher colleges, the training of ECD teachers, which is conducted in holidays, was observed to be mainly lecturer-centred. While being based on the Learning Framework and adhering to the policy, it is not well-resourced, which means the lecturers are challenged in modelling the methods which they

Table 1: ECD In-service Training Providers (n=83)

are describing. There was also a lack of innovatory methods observed, with limited or no knowledge of action research (with a focus on such methods as Child Study42). There is also a lack of peer review and critique, so expected levels of self-reflection and peer evaluation are absent. In addition, there is no evidence of a vibrant, well-resourced intellectual community researching ECD and thus very minimal levels of thought leadership and academic publishing.

ECD Educator Career Pathways

Many of the respondents in the ECD Centres, in teacher training colleges and in government positions at district and national levels and those working for NGOs commented on the lack of clear career pathways for ECD teachers. As Report 4 in Attachments illustrates hands-on experience cannot currently be assessed for the award of credits and even ECD teachers with a certificate or diploma in ECD education find that they may be blocked from progressing to a degree or to accessing more senior positions.

College lecturers found that the training of ECD teachers is undermined by the absence of a clear career path. College staff proposed that there should be two qualification routes (i) an academic path and (ii) a competence-vocational career path. These would be two distinct but parallel paths, and would require that every qualification/stage of the pathway links into the next step, with no dead-ends or bottlenecks. Once well-established, it may then also become feasible for these routes to ‘talk’ to each other through articulation based on parity of esteem.

These same lecturers struggle with the quality of the students that enrol in their training courses, as many of the trainees are involved in ECCE by default i.e. because their poor marks did not permit them to enter into other teaching or more prestigious courses. University lecturers of ECD indicated similar frustrations and explained that a degree in ECD is only taken up by students with low passes resulting in the generalised view that a) this is professional career for low achievers and b) the ECD degree pre-service award does not offer the same professional status as other university degrees.

The colleges also find the stipulation that their college must be affiliated to a university for certification and have to have their students examined by that university as restricting, and they express frustration at the limited service and support that universities are able to provide due to low capacity themselves.

ECD Teacher Motivation

The research and literature also identifies challenges with regard to motivation of ECD teachers/caregivers who face difficult working conditions and are paid very little. Respondents reported that low salaries and difficult working conditions mean that qualified people are not motivated to become ECD practitioners.

Teachers’ motivation is very low. They receive little salary, schools don’t offer them accommodation and those in ECD centres wish that they could be put on the government pay roll. (Councillors)

If government decides to pay the caregivers/teachers from the centre it would motivate them and service quality would improve. (DEO)

Teachers are ‘0 level’ drop outs with no training in ECD. And the ones that are qualified prefer the better working conditions in private schools. (Councillors)

Getting qualified teachers is not easy and payment by parents is not necessarily good or reliable. (CAO)

The low level of motivation can be deduced from the fact that on the day of the research visits, 80% of the centres had at least one member of staff absent. Given that most centres have a very small number of staff, this could indicate serious problems.

2.5 Remuneration

Key Findings on Remuneration

13. Salaries of ECD practitioners are low by Ugandan standards, averaging between Ushs 100,000 and Ushs 150,000 (US$27 and US$41) per month.

14. Generally, salaries increase with seniority, but there is considerable variation between similar types of centre with only nurseries and community-based centres paying staff in the higher wage ranges.

15. Lack of bargaining power (no unions/significant professional associations) and being off the government payroll means that there is no minimum or standardised salary level.

16. All the centres in the sample paid a salary, with 81% paying this in cash, not in-kind. Of those paying cash, only 19% pay formally into bank accounts or through mobile money transfer.

The academics and officials interviewed asserted that teaching in ECD Centres in Uganda is considered a low status job. In 2012 the ‘Status of the ECD Policy in Uganda’ report 43 recommended a minimum basic payment or remuneration of caregivers who work in different ECD programmes. This has not been implemented – there are no minimum salary levels applied to the ECD sector as a whole. Therefore, because most service providers are private, profit-driven businesses, most caregivers are paid very little and so, in turn the profession fails to attract quality staff. Most of the ECD centres surveyed pay teachers/caregivers between Ushs 100,000 to 150,000 (US $27 – US $41) per month (see table below). Only 5% earn over 300,000 (US $80) and none earn over Ushs 450,000 (US $122) per month. This compares very badly with public primary school teacher pay where the basic salary is just under Ushs 800,000 per month. On the official scale, even ‘Non Formal Education Teachers’ on ‘Trial Terms’ receive Ush 198,793 per month. The lower payments may be attributed to the lower levels of qualifications of the teachers (the qualitative work revealed that the highest qualification for most ECD teachers is an ECD Teacher Certificate and some teachers have none) or it could also be because teachers have less market power in the ECD sector.

There appears to be a clear hierarchy in salary structures as reported to the researchers. This is illustrated in Figure 8, below. The numbers in brackets refer to the number of ECD Centre staff in each category.

Table 2: Caregiver/Teacher Salaries by ECD Centre Type and Location

All the sampled centres reported paying their staff salaries, with 93% (133) paying staff on a monthly basis and 81% (116) paying in cash. Few Heads report paying into bank accounts (11%, 16) or by mobile money (8%, 11), which may reflect determination to avoid being noticed by the authorities and having to pay tax. In 60% (86) of the centres the salary levels vary between staff at similar levels of responsibility, reflecting the bargaining skills of the individual teachers and their experience and seniority. These salary levels are mostly set by the owner or the head teacher and appear to be fairly opaque.

In community-based centres, payment is dependent on when or whether parents pay but some community-based centre staff often receive stipends from NGOs. Additional incentives include lunch and transport, and in some rural communities teachers are offered land for cultivation, others are given bicycles and a few are given soap and sugar (Tororo) and food (Moroto). While some teachers/caregivers indicated a desire to leave due to low pay and lack of support, the majority stated that they would not leave teaching in the ECD sector.

2.6 Coverage, Access and Enrolment

Key Findings on Coverage, Access and Enrolment

17. We estimate that some 70% of the 4 – 6 age group are not accessing pre-school education in age appropriate classes.

18. Family income is the main determinant of whether a child accesses a pre-school.

19. The poorer and more rural the area, the less likely it is to have private provision and the more likely it is to have community based organisations providing pre-school education.

20. ECD centre enrolment is increasing in most communities sampled.

Figure 8: ECD Centre Salary Levels (NB: blue columns represent ECD Centre staff and other colours comparative job salaries)

21. The vast majority of Centres are targeting the 3 – 6 years age group, while nearly half also include children in the 6 – 8 age group, but only 13% cater for the 1 – 3 years old group and 6% the birth to 1 year old group.

Well over 50% (80) of ECD centres surveyed were not registered or licensed and only about half of those that were registered or licensed (25%) were formally registered with MoES. If we extrapolate this information and assume that enrolment is the same in registered and unregistered centres then the ‘true’ participation rate could be more than twice that estimated by EMIS, which only records data from registered centres. This would give an estimate of the ‘true’ participation rate of 22%, which is close to the 23% of 3-6 year olds attending pre-school that was estimated by the national household survey (DHS 2011).

However, the study indicates that this estimate may also be under-counting children between the ages of 4 and 6 who are in pre-schools. Recent EMIS data indicates that 563,913 children are enrolled in 6,798 registered pre-primary schools, although this figure ignores the substantial number of this age group who are already in P1 as under-age learners. The 2014 census counted 3,569,223 children aged between 4 and 6. If we divide the number of children by the number of centres, then it appears that each centre has an average of 83 children. Assuming that the vast majority of children in these centres are aged 4-to-6 years old (and our research supports this) then we can extrapolate that 16% (563,913 ÷ 3,569,223) of that age group are enrolled in registered ECD centres. If a further 55% of centres that are unregistered account for at least the same number, then that mean over 30% of children of that age group are accessing ECD services. In addition, this is probably still an under-count as it does not include under-age enrolment in primary schools, which has been shown to be significant44 . This suggests there is a participation rate in preschools which is considerably higher than the MoES estimates, albeit that the majority of children of the 4 – 6 years age group are still not accessing age appropriate classes. These statistics indicate that for complete coverage allowing all Ugandan 4 – 6 year olds access to age appropriate classes would require another 29,000 ECD Centres to be built.

Based on the enrolment percentages over a number of years, a large proportion (64%; 87) of the ECD Heads considered the ECD/school enrolment to be on the increase. Only 21% (29) of Heads considered enrolment to be decreasing, while 15% (20) considered the trend to be constant.

Higher enrolment in ECD centres than MoES figures suggest, does not necessarily relate to improved levels of school readiness. Indeed, the estimates by Crouch and Kibombo (2016) of very high repetition rates in lower grades in public primary school suggest a lack of school readiness still prevails. Their evidence also suggests that there is still a high rate of underage enrolment in Primary 1 that results in these children receiving an education that is inappropriate to their age. This point was also made by district officials in interviews, who related this phenomenon to lack of appropriate ECD Centres and the cost of those preschools that were available (while enrolling in Primary 1 is fee-free), which together form a perverse incentive to enrol underage children in Primary 1 in public primary schools. This has detrimental effects on the educational future of these children and they tend to repeat grades more and achieve worse outcomes than children who experienced proper pre-primary schooling.

Furthermore, even if the higher (extrapolated) enrolment figure of over 20% is correct, it still means that about 80% of under 6 year olds do not access any form of ECCE.

*Multiple responses possible

Table 3: Type of Age Group Served by the ECCE/ECD centre

The survey evidence (see Table 3) indicates a small minority of existing ECD Centres cater for children under the age of 4, with only 18 out of the 143 catering for the 1 – 3 years old group and of these 8 cater for the birth to 1 year old group. A combination of factors is likely to be contributing to the relatively low enrolment rates. The focus groups with parents, undertaken as part of the survey, revealed that although they recognised the value of ECCE they could also predict many reasons why other parents did not send their children to the centre. As well as difficulties in paying the fees, they identified issues such as ignorance, negligence, poverty, the importance of child labour and parents’ belief that their children are not ready to benefit, particularly those under 4 years old. These results are consistent with the belief of Plan International45 that to participate effectively, parents need to be convinced of the benefits of ECCE for their children.

The enrolment data, the responses to questions on access and the proportion of parents who the Centre Heads indicate are struggling to pay the fees for the Centres, combine to confirm the assertion made by all the focus groups of parents – that many 3 – 6 year olds do not access pre-schools because their parents cannot afford the fees. This finding is not surprising as information from the DHS 2011 and Brunette et al 201746, suggests that participation in ECD centres is considerably lower for children in poorer areas. This may also affect some of the types of provision available and the distribution of types of centres, with higher intensity of provision in urban areas, and private centres being mainly found in urban areas, while ones set up by NGOs and communities being mainly in rural areas, where incomes are lower. The research was not able to assess the relative quality of rural and urban provision. Some NGOs working with rural communities are reported to provide relatively good quality provision in rural areas, albeit their coverage is limited.

Figure 9 below shows the types of provision available in each District surveyed arranged by the poverty47 of the District. As expected, the poorer the area, the less likely it is to have private provision, presumably because parents are less able to pay fees, as already discussed. Similarly, the poorer the area the more likely it is to have ECD education services provided by a Community Organisation. More surprising is the finding that poor areas are less likely to have centres based in a personal house. There appears to be little association between poverty and the likelihood of having a centre owned by the public sector or a Faith Based Organisation.

Figure 9: Centre Ownership by District and Poverty Ranking

Source: ECD Survey and UBOS

2.7 Compliance to Ministry Regulations

Key Findings on Compliance to Ministry Regulations

22. 44% of the Centres surveyed were not licensed or registered.

23. 58% of the Centres achieved an overall score that does not meet the MoES’s minimum criteria for running a Centre.

24. The majority of centres that are not licensed or registered indicate that this is because it is too complicated, there are too many requirements, or is too expensive. There is also a lack of awareness about the need to register, as well as resistance to the need to pay ‘backhanders’ and taxes.

25. Access to land title is a major concern undermining ECD Centres’ ability to register.

Numbers of Registered and Unregistered Centres

All ECD Centres are meant to register (Guidelines for ECD Centres 2010: Chapter 5) after two years of existence, and after having applied for licensing within 3 months of opening. However, of the 143 sample centres only 19% had been licensed, with another quarter of the Centres being registered – see Figure 10, below. This was despite the fact that all of them have been open long enough (at least 3 months) to have applied for a license and most have been open for more than 2 years (with the average length of time being 7 years), so they should all have initiated the registration process.

When the 56% (80) which are not licensed or registered, were then asked why they have not registered, the responses in Figure 11 below, were elicited.

Figure 10: Proportion of Sample ECD Centres which are Registered and Licensed

*Multiple responses were permitted to the above reasons

The only positive that emerged is that all the ECD centres saw some value in being registered. Indeed, quite worryingly, a quarter (35) of Centres say they have applied but had heard nothing back, which implies that the centre verification and registration process at local government level is not working as planned and its importance is being undermined.

District officials who were interviewed were aware that most centres are neither licensed nor registered. For example, in one district there are nearly 150 known centres (with the implication that there will be other centres which are not known by the authorities), and of these 67 have applied but only 7 are registered. However, district officials counter accusations of slow registration processing by reporting that centres only come forward and apply when they are threatened with closure.

Figure 11: Reasons given by ECD Centres for not Registering or Licensing

Requirements for Registration

Behind the need to register are a host of requirements that government has put in place which ECD Centres are required to adhere to. Implementation of some of these requirements was checked during the survey both through the interview and through a physical observation process by the researcher using a checklist.

The requirements for setting up an ECD centre that were assessed included: 1) Buildings, 2) Staffing, 3) Sanitation and hygiene facilities, 4) Emergency facility, 5), Furniture, 6) Storage, 7) Meals, 8) Outdoor spaces, and 9) Roles and responsibilities of the caregiver (during care/teaching session). In order to come up with interpretation of the data, the percent for each indicator was rated along a range of ‘excellent’ to ‘poor’, and the count under each of those ratings was converted into percentages.

The overall outcome of the analysis suggests that of the 55 requirements for establishing an ECD Centre that were observed, only 13% of the requirements were adhered to by ECD centres in the range of ‘very good’. 58% of criteria for adherence to standards are poorly or fairly met by Centres on average. So, this implies that most of the centres are not meeting with a large number of the requirements and thus overall they are not adhering to minimum standards that the Ministry has put in place to try and ensure that ECD centres provide a quality service to children. The challenge that the Ministry faces is further compounded by the finding that 37% (53) of the Heads of centres reported that they do not even try/see the need to adhere to MoES guidelines. Indeed, there was awareness in some, but not all districts, of the guidelines, especially the Guidelines for Establishing ECD Centres. In some districts, copies of such key documents were not available.

As illustrated in Figure 12 below, there are a variety of stronger and weaker elements in the Centres’ adherence to standards.

Table 3: Performance rating on Ministry of Education and Sports Requirements

Challenges with Implementing the MoES Requirements

It was widely reported at all levels in the system that there are too many and too rigorous requirements for licensing and registering, and it is ‘too costly’ a process. The application process is long and feedback takes a significant time to be delivered and received. At the same time, the centres have to meet the requirements within set time frames which are tight. A major problem that many centres face is that they do not have a land title, which is central to the application process. Concern about the guidelines was expressed by officials who said,

(There are) inadequate national standards and operational manuals and guidelines for centres. (SI)

(It is a priority) to revise the registration and licensing laws as it’s a process which stops centres from registering. (SI)

Figure 12: Compliance of ECD Centres to key requirements

Respondents in every district commented on the large number of centres that would be unable to meet the infrastructure standards, especially in rural areas.

To alleviate some of the challenges Kalangala District reported making information more readily available and also finding a more practical approach to the requirements:

We have gone out to the centres and in trying to standardise we have developed tools and looked at those minimum requirements and tried to disseminate. For example, at least the structures must be safe. (District Official)

There is also greater need for effective advocacy warnings and reminders. Some centres are simply unaware of the need to follow such guidelines – they assume, for example, that they are automatically registered if attached to a Primary School. Other owners use lack of access to the policy document as an excuse to avoid registering. It is also reported by district officials that privately owned centres feel it is their job to monitor their own centres so they do not see the government as having any role in this and need to be sensitised to the child protection responsibilities of government.

Some proprietors may not think that licensing and registration is important but think it is just a waste of time and torture of red tape by the government. (DEO)

Interestingly, this view did not come out in the survey of the sampled centres.

In the district and NGO interviews, there was mention of under-the-table payments required to move processes along. In addition, district and sub-county officials reported that the influence of people in power is a source of corruption/lack of due process being followed, which undermines the role of the officials with responsibility for monitoring ECD centres. For example,

You go to a school without requirements and the next time you go back you find they have reopened. In one case, as soon as we left the chair of the LC3, he told the owner to continue to operate and he would speak to district authorities. (CCT)

A few of the mushrooming centres don’t have licences to operate and I believe there are some influences from top officials. You close up a centre today and the next day you get a phone call from someone influential instructing you to open it as soon as possible. (LC3 Chair and Councillors)

Another barrier to registration which was noted in some of the sampled centres is that applying for registration makes them visible to the government and so they ‘have more trouble’ – there will also be an issue of taxation. The sampled centres in some instances indicated an advantage in staying ‘below the radar’ so as to avoid being taxed. Local revenues are minimal in many districts and there are many sectors that need support, which means there is pressure to register and be taxed. As one group of councillors with the LC3 chair put it,

Because most of the centres are not registered and licensed this makes our work difficult when it comes to taxing them.

The centres themselves feel they should not be taxed as they are providing a service that the government should be providing. In one district the DEO indicated that licenses are free, however the researcher in that district found that officials implementing the process demanded registration fees.

2.8 Infrastructure

Key Findings on Infrastructure

26. Most Centres lack adequate access to toilets, clean water and proper food storage.

27. Very few ECD Centres grow their own food.

28. 32% lack a properly constituted Centre Management Committee.

As indicated above, infrastructure was identified as a major challenge by all centre respondents, previous research studies 48and the researchers. This includes overcrowding, unsuitable buildings that do not meet standards, inadequate sanitation and water, or in a few cases, no structures at all.

The policy recognises that compliance to hygiene standards are important when dealing with young children. For water supply, 24% (34) of the centres use a chlorinated water source (including standpipe and mains water supply), while 63% (90) use pump/borehole, well, lake/river, and rainwater sources. The researchers ascertained that 69% (99) of the centres provided their children with access to relatively safe water. However, a majority of the centres report facing challenges with their water supply, including distance to the source, gaining access, the source drying up and the cost of the water. Once collected 56% (77) of the centres keep the water in jerry cans; only 2% (3) have access to a fridge.

Toilet facilities were also assessed during the research, and it was found that only 55% (79) of the centres have the correct ratio of toilets to children. Although 13% (19) of the centres provide children with flush toilets, the majority (61%, 88) only have access to pit latrines which are shared by boys and girls, and in some cases the teachers too. 64% (92) had separate toilet facilities for the teachers. Two of the centres had no toilet facilities at all. 68% (97)of the centres had handwashing facilities.

The policy prescribes the storage, preparation and provision of meals at ECD Centres and the way that children’s food containers should be stored. In the sample, 103 (74%) centres provide meals for the children. Nearly half of the centres hire cooks to prepare the food. Surprisingly, under 5% have community members or parents preparing the meals even though many are community based centres, while a quarter have their own staff prepare the food. 76% (78) of the Centres which provide food (and most that do, provide breakfast and lunch) buy the food with an average spend of between Ushs 600,000 to Ushs 1,560,000 on food per month.

Perhaps surprisingly, only 10 of the centres grow their own food, while 21 get some form of food aid –either from their community or NGOs. The majority of schools which offer meals have a specific storage facility for food, although the researchers assessed only 68% (97) of centres as having a hygienic store for the food. 78% (112) of the centres were observed to have some form of dedicated/separated kitchen area

The regulations also state (Guidelines for Early Childhood Development Centres 2010, Chapter 6) that every ECD Centre should have a Centre Management Committee (CMC). The specific conditions are laid down for each type of centre and the CMC it requires. Of the 139 ECD Centre heads who responded to the question on CMCs, 32% (44) admitted to not having a properly constituted CMC, although even those with a CMC complain about lack of motivation by members making it difficult to hold regular meetings of the CMC, and the fact that in many cases members expect to be paid for attending meetings.

Although not prescribed in policy, the provision of electricity is key to maintaining a healthy environment. However, only 48% (69) of centres have access to either mains or solar electricity, while 62% rely wholly or partially on charcoal for power and fuel, but most worrying is that 13% (18) of centres had no access whatsoever to fuel or lighting.

Infrastructural Problems

A few quotes from sub-county and district level officials provide some idea of the sort of infrastructure problems that ECD centres face.

Current structures are in a very bad state, the roof is leaking, no shutter on the windows, doors can’t be locked and most of the classrooms, baby to top, share a room and an instructor. (Councillors)

Buildings are not fit for children, poorly constructed and most of them do not meet the standard that we need. (CAO)

Infrastructure is a problem. We use timber; floors are not cemented and become muddy when it rains. Children then use benches and are not comfortable. (CCT)

In the focus groups held with parents and CMC members, infrastructure such as fencing and construction of classrooms and toilets were mentioned as priorities, as well as the construction of zebra crossings and speed humps on main roads close to centres.

Access to land, as well as getting the title to the land, has also been identified in the research as a major problem for ECD centres.

The community doesn’t fully give land. After Plan (an NGO) constructed centres land owners took back the land for themselves. (Councillors)

Because of inadequate land and structures the only public facilities are Lower Primary classes attached to UPE schools. The ones who can manage to own land and set up structures are the ones who start ECD centres. (DEO/SI)

2.9 Monitoring Compliance and Providing Support Key Findings on Monitoring and Support Provision

29. There was no example of a dedicated district-level ECD budget in the sample.

30. No district had any dedicated ECD staff – even the ECD Focal Point is not dedicated, fulltime to ECD.

31. 78% of the Centres had been inspected in the last 2 years.

32. Government officials require significantly more dedicated training in ECD.

While the ECD Centres are severely challenged in meeting registration requirements, district and local officials face a number of constraints in fulfilling their own responsibilities to ensure compliance and to provide support and mobilisation. These relate to the lack of a specific ECD allocation in their budgets and to staff capacity.

None of the 10 districts had a specific allocation for ECD within its education budget. Education budgets are mainly spent on district and primary school teacher salaries and the balance is used for construction, supervision and registration of primary schools. Therefore, it is the inspection grants that are used in most districts for expanding monitoring to ECD centres as well. Part of ECD money comes from local revenue but this is marginal in many districts due to low levels of revenue collection. In one district, there had been a small ‘paper’ allocation for ECD but this had not been forthcoming. Not having a ring fenced ECD allocation makes support for ECD services vulnerable to other priorities in the education system and dependent on the interest of the district officials. As there cannot be a plan without a budget, no district had a separate ECD plan or had mainstreamed ECD into their District Plan.

We don’t get resources for ECD so it [the budget] is actually zero. In truth the focus is on primary but we encourage all schools to have a wing for ECD. (CAO)

There are rigorous standards (for ECD centres to follow) but a small financial allocation. (DEO)

The funds from the government for inspection are earmarked for primary schools and therefore visiting the pre-schools is by private arrangement. (Councillors)

ECD is an unfunded priority by the government. It is not allocated for. We have the desire but we are limited by finances. (DE/SI)

How often district officials are able to visit ECD sites and schools depends on the availability and payment of facilitation and inspection grants. In some districts NGOs assist with site inspections and encourage registration. Logistical issues like transport and fuel allowances can limit what can be achieved. Accessibility in terms of the condition of roads, distances and weather also affects efficiency.

Imagine it’s the third week since schooling resumed and there is no money for inspection from the government. (DEO)

Transport and fuel to reach schools has helped. But this may be insufficient for quarterly visits. (SI)

Given this lack of funds and the low priority ECD is given at district and sub-county levels, it is perhaps surprising that 78% of the surveyed centres reported that they had been inspected by district or urban authorities in the previous 2 years, with the mean time since the last inspection being only 3.4 months. However, only 28% reported getting any feedback from the inspection visits, which severely undermines the purpose of conducting inspection and supervision. Half (70) of the centres had also been visited by the local CCT in the last year, with the mean period since the last visit being 4.3 months. The implication of these findings is that officials do visit ECD centres when they can, even when the centres are not registered.

As there were no dedicated ECD staff at district level, the knowledge and experience needed for ECD responsibilities can be inadequate. For example, a national ECD expert outlined the challenge of officials who are not conversant with ECD,

The ECD Focal Point should link with parish chief who is in charge of children and go to the village. But this person is often not well conversant with ECD – they are nominated. We need training for government officials... The standards for example are not high but the enforcers do not know them, neither the space nor the ratio. One may go in and find one teacher with over 80 students and not do anything. Inspectors may also look for more academic work not a play based approach with materials.

A CCT indicated how motivating specialised training had been.

Before I trained with Aga Khan University in early childhood development I never cared but now it has become my passion.

Not only are staff not ECD specialists but it was reported that workloads are large and there are often unfilled posts even if there is a post allocation:

A substantive ECCE focal person is important for following up on ECCE services. All positions need to be filled by government. (DEO/SI/FP)

There are inadequate personnel to carry out inspections though the post structure is full… there are too many ECD centres for regular inspection. (DEO)

It is not easy to take care of them (ECD Centres) as a sole person hence effectiveness is not good. (CCT)

2.10 Quality of Learning and Teaching

Key Findings on Learning and Teaching

33. Most ECD teachers have access to the Learning Framework but struggle to understand it and so cannot use it effectively to inform the learning of the children.

34. The Learning Framework for 0 – 3 year olds needs to be finalised and distributed as it is needed.

35. The majority of ECD Centres are not offering a full package of appropriate play materials, and nearly half lack basic teaching and learning materials.

Key to achieving the promise of early learning achievement is implementation of a good quality learning programme. Research shows that this is related mostly to qualification and training of the teachers and use of structured and child appropriate curriculum and teaching. An appropriate curriculum involves a balance of many ‘free choice’ activities with carefully selected materials, engagement with peers, and interactions with teachers in adult-led group activities. Engagements based on child-initiated activities are associated with better child learning outcomes49. The 2005 National Curriculum Development Centre Learning Framework for ECD (3 – 6 years of age) is the guiding document for a holistic activity programme for children in this age group, broken into bottom, middle and top groups. It promotes a child-centred learning approach and stresses that there are ‘no lessons to be taught by the adult, but there are developmental activities to be done by the children’.

In the survey, the ECD centre Heads were asked about their knowledge of the Learning Framework. 119 (83%) of the Centre Heads indicated that they are aware of the framework (those who did not would mainly be in ECD centres catering for the under 3s, for which the Learning Framework has yet to be released). However, as only 12 of the respondents work in centres specifically focusing on under 3s, it follows that some 12 (10%) of those heading up ECD centres catering for the over 3s were not aware of the curriculum that is to be used in them.

ECD specialists interviewed at national level expressed concern that the 0 – 3 Learning Framework is not available to guide implementation of ‘baby’ programmes. It was also suggested that there should be guides specific to different forms of provision including home–based groups. They indicated that the Learning Framework provides for an excellent programme and that community-based centre practitioners had been successfully trained to apply it. Generally, however,

Teachers have failed to interpret the learning framework. (It) calls for someone who is intellectually smart. They need more training and support. Teachers have the learning framework and the guide but they don’t know how to plan, pass over the knowledge and skills. So, many companies have come up with lesson plans, schemes of work. This kills creativity. (ECD NGO)

Officials in all districts referred to challenges with implementing programmes according to the Learning Framework attributing the problems to “half-baked” and unqualified ECD caregivers/ teachers.

Teachers lack a critical understanding of the learning framework. (CAO)

Caregivers are not trained so they teach with a lot of difficulty because they cannot interpret the Learning Framework. (CCT)

The ECD Learning Framework was not broken down into terms so the teachers do not know which content to give the children. (CCT)

Although there were many reports that teachers/caregivers did not have access to the Learning Framework and could not afford to purchase it as the districts do not supply it, in fact only 18 (15%) of the surveyed centres catering for the 3 – 6 year age group denied having a copy of the Learning Framework.

District officials indicated that faced with a lack of the Learning Framework, ECD centres resorted to buying commercial workbooks, with Prime and SIPRO being named. For example,

The Learning Framework copies are not enough, to get one someone has to buy it or go all the way to Kampala. (SI)

Most centres use Prime Framework which doesn’t fit the curriculum. The use of different learning frameworks is common. (SI)

As a result of lack of access, training and familiarity with the Learning Framework but also because of parental expectations,

Some centres start the academic part so early, local languages should be used first, but they start on the curriculum early which could delay the intellectual growth of the child. (DEO)

Teachers only concentrate on the academics in terms of reading and writing leaving out other developmental stages of a child. (ECD FP)

Many teachers are not yet conversant with the framework and they mix ideas and tach what is meant for primary in top class and middle class. (CCT)

Lack of learning materials contribute to the inability to implement the Learning Framework or follow a playbased approach. This was frequently referred to by all groups of respondents and confirmed by the researchers from site observations. The Learning Framework encourages the use of local materials for teaching and development partners train on materials making as part of their capacity building. As a result, the community-based centres generally had learning materials made out of local materials.

The sampled ECD centre classrooms that were visited exhibited a variety of play and learning materials, which are exhibited in Figure 13, below. This indicates that most of the classrooms lacked basic teaching and learning materials appropriate to early learning environments. The only items which a majority of the classrooms had were children’s books and materials for fine motor skills. Nearly half of the centre classrooms lacked even these basic items.

Another challenge in providing quality teaching in the centres was that in 7 of the 10 sample districts, a single teacher teaches all classes at different periods. The exceptions were in Arua, Kabale and Nakasongola where there were designated teachers for each class (baby class, middle class and top class). This may indicate the impact of NGOs working in the district or district officials with knowledge of how to implement ECD.

2.11 ECCE session observations

Key Findings on the Session Observations

36. 40% of the 143 early learning sessions observed involved no play-based learning.

37. Researchers observed forms of corporal punishment being used.

As part of the data collection process, an early learning teaching session was observed at each of the sampled centres. In total 143 observations were conducted. Researchers ensured that they conducted observations at different times during the morning at their different centres, so that the topics observed could not reflect a standard curriculum slot. Figure 14 summarises the topics observed. In a few instances, more than one topic was covered in the 30 to 40 minute period. 47% (67)of the lessons were language and

Figure 13: Percentage of ECD Centres providing each type of play materials

literacy lessons and 32% (46) were numeracy lessons. The remainder were science, social science and health habit lessons. Only 12% (17) of the lessons were music and ‘play’.

Figure 14: Content of Observed Early Childhood Care and Education Sessions

For more information on the lessons observed, refer to Report 2 in Attachments.

It should be borne in mind that the researchers are not ECCE experts and may therefore have rated certain items, such as the adequacy of the interactions and materials, more favourably than a trained ECCE practitioner. However, there are clear indications from the information gathered of a very academic approach in the centres, which was also mirrored in the comments of many of the district and national interview respondents. 79% (113) of all sessions observed concentrated on literacy and numeracy and it is likely that quite a lot of this was delivered via formal instruction (children had reading books, sat at desks and tables, referred to charts etc). This is despite the approach of the Learning Framework and that these observations covered the baby through middle and top class, although few 0 – 3 classes were actually observed. 40% (57) of the activities were reported as not involving any play at all. Key factors associated with good learning outcomes include strategies which help children to be creative and question, so the very low observation of children asking questions is also a concern.

A very worrying observation, given that corporal punishment is rightly prohibited, was the amount of harsh discipline practiced by teachers and caregivers. The researchers gave numerous examples of age inappropriate discipline, often because children got the wrong answer rather than for misbehaviour. For example, there were several instances where they witnessed children being hit with sticks, board dusters or rulers, and children who didn’t get the correct answer were shamed with orchestrated songs and laughter. A child’s head was banged on the table when she didn’t seem to understand the Prime Examination taking place. There was a lot of aggressive shouting at the children by the teachers. In one school children were threatened that they would not receive their porridge if they did not do as the teacher ordered them.

2.12 Language Use

Key Findings on Language Use

38. 73% of ECD Centres are reported as teaching in the learners’ mother tongue.

39. 15% of ECD Centres teach in English and 12% teach in a variety of languages.

The Ugandan curriculum reform of 2007 recommended that children’s mother tongue or ‘familiar language’ be the language of instruction for the first three years of primary school, across all subjects, with English taught as a subject. The education sector ECD Policy supported this primary school language policy (Section 47) by making the local language the medium of communication/instruction in ECD centres. The rationale behind this policy is that use of indigenous language promotes identity and cultural maintenance and also improves literacy acquisition and learning in general.

The survey found that of the 141 ECD Centres which responded, 85% (121) of Centre Heads reported that they use the same language during instruction as that spoken by all or the majority of children. However, of the lessons observed a smaller proportion (73%, 104) were in the local language. Overall, the level of use of the local language in lessons is a positive finding as it appears pressure from parents for English teaching, which was noted by many district and national officials in their interviews, has not diverted the majority of centres from using local languages, in both urban and rural contexts. In a significant number of the classes observed (about 25%) there was also some use of English alongside the local language, with researchers reporting that in some cases English was introduced for ‘fun’. The challenge of linguistically diverse pupils, particularly in an urban environment, meant that several languages might be used by teachers in a single session. However, the observations indicate that in over a quarter of the sampled schools the children were being taught in a language other than their familiar or home language, which in most cases was English.

The issue of teaching in the children’s mother tongue is complicated by the attitudes of many parents in relation to ECD. Many respondents reported that parents’ understanding of early learning programmes was often inappropriate, with expectations that children would learn to read, write and speak English. As a result, private schools with nursery schools attached, use English throughout, and use it as a ‘selling point’ to attract higher enrolment, as observed by CCTs,

Private schools use English so parents take their children away (from nursery schools in public primary schools) because they are speaking the vernacular. (CCT)

However, where there had been sensitisation there were examples such as the following:

Parents attitude towards ECCE services has kind of changed. Though parents don’t like the idea of teaching the children in their local languages, they are starting to appreciate … after intensive sensitisation. (CAO)

Teachers/caregivers, if they can access the Learning Framework and training materials, find these are in English, and thus they not only have to ‘translate’ them into session planning, but actually first ‘translate’ them into local language. This is also an issue in recruiting Caregivers, who must have a primary pass in English to enter into a Primary Teachers’ College. In one district the Learning Framework had been translated into a mother tongue, but it was not the language that most of the ECD teachers speak.

2.13 Provision for Children with Disability

Key Findings on Provision for Children with Disability

40. Although half of the centres have at least one child enrolled with a disability, such children are seriously under-represented in ECD Centres.

41. Only one teacher in the 143 ECD Centres had been professionally trained in managing and teaching children with disability.

Of the 141 Centres which responded to the question on enrolment of disabled children, 50% (70) reported that they have at least one child with disability enrolled in their centre. The most common form of disability reported by the Centre heads is physical disability, with impairment of sight and hearing coming next in descending order of mention. Children who are intellectually challenged was the next most mentioned category of disability and finally the least mentioned was compound disability.

The average number of children with disability per centre was between 1 and 2 children, with approximately equal numbers of boys and girls being enrolled with a disability. UBOS reports that based on the 2014 national census 12.5% of Uganda’s population have some form of disability. Other surveys have put the number at nearer to 16%50. Whichever figure is more accurate, the sample of ECD Centres in this study shows that children with disability are much less likely to be exposed to early childhood education than their peers. This early marginalisation is likely to create a long-term learning impediment for those children, and indicates that even if they are enrolled in primary school later they will face a struggle to cope. Thus, such children are doubly disadvantaged.

This disadvantage is compounded by the lack of ECD teachers trained in disability education. Although 50% of the ECD Centres had enrolled at least one child with disability, only 13% of these (that is in 7% of the total centres, or 10 centres in total) have a staff member who has been specifically assigned to be in charge of the education of their disabled children. Of the 10 teachers, only 1 teacher had actually received specialised training in disability. The other 9 were trained as ordinary caregivers, although 3 had received some in-service training to work with disabled children. Of the other six, one had developed an interest in supporting disabled children, while 5 had no special training or interest in working with disabled children although they had been assigned that task.

2.14 Costs

Key Findings on Costs

42. 80% of the ECD Centres rely on user fees for income

43. Paying daily instead of termly for ECD services leads to a huge increase in overall cost.

44. A small number of ECD Centres receive large external grants from various sources.

45. Costs of providing ECD services for under 3s is much greater than for over 3s.

46. 52% of the ECD Centres report that many parents/guardians struggle to pay the fees.

47. 45% of the ECD Centres offer defaulting parents alternative ways of paying for ECD services.

The biggest concern related to making provision privately controlled is the user costs. The Heads of the ECD Centres and parent focus groups indicated that user costs are a major disincentive for community members in accessing ECD for their children. This supports evidence found by Brunette et al (2017)51 in two eastern districts where parents reported using public primary schools as an alternative to pre-schools as they were free, even though they realised that their children might have to repeat P1 or that they would learn less.

Most of the centres surveyed charged their users in some way and the most frequent – and highest –charges were for teaching/caregiving. There was a considerable variation in such charges ranging from Ushs 0 to Ushs 500,000 per term for the over 3s. A few centres (fewer than 5%) charge daily but these are much more expensive pro rata; it can be as much as ten times more expensive to pay daily rather than termly. However, for poor households with sometimes erratic incomes and limited access to credit, paying daily may be the only way that they can provide their children with ECCE.

115 (80%) of the ECD centres rely on user fees for their income, and 108 of these indicate that their cumulative annual income from fees in 2016 was Ushs 17,438,000.

The reliance on fees brings with it problems of collection of fees, with almost 90% (122) of centres saying that some parents found it hard to pay the fees, and 52% (70) of the centres reporting that many parents/guardians struggle to pay the fees. CMC and parent focus groups reported that the cost of accessing ECD centres is a major disincentive to those who are not presently sending their young children to pre-school.

Other sources of funding for the ECD centres were:

• four centres reporting grants from a public source ranging from Ush 6,479,576 to Ush 45,000,000 per year;

• one centre reporting a grant from a Ugandan NGO of Ush 3,000,000 per year;

• nine centres reporting grants from a private source with eight centres reporting amounts ranging from Ush 500,000 to Ush 10,000,000 per year;

• eight centres reporting grants from an international NGO with four centres reporting amounts ranging from Ush 300,000 to Ush 128,180,000 per year;

• seven centres reporting grants from a Faith Based Organisation with six centres reporting amounts ranging from Ush 180,000 to Ush 30,000,000 per year;

• thirteen centres reporting grants from other unspecified sources with ten centres reporting amounts ranging from Ush 100,000 to Ush 42,000,000 per year.

The disparity in access to income is indicated by the above list, with 4 centres alone receiving a total of over Ushs 38m from international donors, and another centre receiving Ushs 3m from a local NGO. The other major source of income reported was from government with 4 centres cumulatively receiving Ushs 17,282,000 last year. These are most probably ECD centres in public schools or community centres. The 13 centres which receive external funding are obviously in a very different financial space than those centres which rely for their continued existence on user fees.

The ECD centres were asked to break down their fee structure. 93 reported on their teaching fees. If we take the cost of teaching/caregiving as the most widely paid item, the average fees per term charged were Ush 188,000 and Ush 62,000 for caregiving for the under- and over-threes respectively, with feeding costs being three times higher for the younger age group. This may be another reason why the vast majority of centres identified in each of the 30 sub-counties sampled, only service the over 3s. Persuading parents to pay more than double for care and feeding of their toddlers compared to their under 6s must be difficult to explain and justify. The reasons for the higher unit cost for the lower age group are that babies and toddlers require much more individual attention, infrastructure and specific foods. As one CCT stated, “day care centres are delicate and need more attention and also need more requirements”.

Table 4: Mean Charge per Term (in Ushs)

It should be noted that the standard deviation for each variable was big, suggesting that there is a large amount of variation in the payments made per ECD item or service.

In 45% of the centres, when parents cannot pay fees, the heads of centres report that they offer alternatives, with the most common being payment in kind and payment through physical work, rather than debt cancellation, or through providing a grant or loan. Where grants are offered they tend to cover more children per centre, but only a few centres have access to such support.

Aftercare (staying open for those children who stay in the centre the whole day) is only offered by a minority of centres and is also expensive. Such a service is mainly offered by urban centres to cater for parents who are working in full-time office based work.

2.15 Parenting programmes

Key Findings on Parenting Programmes

48. District and local officials support the roles of parents as key stakeholders in improving access to ECD centres as well as in improving learning outcomes.

49. There is a demand among parents for more training programmes focusing on their care of their children.

The 2007 ECD Policy refers to parents as a policy outreach target (Section 3.4.2a) in order to provide services for children. Much of the focus is on sensitising parents to take up ECD opportunities or mobilising them to start ECD centres. As highlighted by one of the CAO’s interviewed:

Families need to be strengthened and supported if the ECDs are to grow.

Parents are seen as key stakeholders by district and local officials. National interview respondents indicated that the MoES has developed a parenting programme and that it is currently being integrated with parenting programmes offered by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development as part of the NIECD policy implementation process.

Parents in the focus groups identified the need for further information on parenting including nutrition, handling children with special needs, discipline, growth and development, hygiene and managing children’s illnesses. Some had received training from development partners, the local health centre or community development office, but there was no evidence of consistent content packages across these.

District and local officials had been engaged in parent sensitisation and the use of local radio to pass on information was often mentioned but mostly in relation to mobilising parents to take children to school. In one district where the NIECD Policy implementation is more advanced due to the efforts of development partners, the District Education Officer explained that they “educate how mothers should care for children from conception”.

As indicated in the international evidence, the effectiveness of parenting programmes can be very strong. The Early Literacy and Maths Initiative of Save the Children led to nearly equal outcomes of children,

despite starting from a significantly lower baseline, and furthermore, ongoing gains upon entry into primary school, whereas children from targeted centres then began to stagnate.52

Section 3: The Research Methodology for Data Collection and Management

This research study builds upon existing evidence and data in the field of ECCE, with focus on the implementation of the 2007 education sector ECD Policy. The study seeks to provide rich verifiable primary data on present ECCE delivery modes and types (in ECD Centres), which is set within regional and international literature on effective ECCE implementation. The study has taken a deep, broad and hybrid approach to delivering evidence that will underpin the efforts to develop a revised ECCE policy and associated guidelines, standards and costs.

The research study was structured around the five main types (or modes) of ECD centre delivery that are defined in the 2007 ECD Policy. Using a mixed method approach, a team of researchers gathered both quantitative data (using a questionnaire and site observation schedule) and qualitative data (from interviews and learning process observations) to gain a triangulated understanding of how each model of ECCE service provision delivers its programme. 143 ECD Centre sites were studied, catering for 0-3 year olds, 4-6 year olds and 6-8 year olds. The breadth of delivery possibilities was studied, including parenting programmes, home-based care and education, nurseries, kindergartens, and school-based sites, both private and public, and both urban and rural. The target respondents were the owners, managers, teaching practitioners and users of the ECCE sites, including parents, community members and management committee members. Therefore, the study profiled existing ECCE programmes for children up to the age of 8, according to type53, provisions and geographical location Furthermore, the survey provides information on cost, provider and delivery mode54 with the aim of assessing the relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and efficiency of these models of delivery.

The process commenced with a desk research of all the 2007 Education Sector policy related documents and guidelines to inform the scope of the study survey and the development of tools. The desktop research also informed the approach that the Project team undertook to provide analysis of existing ECCE models and practices. All key Government of Uganda, MoES and MGSLD documents dealing with ECCE were reviewed in the desktop review.

3.1 Development of Research Instruments

A rigorous approach was taken to the development of the survey instrument and the various interview tools, which would be used during the research process to gather data from national, district, sub-county and ECD Centre levels. The survey instrument and site observation tool underwent fifteen iterations as they were developed by the team of ECD experts, senior social researchers and statisticians, before eventually being loaded on the Samsung Android tablets by GIS Mapping specialists. Every question was tested against the requirements of the ECD Policy and its supporting guideline documents, as well as the NIECD Policy to ensure that the data collected would provide adequate explanation of how the various elements of the policies are being implemented at every level in the education system and with what level of success. The final check on the contents of the survey was conducted by the project management and lead social researcher, who together checked every question against the policy to ensure complete coverage.

Alongside this, the ECD specialists in the project team developed qualitative interview tools based on international best practice and to ensure that the data that would be collected would be adequate to respond fully to the research questions posed by the project terms of reference. These covered areas such as preparation and in-service training of ECCE teachers, qualifications of practicing teachers, accreditation processes for those qualifications, employment conditions of pre-primary teachers, and the costs associated with delivery of the policy and of training.

These tools were then reviewed by the project management team to ensure that they covered all relevant aspects of the policy, were phrased appropriately for Ugandan respondents, and that they were not too

long or onerous. Most interviews eventually took about one hour, although some with key officials and focus groups took considerably longer, as did delivery of the survey questionnaire (averaging around 1 to 2 hours). Although this is not preferred practice the project team were well aware that the complexity of the topic, the range of knowledge that certain respondents would have and the lack of later opportunities to undertake follow-up research, all merited such extensive interviews.

3.2 Scope and Approach

The data collection at District, Sub-County and Local level was conducted using a mixed methods approach, culminating in investigation of:

(a) the current status of ECCE in 30 communities in 10 districts across Uganda;

(b) processes and practices in 143 ECD Centres;

(c) documentation on the skills, abilities and qualifications of Teachers and Caregivers;

(d) the nature and capacity of key training and support institutions;

(e) types of networks and associations available;

(f) costs involved in delivering and accessing ECCE services;

(g) compliance with government requirements; and

(h) challenges that the ECD Centres are facing.

3.3 Sampling Strategy

A purposive sample of ten districts was drawn with two from each of the (traditional four) regions of Uganda, namely the Central Region (including one with island communities), Western Region, Eastern Region, and Northern Region (of which one District was in Western Nile with provision for refugee communities), as well as an additional two districts (Kampala and one from among the Karamoja districts). These ten districts were selected to represent a cross-section of Ugandan districts.

The process of selecting the ten districts was undertaken based on the following process. The potential pool of districts for selection included:

• All districts which were included in the Uganda National Early Childhood Development Service Provider Inventory (2016), which were stratified by region (based on the traditional four regions) and then by intensity of ECCE service provision extrapolated from data sources (including districts with high, medium and low intensity of documented ECCE provision).

• The provisionally selected districts were cross-checking against other indicators such as wealth, including urban and rural districts, intensity of interventions and educational performance – to ensure a cross-section across these variants, as in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Criteria used to determine the District Sample: No. Criteria Reasoning

1. Ineachregion,

• AdistrictwithhighnumbersofECCEservices

• AdistrictwithfewECCEservices

2. GPE/QEI/MoESprioritydistrictsandotherCSO supporteddistricts

3. Districts with minority populations such as refugees,pastoralistandfishingcommunities

4. Ruralvsurbandistricts

5. NationalexaminationresultsinPrimaryLeaving Exam(PLE)andNationalAssessmentofProgressin Education(NAPE)

Tounderstandthedriversandbarrierstoaccessandquality ECCEservices.Regionaldifferencesareknowntobe importantdeterminantsofaccesstoECCE55

Drawlessonsfromongoinginterventionsintermsofwhatis workingandnotworkingsuchasGPECCCPinterventions,so astoinformECCEmodels

Documentandconsideruniqueneedsanddynamicsofuse specifictothesesubpopulations

Documentcontextualenablers,inhibitorsandresourcesthat impactECCEprovision

Documenthighperformingandlesswellperformingdistricts tohelpunderstandtherelationshipbetweenECCEandlater performance

The final selected list of Districts for the study was:

No. Region District

1 North Arua

2 North Oyam

3 East Tororo

4 East Buyende

5 West Kabale

6 West Bushenyi

7 Central Kalangala

8 Central Nakasongola

9 Central/Capital Kampala/Wakiso

10 North-East/Karamoja Moroto

Finally, the modes of service delivery for study were stratified according to those outlined in the Policy:

I. day care centres for children aged 0 - 3

II. home-based centres for children aged 0 - 3 and 3 - 6

III. community-based centres for children aged 3 - 6

IV. nursery schools/kindergartens for children aged 3 - 6

V. lower primary classes for children aged 6 - 8

3.4 Data Collection

Quantitative Data Collection: Quantitative data collection involved a survey conducted among ECD Centre Head teachers/Head caregivers using a highly structured questionnaire, administered by the team of 10 researchers, each attached to one district of Uganda. The structure of the questionnaire was based on the project terms of reference, with the indicators and variables obtained from the MoES’s 2007 ECD Policy and Guidelines for Early Childhood Development. The key themes (concepts and dimensions) that were included in the questionnaire are aligned to the interpretation of the terms of reference, presented in 12 sections of the questionnaire, namely: Characteristics of the Head Caregiver/Respondent; Characteristics of the ECD Centre; ECCE Service Provision and Practices; Compliance to Establishment Procedures for Establishing Day Care Centre; Enrolment, Dropout, and Attendance; Human Resource Capacity; Administration and Management; Curriculum; ECCE Centre Inspection; Collaboration and Networking with stakeholders; Access Related Issues; and Budgetary Issues.

Qualitative Data Collection: Qualitative interviews were implemented to explore the perspectives and experiences and feelings of key policy implementers and stakeholders. The qualitative data collection entailed 4 sub-activities: Desk-top reviews; In-depth interviews; Focus Group Discussions; and Site Observations.

3.5 Implementation of the Research Study

A letter of introduction and contact with District Education Officers were established by the Pre-primary Department of MoES to inform them about the survey, introduce Cambridge Education and ask for their participation in the survey. A pre-test of the tools was conducted with the intention to assess the relevance of the questions, adequacy of variables, skip patterns, establishing the duration of interview session, as well as testing the functionality and application of the tablets. The results of the pilot study were analysed and interpreted, some questions modified.

On arrival in each district, the researcher conducted introductory meetings with the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the District Education Officer (DEO) to present the letter from the MoES, to seek their approval to commence the survey, and to gain assistance in setting up interviews with the CAO, DEO, Community Development Officer (CDO), District Inspector of Schools (DIS), and the District ECD Focal Point

as well as Centre Coordinating Tutors (CCT). Semi-structured interviews, were then conducted. The main purpose of these interviews was to collect views and data on knowledge of the 2007 ECD policy, the implementation status of the policy and related guidelines especially in regard to practices and adherence to establishment and registration of ECD Centres, ECD budget allocation, support supervision and regulation, capacity building, and to ascertain roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the policy.

Then, in each district, with the assistance of the DEO and other district officials, three sub-counties were identified. Two of these needed to be predominantly rural sub-counties, while one should be an urban subcounty – generally the sub-county within which the district headquarters is situated. The researchers were tasked with identifying sub-counties which would have different ECCE provision and patterns of use. Following the selection, the researcher visited each sub-county in turn and working with the LC3 Chairperson and Counsellors identified up to five ECD sites representing each of the types or modes of service delivery (i – v) in a particular parish or locality. Where the LC3 Chairperson and Counsellors were unable to identify a particular type in the selected parish then the researcher was to replace that type with an extra example of the predominant type. By so doing the study would gain a rapid overview of the types which are under-developed and those which are common across the 10 districts.

Following the selection of the five ECD sites, each would be visited by the researcher, spending a full day at each site. Data was collected over the course of the day, including structured observations of the physical site, a questionnaire for the Head (or most senior member of staff present) of the ECD centre, and separate focus group interviews with Centre Management Committee members, teachers/caregivers and parents. Focus Group Discussions were conducted in order to obtain enlisted discussion, important points of departure, cross-checking of information provided by the Head, and eventually a joint construction of meaning or consensus among ECD policy stakeholder.

Structured Observation was also part of the ECD centre Surveys, implemented with the aim of establishing the levels of compliance to MoES procedures and Guidelines for Establishing ECD Centres, as well assessing the quality of caregiving among the ECD centres. The researcher would observe between 30 and 40 minutes of the learning process in a live session and assess the quality of the learning process using a carefully calibrated set of variables in an observation tool. A structured checklist was used to observe the social context and physical settings in the form of: 1) Buildings, 2) Staffing, 3) Sanitation and hygiene facilities, 4) Emergency facility, 5), Furniture, 6) Storage, 7) Meals, 8) Outdoor spaces, and 9) roles and responsibilities of the caregiver (during care/teaching session), and any other necessary facilities/equipment/play material (which are not mandatory but essential).

The questionnaire and site observation data were coded and entered onto Android Samsung Tablets that each researcher carried, with individual password-protected access. The interview scripts were analysed using analytical induction. Analytic induction is a research strategy aimed at systematically developing causal explanations for types of phenomena. Meanwhile, the learning process observations were also analysed by the early learning specialists in the team using an analytical framework that was developed for this purpose based on the MoES’s Early Learning Standards, local conditions and international experience. Collectively, this data was triangulated and supplemented with data from the interviews with sub-county, district and national officials; NGO/CBO providers involved in ECD; and ECCE teacher training providers.

At national level, semi-structured interviews were also conducted. These entailed talking to policy implementers and stakeholders to explore and grasp their point of view on ECD policy formulation, implementation, outcome, challenges, key lessons and new priority interventions.

The overview of stakeholders involved in the research and their geographic levels is depicted in Figure 2 in Section 2 above.

3.6 Management and Supervision of the Research

A total of 14 researchers were selected from applications from over 20 potential researchers. Each submitted their curricula vitae for review, assessing their existing research experience, knowledge of ECD, experience of using Android tablets in research, and language skills. A shortlist of 14 candidates was generated and invited for training. During the one-week training course, the 14 candidates were narrowed down to the 10 best, using inter-rater reliability tests across use of a number of the tools and further verification of language skills. Two researchers were then assigned to be deployed in each of the 4 regions, one per district, with Kampala metropolitan and Moroto North added.

The week-long training was conducted by the core management team and lead social researcher in June 2017. The training focused on understanding of the ECD sector and the types of service provision, survey and interview techniques, use of the tablets, and observation of learning events. The training was very practical involving structured micro-interviewing sessions both with and without the tablets, as well as use of a video of an ECCE class to practice using the learning event observation schedule. A training pack comprising 15 different instruments was compiled and distributed to the researchers. Finally, the research protocol was carefully explained so that all the researchers were clear as to what process they would follow in the districts and sub-counties, as well as at each ECD Centre, and what the expectations there were around confidentiality, their security and use and the security of the tablets.

A pilot pre-test of the research tools was conducted in two ECD Centres on 12 June 2017 in Kampala, leading to some adjustments in the interview tools and the tablets in response to the experiences and findings. The main changes related to rephrasing particular questions in the survey which were difficult for the respondents to understand, reordering questions in the survey which failed to flow, removing some repetition, and reprogramming the tablets where the skip logic was wrongly calibrated.

Each researcher was then deployed to their District, and provided with hands on support and supervision from the core project team and lead social researcher. Daily check-in processes were initiated, involving calls with each researcher to ask an agreed set of short questions, to resolve any challenges and to provide guidance on next steps. Each researcher called back in once they had selected their sub-counties and the ECD Centres to ensure that they were following the correct procedure and were selecting an adequate range of centres. Where a particular type of provision was missing in a sub-county this information was shared with the team. This system also allowed researchers to feed back any queries that they had concerning typology of a particular centre and selection of centres to be researched as the process they followed in selecting the ECD Centres at district and sub-county levels was complex and was likely to yield some unexpected results, which would require intervention from the core team to resolve. In addition, the Project Administrator kept a log on Excel of the number of ECD Centres that each researcher had visited and uploaded. This ensured that adequate numbers of centres were visited and that data was unloaded timeously. This system worked well and ensured that no researcher fell behind in collecting and uploading data. The tracking systems on the tablets were also used to verify the position of the researchers and to ensure that they were following their agreed schedule of visits.

As a further level of quality assurance and support the lead social researcher and a senior member of the core team visited each of the researchers in the field to review their output and process during the first two weeks of the data collection process. This picked up some minor anomalies of practice which were rapidly corrected.

During the 18 days of data collection in the field, 143 questionnaires were collected from 143 ECD Centres across Uganda in over 8% of the districts. None of the ECD Centres selected refused access and all were happy to cooperate, however, in Karamoja, three selected centres were not completed due to closure owing to termination of the World Food Programme. Four of the questionnaires collected were lost as they were being transferred from the tablets. In some cases the potential respondents had to be reassured that the name of their centre and their own names would not be shared with anyone and would not be specified in the report. This was because many of the centres are not registered and are not paying tax. They were

also told that the data they would share was to be used to improve the policy and delivery of ECCE services in Uganda.

At the end of the 3 weeks of fieldwork the researchers were required to spend two days in the project’s Kampala office inputting the interviews they had yet to transcribe and sharing their experiences in a debriefing exercise. The Lead ECD Policy Specialist came from South Africa to lead some of these debriefing sessions so that she was able to get a first-hand feel of what the situation is in the ECD Centres and the experiences of the researchers.

3.7 Data Analysis

The data from the study was analysed to understand the key variables and those variables were crosstabulated to better understand the effectiveness and efficiencies of the various types of delivery. In addition, this data was compared with data that the MoES collects at district and national levels to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing data collection processes and draw out the gaps in these processes. The data loaded on the tablets was converted into Excel and exported to SPSS, and analysed to generate statistics - mainly descriptive (frequencies, percent, mean) and some inferential Inferential statistics was derived using Pearson’s Chi-Square tests to assess the relationship between key independent variables/predictor and dependent variable/outcome (rural/urban) and establishing the statistical significance based on the probability value (p=< 0.005), and drawing up conclusions about relations. Cross-tabulation between rural/urban, mode of service provision and other variables indicated no statistically significant relationship.

Overall a maximum of 15 sites was planned to be profiled in each district, making a potential total of 150 profiles, with up to 30 profiles of each mode of service delivery. Due to technological and Karamoja specific access challenges (see section 3.8), only 143 out of 150 planned sites were profiled. As highlighted in Section 2 on findings, there was an imbalance in the modes of service delivery visited, which is significant as the researchers were aiming to visit equal numbers of each type or mode of service provision in each sub-county they selected. However, as outlined above, if through consultation with the local councillors and LC3 they were unable to identify a particular mode or type of service provision in that sub-county, they were instructed to visit any other mode available in order to ensure overall coverage of 5 Centres per subcounty, or the 15 Centres per Researcher.

The site profiles were then analysed using correlational statistical tests to isolate and relate key variables. From this analysed data, a set of themes were developed based on the policy and the data used to better understand these themes, and the way that they play out in each type of ECD Centre. This allowed the team to understand how well the various ECD types care for and stimulate children, the staffing approach used, the infrastructure provided, and the costs associated with each type. This analysis and measurement of how variables correlate and function in existing modes of service delivery will help determine the proposed changes in the policy and the most effective types and approaches for use in the national scale up of ECCE programmes.

The data collected and analysed during the research process is summarised in Section 2 above, to highlight key information that can be used to inform the development of a revised Policy. Analytical induction approach was used to analyse the qualitative data collected through observation, semi-structured interviews, Focus Group Discussions. Analytical induction approach involved derivation of conclusions (abstract concepts) from the specific data (empirical indicators) under the framework of the study objectives. The emergent themes (regularities and commonalities) across ECD sites and stakeholder supported the formulation of conclusions (hypotheses).

3.8 Study Limitations:

Every research study has certain limitations, with this one being no exception. Here we describe the limitations of this study and where appropriate indicate the methods used mitigate them and limit

negative impact.

Geographical Scope:

The Research Study was conducted in 10 out of 112 districts of Uganda. Although the selection of the ten districts was purposively drawn to be representative of a range of Criteria (see Table 5 above), it is acknowledged that the sample may be viewed as small and therefore not able to provide a complete picture of the country. However, given the sampling process we believe we can make assertions which will allow the findings to tentatively talk to the national situation. Certainly, the triangulation through focus groups and in-depth interviews with stakeholders at all levels and across different organisations, has helped to underpin the research findings, while indicating and verifying their veracity and relevance.

The broad geographical focus and the requirements for visiting deep rural sub-counties led to one researcher failing to complete all 15 ECD centre visits. This is because the researcher encountered many centres which were closed due to a food crisis in the area. This led to that district failing to produce the data from the full number of centres, but is an indication that Centres may struggle to operate due to both climatic/environmental conditions but also where feeding is threatened.

ECD Delivery Modes:

The study found that a majority of the existing ECD services fell under the Nursery/Kindergarten category. There were very few Day Care Centres and Home-Based Centres across the ten profiled districts and therefore most of the lessons and findings are drawn from Nursery/Kindergarten and Community-Based Centres. This is not a limitation of the study insofar as it highlights this finding, which is important for MoES’s consideration, but it is important to be aware that the lack of a depth of information through the study about Day Care and Home-Based Centres will make it hard to provide concrete recommendations for their improvement. Recommendations for these improvements will therefore be sought from other programmes in the East African Region and beyond.

Participation of Centre Management Committees:

The participation of Centre Management Committees was limited in some ECD centres due to distances to the schools and expectations for financial incentives. Although every effort was made to conduct interviews with CMC members, in some centres only a few members of the CMC were interviewed. This is in itself a finding.

Sub-county Selection Bias:

In each district, one of three sub-counties selected was an urban sub-county and two had to be rural. Therefore, the bulk of the study findings necessarily relate to rural contexts. Again, this is justified as Uganda is a predominantly rural country and previous data have tended to focus more on urban ECD Centres, with national understanding of the dynamics of ECCE delivery in rural areas being less well developed.

Selection of Researchers:

The researchers were selected on the basis of a number of criteria, of which their language capacity was key. This was because without having a shared language with the respondents the researchers would not have been able to conduct basic data collection with parents and CMC members. However, as ECD is a relatively new area of research, few of the researchers had experience of the sector. Few of the researchers were trained educators, so understanding of classroom dynamics for the learning event observation had to be developed during the training, as described above. On the other hand, this also means that they come to the research task without preconceived ideas about ECD, which could be a benefit.

Use of Education Technology and Loss of Data:

Quantitative data collection was planned and conducted using Samsung Android tablets to allow for uploading data in real time and to enhance the efficiency for ongoing data analysis. However, given the weak internet connectivity in the rural districts, and the length and complexity of the questionnaires and

observation schedules loaded on the tablets, the use of technology potentially became a hindrance. Inconsistent electricity supply often caused delays and lack of strong internet connectivity meant that data was not readily uploaded onto the database. As a result, four completed questionnaires were lost and were irretrievable. More would have been lost but other researchers had followed instructions and maintained parallel hard copy records. In fact, having to keep parallel hard copies defeats the purpose of adopting technological strategies for data collection. Therefore, future research studies should consider the type of data being collected, the depth of the tools being used (and thus their relative size on a tablet), and the capacity in the areas being visited for upload. In addition, the training of those using technological tools must be rigorous in ensuring their complete confidence with the process and introduce fail-safe mechanisms to better guarantee data is not lost. Finally, the use of technology of this nature opens individuals up to security risks as devices may be attractive to thieves. While paper is usually a more laborious approach, for smaller sample sizes such as involved in this study, it also has significant advantages that may outweigh technological approaches.

Section 4: Reflections on the Status of Implementation of the 2007 Policy and Opportunities for the Way Ahead

4.1 ECD Policy: What is Working and what is Not Working?

The survey and supporting research indicates that:

1. The private sector has responded to the call to set up ECD centres, which have been established in all but the most remote districts, even in deep rural areas.

However:

Although the private sector has established ECD centres, the overall coverage is poor, uneven and does not cater for pro-poor concerns. Furthermore, the quality of the service is often poor and may be causing more damage than good since research indicates poor quality early learning environments can actually hamper a child’s cognitive development. As a result, most children in Uganda under the age of 6 are still not accessing early childhood education and care in an institutional setting, and many of those that are accessing such, are not experiencing quality playbased education. For children under 3 years old parenting programmes may anyway be of more value, but for those who are aged 3 – 6 low access and quality is a real concern. Enrolling underage children in P1 of UPE primary schools continues as access to pre-primary remains relatively expensive and lack of access to local pre-schools is often a disincentive.

2. Most ECD Centres sampled reported that they had received visits from Government officials, in the form of inspection, in the past few months.

However:

There is no dedicated capacity and budget at the District and Sub-County levels for ECCE; there is a reliance on inspection grants to fund ECCE activities; and any capacity that does exist is overstretched and under-trained.

3. A registration system has been established and generally ECD centre owners are not against registering if the process was made more user friendly and it was not aligned to identification of institutions for tax purposes.

However:

The registration process and system appears punitive, lengthy and unfair. Such mechanisms encourage evasion and presentation of excuses to avoid compliance. Furthermore, there are currently limited and weak mechanisms for keeping track of registration and compliance data, and a lack of capacity for follow-up and feedback loops surrounding such data.

4. The present classification system for ECD education centres is in place and most ECD centres could place themselves in that system.

However:

When examined closely most ECD centres are just some variety of nursery school. The classification tends to divide and confuse practitioners and can be used as a way of avoiding registration and adherence to minimum standards. In turn, such confusion further undermines the (already limited) capacity of District and Sub-County officials to monitor and support existing Centres in the appropriate way.

5. There is some capacity to train ECD teachers and trainers.

However:

While training facilities and programmes exist for both ECD teachers and trainers they are of mixed or unknown/unmonitored quality and some are based on profit making by private colleges so are deemed expensive. Training programmes in private institutions are not quality assured by any

external body so do not adhere to any minimum standards. While the public sector courses in teacher training colleges do adhere to certain standards, there is limited capacity for delivery and no culture of research and reflection, so the teaching and learning modalities are often oldfashioned and over academic.

6. There is a nascent hierarchy of qualifications in ECD teaching, with a certificate as the base qualification, advancing through diploma to degree and then higher degrees.

However:

While the hierarchy of qualifications exists, in fact there is little articulation of competency and no parity of esteem between levels, leaving candidates frustrated with qualifications which lead nowhere and a lack of portability between private and public institutions. There is also no mechanism in place to recognise proven prior experience (RPL) against a qualification and limited recognition also of vocational routes into ECCE. The prevalence of dead ends and closed pathways means that career planning is not often observed, and advancement is often not based on skills and experience.

7. There are some good examples of all five types of ECD education service providers in the ten districts sampled. These are generally offering at least an acceptable level of early childhood education and care to their children. A number of these are profiled in Report 2 in Attachments.

However:

Although there are some good examples of each of the types of service provision, most of the centres visited – of all types – failed to meet with the required minimum standards set by the MoES and, more important, would not be able to provide a good educational grounding for young children, or act as an effective route to school readiness.

8. The sampled ECD Centres charge a very wide range of user charges, which are adequate to maintain the services they provide, with a minority being subsidised by either international or national NGOs, or the state.

However:

The majority charge monthly amounts which are out of range for most poor people, and daily payments are even more expensive, even though it is the most financially insecure and the poorest who would generally have to resort to this means of payment. Furthermore, the majority of parents indicate that it is fees that hold them back from sending their children to ECD Centres, while further available research also supports this by showing that many parents are enrolling their children in Primary 1 classes underage to ensure they are in an educational setting, but a free one.

9. Most ECD Centres are run by people who have a proper regard for the safety of the children in their care.

However:

Teachers in a small minority of centres were observed mistreating children, including unacceptable forms of physical and psychological abuse. Such abuse would be prevented if proper inspections of these sites was undertaken by district officials trained in ECD provision.

10.There is increasing parental and community commitment and support of ECD and understanding of what it entails. This has begun to help ECD Centres tackle parents’ concerns that the medium of instruction in ECD Centres is the learners’ mother tongue.

However:

Low levels of parental engagement with their children’s ECD Centre was consistently mentioned as a challenge and parents are still observed moving their children from ECD Centres which teach in the mother tongue to private ones teaching in English.

11.There is some ECD centre networking already and a few associations which claim to represent the interests of those involved in ECE.

However:

These associations have very limited coverage and seem unknown outside the major urban centres. As part of professionalising ECD teaching as a legitimate career option, it is essential that teachers have representation at national and regional levels and can advance their interests in a collective manner. The present structure of stand-alone private centres does not encourage teachers associating with each other, but such associations are a key aspect of a profession and need to be developed. Teachers will need assistance in this regard. The MoES could foster this by insisting that there should be one body that it will deal with representing ECD teachers and then leave the teachers to form such a body or advance an existing association to expand and play that role. Once such a body is formed the MoES should meet with it regularly and use it to help shape the future of the sector and the profession.

4.2 What are the Opportunities?

The present system and infrastructure presents a number of opportunities for increasing enrolment and equitable coverage. As per the international/regional experience, policies should encourage an empowering, interdisciplinary and child-centred approach; the role of parents, families and other caregivers should be emphasised in interventions in order to support early child development; stakeholders must recognise that quality is essential and that poor quality ECD services will not deliver positive child outcomes; the sector should use and build upon existing entry points and delivery platforms; and the Government of Uganda should prioritise the most disadvantaged and hardest to reach to ensure equity and maximum value for investment.

So, the opportunities include:

• Build on existing parenting programmes for parents of the 0 – 3 year olds to reach all communities which require such support, particularly in rural areas. Where appropriate the LABE model of community supported home-based care and education should be adopted and mainstreamed.

• Build the capacity of existing ECD departments in the ECD qualification accrediting universities such that they can provide real support and quality assurance services and mechanisms to colleges which train ECD teachers and whose qualifications they accredit, and extend their reach to include private colleges which train ECD teachers. Also ensure that these universities can act as centres of research and thought leadership in the ECD field nationally. At the same time build the capacity of the vocational colleges such that they can offer more practice-based qualifications in ECD teaching which can be quality assured by DES and the TiET units of the MoES.

• Assist the existing CSOs and centres involved in ECD network more effectively and help them in developing an association of ECD education providers and of ECD teachers, to better represent the interests of these two groups at national level.

• Build on the present capacity in public primary schools and private centres to increase enrolment of 3 – 6 year olds. This must be done incrementally based on both public primary schools and private centres proving that they can provide a reasonable quality service, which does not harm the children in their care. Experience in other African countries of a single modality, particularly building all provision into Grade 0 in public primary schools, indicates that it is problematic unless adequate funding is made available for suitable infrastructure and learning materials, adequate numbers of trained teachers and quality is monitored closely. This solution generally advantages those attending better urban primary schools which tends to perpetuate the advantage of the already advantaged children.

• Use the pro-poor focus that the government has in ensuring that the children aged 3 – 6 in the most marginalised communities have access to pre-primary education in a way that works for them and their community. This will involve different modalities in different communities, with pastoralist communities being particularly sensitive to the appropriateness of the sort of ECD provision on offer. Where possible this should be multi-dimensional, able to offer food support, medical and hygiene assistance as well as education and care.

4.3 Priorities for the MoES

The research indicated there is a lack of government leadership in the ECE space. This is illustrated by the lack of targeting of the poor for access, lack of dedicated budget and specific role players at district level driving ECE, lack of accurate data and information flows, varied and unmonitored training and lack of clear career paths for ECE teachers, and provision through private providers who may put the profit motive before providing quality early education. Most immediate is the need for the MoES, with the partner government departments, to provide a clear vision of where early years education is going in the country, so building on the statements in the current ECD Policies and the Education Act. In addition, to help rectify the present situation the MoES could consider:

1. Putting in place a single, user-friendly ‘one stop shop’ approach to registration of ECD Centres with no dual system of licensing and then registering. The registration service should be free and should aim to prioritise the minimum standards that are relevant at different stages of a Centre’s maturity towards a gold standard reached within a set period. The requirements must not be overly onerous or expensive, albeit that they should ensure children’s needs are being met. This could also enable the MoES to introduce a conditional registration process (possibly for a fixed time) allowing unregistered ECD Centres to come in from the cold and register based on less rigorous criteria. Once these centres have come forward they will be on the database and can be supported and monitored.

2. Removing the current categorisation of ECD Centres which is both confusing and meaningless in practice. Focus instead on setting agreed sectoral minimum standards for children through an interactive process involving communities, schools, and centres which provide ECE services.

3. Surveying ECD education sites annually and adding the data to EMIS so that in future EMIS data collection processes include ECD centres. Also add categories to demographic and household surveys and any other national surveys that would enable a better oversight of early years education.

4. Establishing model ECD centres in each region as ‘champions’ of effective ECE delivery, and identify and promote model teacher training colleges offering ECD courses. Use both model ECD centres and colleges as an inspiration and guides for other centres and colleges.

5. Putting ECD teachers and caregivers on the government payroll and increase their salaries, along with strengthening their training to come into line with similar professions. This would need to be undertaken gradually and incrementally as it will have a long-term impact on the government wage bill.

6. Regulating and continuing to encourage private sector involvement in ECD education provision. The private sector will continue to play a key role, as any national, publicly-led alternative would be prohibitively expensive.

7. Motivating for the appointment of at minimum one dedicated ECD Focal Person (rather than Point Person) in every district. If possible, they should be managed by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development to deliver the full range of services required by the NIECD Policy. This person should have no other responsibilities beyond ECD leadership and oversight.

8. Putting in place a fast track process to get already-practicing ECD teachers and caregivers onto accredited qualification programmes. These should be vocational and have limited academic demands. They should be conducted across the country during weekends and school holidays and should be subsidised by government. They should enable a series of smaller, discrete training elements linked to credits that build up to a full qualification, so that trainees can adopt different paces in achieving certification.

9. Setting up a system of registering ECD teachers and incentivise them to register with a ‘golden handshake’ i.e. a one off cash payment.

10. Strengthening career pathways through colleges and universities, as well as examining options for vocational pathways and options for structured (properly assessed) recognition of prior learning and experience to be factored against qualification credits.

11. Assisting public primary schools to offer ECD places to children in their community as part of their service to the community, without user fees. A primary school should not be able to offer ECD classes until it has met the same standards as private ECD centres, with a focus on the quality of delivery, the staff and learning materials, rather than excessive focus on the infrastructure, which should be adequate but does not need to be ‘first-world’ at this stage.

12. Providing all registered ECD centres with a package of policy and guideline documents, good practice CD/DVD, some guidelines on local materials, and some equipment e.g. for playgrounds and play to address the shortage of materials found in ECD Centres, as according to the survey.

13. In addition, motivating for the appointment and training of at least one dedicated ECE Inspector in every district. These could be managed by the Ministry of Education and Sports but should liaise very closely with the ECD Focal Person in ensuring overall quality of ECD services in their districts. One of their key roles would need to be the oversight of registration and compliance processes, as well as ensuring feedback loops between data and information gathering, and support and training provision.

14. Putting in place incentives and subsidies for providers who can prove that they are targeting and catering in a real sense for the poorest members of their community. Also bolstering PPP policies to encourage growth of the sector overall.

15. Simplify the Learning Framework for 3 – 6 year olds and translate it into main national languages. Publish a user-friendly Learning Framework for 0 – 3 year olds. Distribute both documents widely and support their use with adequate and targeted training.

16. Encouraging communities and CSOs to provide parenting programmes and foster the LABE model of home-based provision for 0-3 year olds, rather than encouraging institutional based provision. Support this with stronger advocacy of the benefits of ECD and use of the mother tongue in ECD classes. The advocacy campaign should target fathers as well as mothers.

17. Encouraging parents, communities and local officials to participate in forms of monitoring and evaluation that enable better oversight and information feedback loops into the Centre e.g. through the creation of guidelines for participatory M&E, provision of funding to ECD Focal Persons to conduct outreach and host training platforms, and encouragement of (existing and new) NGO initiatives in training and community mobilisation.

List of Attachments – Specialist Reports

Annex 1 – Specialist Report of the Senior Researcher: Quantitative Analysis of the District-Level Research Study

Annex 2 – Specialist Report of the ECD Policy Adviser: Qualitative Analysis of National and DistrictLevel Research

Annex 3 – Specialist Report of the Economist: Costing the Action Plan

Annex 4 – Specialist Report of the ECD Qualifications Framework and Accreditation System Expert: Qualitative Analysis of National and College-Level Observations and Research

Annex 5 – GIS Map of ECD Centre locations visited during the research

List of Training and Research Tools

• List of Districts and Researchers representing each District

• Field Research Protocol

• Coding Instructions

• CAO, DEO, Inspector & ECD Focal Point Interview

• District Data Sheet for DEOs

• CCT Interview

• CSO/Private Sector/NGOs Interview

• LC3 and LC3 Councillors Interview

• Mapping Protocol

• ECCE Questionnaire (for Owner or Head Teacher) – PAPER VERSION

• Site Observation Checklist – PAPER VERSION

• Datasheet for ECCE Owner/Head Teacher

• Session Observation Tool

• ECCE Questionnaire for Teacher/s

• ECCE Questionnaire for Parent/s

• ECCE Questionnaire for CMC Member/s

• Datasheet for CMC FGD

• ECCE Focus Lists to Inform Interviews

• Interview Tools of the ECD Policy Expert for National, District and Centre Level Interviews

• Interview for Lead Trainer

• Interview for Principal of Primary Teacher College

• Debrief with Trainers

• Observation of Caregiver Training

• Research Training Presentations x 5

Endnotes

1 Figures extracted from BMAU/Ministry of Finance Briefing Paper no 7/16 ‘Quality Pre-primary Education in Uganda: How can universal access be achieved?’ On p27 in section 2.6 we provide an estimate of the proportion of children aged under 6 and between 4 and 6 in preschools in Uganda.

2 De Haan M, Gunnar MR, eds. Handbook of developmental social neuroscience. New York: Guilford Press, 2009.

3 Heckman, J. 2012. Invest in early childhood development: Reduce deficits, strengthen the economy. [Available from: http://heckmanequation.org/content/resource/invest-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-economy]

4 World Bank, 2015. Early Childhood Development: Context.

[Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/earlychildhooddevelopment/overview#1]

5 Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2016) Quality pre-primary education in Uganda. How can universal access be achieved? Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit Briefing Paper 7/16.

6 Crouch, L. (in press 2017) Stumbling at the first step: efficiency implications of poor performance in the foundational first five years. Cited in M Woodhead, J. Rossiter, A Dawes & A Pankhurst (2017) Scaling-up early learning in Ethiopia: exploring the potential of 0-Class. Young Lives.

7 Brunette, T.;Crouch, L., Cummiskey, C. Dick, A., Henny, C et al (2017) Repetition of Primary 1 and Pre-primary education in Uganda. International Development Working Paper 2017-2 RTI International.

8 MoESTS (2015) The Gender in Education Strategic Plan: 2015-2020. Kampala: Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Sports and Plan International.

9 Shonkoff, J. (2009) Investment in early childhood development lays the foundation for a prosperous and sustainable society. In Templay

R.E, Boivin M, Peters R. Dev (eds) Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development : Montreal: Centre for Excellence for ECD.

10 Engle, P et al (2011) Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low and middleincome countries. The Lancet, 378 (9799): 1339-1353.

11 Rubio-Codina M, Attanasio O, Meghir C, Varela N, Grantham-McGregor S. The socioeconomic gradient of child development: crosssectional evidence from children 6–42 panel in Bogota. J Hum Resour 2015; 50: 464–83.

12 Walker, S, Wachs, T& Grantham McGregor S. 2011 Inequality in early childhood: risk factors for early childhood development. The Lancet, 378: 1325-1338.

13 Moffit t, T. et al (2011) A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108 (7) 2693-2698.

14 Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4 - Education 2030 - www.unesco.org.

15 UNESCO (2015) Global Monitoring Report EDUCATION FOR ALL 2000-2015: achievements and challenges. Paris: UNESCO.

16 Biersteker, L, Dawes, A, Hendricks, L & Tredoux C (2016) Penn, H. (2005) Unequal childhoods: Children’s Lives in Developing Countries. London: Routledge.

17 National Planning Authority (2007) Uganda Vision 2040.

18 Walker, S. P., Wachs, T. D., Meeks Gardner, J., Lozoff, B., Wasserman, G. A., Pollitt, E. et al. (2007). Child development: risk factors for adverse outcomes in developing countries. The Lancet, 369, 145-157.

19 In Uganda, the term caregiver is commonly used to refer to ECD centre teachers who do not have a teaching qualification. In the international literature, the term refers to anyone who takes main primary care of the child.

20 Evans, J (2005) Evans, J. L. (2006). Parenting programmes: an important ECD intervention strategy. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007 Paris: UNESCO.

Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior Therapy, 27, 187-206.

Walker, S & Chang, S (2013) Effectiveness of parent support programmes in enhancing learning in the under-3 age group. Early Childhood Matters, 45 -49

Richter, L. & Naicker, S. (2012). A review of published literature on supporting and strengthening child-caregiver relationships (parenting). Washington, DC: USAID/PEPFAR AIDSTAR-One.

20 http://www.fhi360.org/sbcc

21 Baker-Henningham, H, Boo, FL (2010) Early childhood stimulation interventions in developing countries: A comprehensive literature review. Bonn, Germany: Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35349131

21 Rao N, Sun J, Wong JMS, Weekes B, Ip P, Shaeffer S, Young M, Bray M, Chen E, Lee D (2014) Early childhood development and cognitive development in developing countries: a rigorous literature review. London: Department for International Development.

22 Britto, P., Lye, S, Proulx, K. Yousafzai, A Matthews, S Vaivada, T et al (2016) Advancing Early Childhood Development: from Science to Scale 2 Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development The Lancet October 4, 2016,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31390-3

23 Woodhead, M (2014). Early Childhood Development Delivering inter-sectoral policies, programmes and services in low-resource settings. Topic Guide. The Health & Education Advice & Resource Team (HEART). www.heart-resources.org

24 Nadeau, S.; Katoaka, N, Valerio, A, Neuman, M and Kennedy Elder, L. (2011) Investing in Young Children An Early Childhood Development Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation. Washington DC: the World Bank.

25 Berry, L.(2013) Stepping up national development: prioritising essential services for young children. Presentation at the Launch of Child Gauge 2013.

26 Belsky, J., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., McCartney, K., Owen et al. (2007). Are There Long-Term Effects of Early Child Care? Child Development, 78, 681-701.

27 7 Center on the Developing Child, “The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood,” accessed January 5, 2017, http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu

28 Sanchez, C, Turner, C. What Exactly Is 'High-Quality' Pre-school?

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/04/22/304563233/what-exactly-is-high-quality-pre-school

29 http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/19/486172575/a-harsh-critique-of-federally-funded-pre-k

30 Rao, N., Sun, J., Pearson, V., Pearson, E., Liu, H., Constas, M. A., & Engle, P. L. (2012). Is something better than nothing? An evaluation of early childhood programs in Cambodia. Child Development, 83(3), 864-876.

31 Rao et al (2014) Above

32 Fukkink, R. G. & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 294-311.

Eurofound. (2015). Working conditions, training and quality of services: A systematic review. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

33 Woodhead, M; Ames, P., Vennam, U., Abebe, W & Streuli, N. (2009) Equity and Quality: challenges for early childhood and primary education in Ethiopia, India and Peru. The Hague, Bernard van Leer Foundation.

34 UNESCO (2015) Global Monitoring Report EDUCATION FOR ALL 2000-2015: achievements and challenges. Paris: UNESCO.

35 Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). (2012). Uganda demographic and health survey 2011: Preliminary report. Kampala: UBOS. Cited by Ejuu, G. (2012) The Status of Implementation of the Education Sector Early Childhood Development Policy in Uganda. Kampala: UNESCO.

36 Engel, P. L., Black, M. M., Behrman, J. R., Cabral de Mello, M., Gertler, P. J., Kapiriri, L. et al. (2007). Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. The Lancet, 369, 229-242.

37 For example, Levin & Schwartz (2006), Results for Development (2016)

38 Although they provide some interesting information, it is unwise, as the authors themselves argue, to treat these figures as anything other than indicative because they are derived from sources that do not use a consistent methodology.

39 For example, all 3- and 4-year olds in England can receive 570 free hours per year. There are also provisions for some targeted support. https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/free-childcare-and-education-for-2-to-4-year-olds

40 Levin & Schwartz (2006)

41 Gillian and Roy (2016)

42 Child Study involves teachers using a set of pre-determined indicators to observe and monitor their learners both in school and in the community. The aim is to use this form of action research to improve and target their own teaching to the needs of the children.

43 Ejuu, G (2012) The Status of Implementation of the Education Sector Early Childhood Development Policy in Uganda. Kampala: Uganda National Commission for UNESCO

44 Crouch and Kibombo (2016). Foundational first five years of education: Lessons from the data, cost to the system, and approaches to improve. Unpublished technical background paper.

45 Plan Uganda (2013) and Plan Uganda (nd)

46 Brunette, T., Crouch, L., Cummiskey, C., Dick, A., Heeny, C., Jordan, R., Merseth, K., Nabacwa, R., Pressley, J. and Weatherholt, T. (2017).

Repetition of Primary 1 and Pre-primary Education in Uganda. International Development Working Paper 2017-02. North Carolina: RTI.

47 Poverty in this case is measured by the percentage of people living below the poverty line

48 Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development (2016) Quality pre-primary education in Uganda: How can universal access be achieved? BMAU Briefing Paper [7/16], Kampala

49 Bracey, G.; Montie, J. E.; Xiang, Z & Schweinhart, L J. (2007). The IEA Pre-primary Study: Findings and Policy Implications. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Educational ResearchFoundation.

50 See www.saflii.org/za/journals/ADRY/2014/12.pdf

51 Brunette, T., Crouch, L., Cummiskey, C., Dick, A., Heeny, C., Jordan, R., Merseth, K., Nabacwa, R., Pressley, J. and Weatherholt, T. (2017).

Repetition of Primary 1 and Pre-primary Education in Uganda. International Development Working Paper 2017-02. North Carolina: RTI. In this paper based on research in 2 districts the authors found that repetition in P1 is a substitute for pre-primary education. In cases where the parents are poor and/or where there were few pre-primary education options available, some parents said they enrolled their children in P1 at an earlier age. They also used this as a free option compared to paying for pre-primary schooling. Parents expected that doing this meant that their under-age children might have to repeat P1 or that they would learn less.

52 Save the Children, 2015, Early Literacy and Maths Endline Evaluation Report

53 Types would include: Public referring to Government-run UPE schools with income-generating ECCE classes attached; Not-for-Profit provision by NGOs, FBOs and CBOs; Private referring to for-profit provision by individuals and companies; Community and Informal referring to voluntary contributions within the community, including positive parenting initiatives

54 The delivery modes refer to day care centres; home based centres; community based centres; nursery schools or kindergartens; and lower primary classes

55 See Education Statistical Abstract 2011 for regionally varied spread of ECD sites.