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 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”.

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