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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

*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.

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.

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)

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.