Assessment of the SCORE child friendly school interventions

Assessment of the Sustainable Comprehensive Responses for Vulnerable Children and their Families (SCORE) child friendly school interventions

Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Background........................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 The SCORE Child Friendly School Approach............................................................................................ 8 1.3 Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1.3.1Aim .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 10 1.3.3Study Questions ............................................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Scope of the Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Report Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 11 2.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Study Design and Strategy............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Study Participants ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Study Area........................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.4 Study Sample and Selection.................................................................................................................................. 12 2.5 Data Collection Methods .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.6 Data Quality Control ..................................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Data Management and Analysis ................................................................................................................... 15 2.8 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population ............................................................................ 17 3.2 Changes in the CFS Intervention Schools .................................................................................................. 18 3.2.1 Child Friendly Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 General Ranking of Child Friendly Services .............................................................................................. 31 3.3 Key Achievements Made by the Schools as A Result of CFS Interventions ...................................... 33 3.4 Key Challenges Schools Faced During the Implementation of the CFS Approach ........................... 35 3.5 Recommendations for Improving the CFS Approach ............................................................................. 36 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 38 4.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 38 References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 40

2

Executive Summary Introduction and background This report presents the findings on the assessment of the Sustainable, Comprehensive Responses (SCORE) program’s Child Friendly Schools (CFS) Approach. The CFS approach involved activities such as: HIV awareness creation and promotion of HIV testing through outreaches and linkages for HIV care; promotion of positive preventive behavior through life skills trainings that imparted positive behavior including cognitive thought, negotiation, decision making, and being assertive; and promotion of activities that improve child school attendance, retention and survival such as directly responding to and handling the different forms of child abuse by teachers and among students, following up cases of students that drop out due to child marriage, family break ups, domestic violence and ensuring girls are retained through handling menstrual hygiene related issues. The report focuses on the progress made during the period 2011-2017. The study was conducted between July and September 2017. The CFS model was implemented in 593 schools in 35 districts distributed across the five program regions – Central, East, East Central, North and West. The schools were assessed between July and September 2017. The assessment alone covered 158 schools and involved interviews with 158 teachers and 158 children (aged between 11 and 18). The teachers and pupils were interviewed on aspects such as their bio-data; CFS parameters such as registration with ministry of education, the good school concept, training by SCORE, presence of CFS subcommittees and their meetings, permanent classroom structures, democratically elected pupils, suggestion boxes, talking compounds, wall of fame, latrines or toilet facilities; key achievements made after completing CFS; challenges and recommendations for improving the approach.

Aim and objectives of the study The aim of this study was to assess the progress made by the schools that benefitted from the SCORE Child Friendly Schools interventions, their key achievements and challenges. Specifically, the study sought to; Determine the changes in the schools that benefitted from the SCORE CFS interventions between 2011 to 2017; ii) identify the key achievements made by the schools that benefitted from the SCORE CFS interventions; iii) Examine the challenges faced by the schools that were targeted in the CFS interventions; and iv) Derive beneficiaries’ recommendations and solutions for improving the CFS approach in future.

Methodology Since there was no structured baseline study conducted before the start of the CFS interventions, the assessment followed a cross-sectional survey design in which primary data was collected from learners and teachers at one point in time. The survey covered 158 schools, representing 28% of the total schools supported by SCORE. Up to 1,170 teachers and 1,515 pupils were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire (SSQ). On-site observation was also used together with the SSQ for certain parameters such as permanent class room structures, functional suggestion boxes, talking compounds, functional walls of fame, proper school latrines and functional hand washing services.

All the verified questionnaires were entered into MS Access database and analyzed descriptively and using content analysis in line with the objectives and themes of the assessment.

Results Demographic Characteristics A total of 1,515 children/learners and 1,170 teachers were interviewed in the targeted schools for the entire project period. The majority of the learners were females (52%) while most of the teachers were males (64%). 70% of the children were aged between 13 and 16 years, with a mean age of 14.

Most of the teachers were aged between 30 and 39 (34%) and their mean age was 38. In this 3

assessment however, only 158 schools were reached, and in each school one pupil and one teacher was selected making 158 respondents for each category.

Changes in CFS Parameters in Interventions in Schools The results show that there are a number of positive changes in most of the CFS parameters in the SCORE schools. At the time of the assessment, most of the schools (97%) were registered as confirmed by the teachers. Over 90% of the teachers also acknowledged that their schools still had teachers whom SCORE had trained and oriented on the good school concept, of which 273 were males and 216 were females. Another 99% of the teachers said their schools had senior male and female teachers, while 86% confirmed that their schools had CFS subcommittees for teachers, learners and parents. Regarding school structures, 96% of the teachers confirmed that their schools had permanent classroom structures, while 95% of the pupils said their schools had proper school latrines or toilet facilities most of which were also separated by sex. On child participation, 93% of the learners said that their schools had clubs (up to 463 clubs were counted), which included interalia clubs for debating, music, dance and drama (MDD), sanitation and health, sports, and agriculture or farming. Ninety-nine percent of the pupils added that girls were free to engage in school leadership and other activities. As for the school environment, 63% of the teachers declared that their schools had talking compounds, while only 56% of the pupils said their schools had walls of fame. Seventy four percent of the pupils noted that their schools had clear mechanisms of addressing various abuses against children. For the punishment modes, 80% of the teachers disclosed that their schools had abolished corporal punishment and 74% said their schools had policies/SMC/BOG minutes to back up the abolition. Whereas the majority (67.1%) of the learners ranked their schools as generally having fair child friendly services, 70% of the teachers thought their schools had good child friendly services.

Key Achievements in the Schools The learners and teachers indicated a number of key achievements, many of which pointed to the standard CFS features such as effective teaching and learning, inclusivity of all children; health, safety and protection; and community involvement. These key achievements included inter-alia: improved infrastructure (such as good or improved sanitation and latrines, and kitchens); learning materials such as desks; improved discipline and behavior change among the pupils; talking compounds; active suggestion boxes; improved communication between pupils and teachers; improved performance of the pupils; and reduced drop outs and absenteeism of pupils from school, among others.

Key Challenges Faced in Implementing the CFS Approach According to the pupils and teachers, the major challenges that their schools faced during the implementation of the CFS approach were: teachers limited comprehension of the CFS approach; some teachers’ negative attitudes towards the CFS approach especially the concept of positive discipline; inadequate infrastructure or facilities and in some cases inadequate coordination between teachers, pupils and parents of the schools that undermined the initiatives on improving school governance.

Recommendations for Improving the CFS Approach In order to improve CFS approaches in future, the learners and teachers suggested inter-alia conducting more follow ups of the schools to track progress; grouping boys and girls separately while talking about certain issues and more training and sensitizations on the CFS approach, especially for the community, parents/caregivers, and pupils themselves.

4

Conclusion and Recommendations It is clear that despite challenges such as the inadequate use of positive discipline by teachers and negative attitudes towards it, and low usage of walls of fame and children’s courts in a number of schools, the SCORE program’s CFS interventions greatly improved the status of the primary schools. The project mainly improved schools’ registration with the Ministry of Education and Sports, the capacity of their teachers on the good school concept, formation of CFS subcommittees, school structures, child participation in school governance and other activities such as clubs and abolition of corporal punishment. The ranking of the schools also improved from bad to fair or good. In order to improve future CFS interventions, AVSI and partners should consider promoting CFS better through sensitizing the pupils, their care-givers and the community at large and making more regular and consistent follow-ups of the CFS intervention schools. Expanding the scope of the CFS to include more inclusivity indicators such as girl and boy child retention in schools may also improve the approach for future interventions.

5

Acronyms AIDS BOG CARE CBO CBT CFS CFSA CSO DCI-U DREAMS FHI360 HIV IDI IEC IP IRB JFFS MEAL MDD M&E MS PTC SCORE SMC SSQ TPO UNHCR UNICEF USAID USD VC VSLA

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Board of Governors Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere Community based Organisation Community-based Trainer Child Friendly School Child Friendly School Approach Civil Society Organisation Delaware County Intermediate Unit Determined, Resilient, AIDS Free, Mentored and Safe Family Health International Human Immune Deficiency Virus In-depth Interviews Information Education Communication Implementing Partner Internal Review Board Junior Farmer Filed Schools Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Music, Dance and Drama Monitoring and Evaluation Microsoft Parent Teacher Committees Sustainable Comprehensive Responses for Vulnerable Children and their Families School Management Committee Semi-structured Questionnaire Transcultural Psychosocial Organization United Nations High Commission for Refugees United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund United States Agency for International Development United States Dollars Vulnerable Children Village Saving and Loans Association

6

1.0

Introduction and Background

1.1 Background The Sustainable Comprehensive Responses for Vulnerable Children and their Families (SCORE) is is a 7 year 38,322,700 USD USAID funded (34,326,470 USAID and 3,996,230 Cost share) project implemented by a consortium led by AVSI Foundation (the other other partners are CARE, TPO and FHI360) in 35 districts of Uganda. The project goal is to reduce vulnerability of more than 125,000 critically and moderately vulnerable children (VC) and their family members. The project reached 34,779 Households (28,736 SCORE COP & 6,043 DREAMS), reaching 208,674 people with a mix of activities including broadly; socio-economic strengthening, food security and nutrition, child protection and legal services and strengthening families to acquire provide and access to critical services.

The main objectives and activities of SCORE include: •

Objective 1: Economic strengthening: Village Savings and Loans Associations, Community skills training, Financial Literacy, Apprenticeship training, Market intelligence and linkages, Value Chain Development;

•

Objective 2: Food security and Nutrition: Farmer field schools, junior farmer field schools (JFFS), urban horticulture and kitchen gardens, behavior change and communication; cooking demonstrations, radio spot messages, nutrition learning sessions, identification and referral of children with malnutrition;

•

Objective 3: Child protection and legal services: Child friendly school (CFS) model, home visits, interactive learning sessions, Legal clinics, identification and referral of protection cases, birth registration; and

•

Objective 4: Family strengthening and access to critical services: Referrals to access critical services, parenting skills training, life skills training, community dialogues, psychosocial support interventions, early childhood development, mental health (community assessment, care through group or individual sessions and referrals).

7

The Child Friendly School Approach (CFSA) was implemented under the third aim of the project, with the purpose of increasing awareness, access and use of child-friendly basic education services.

To do this, SCORE worked with the identified schools to make them more child-friendly.

CFS models such as the one used by SCORE illustrate ways of improving the quality of education especially in low-income countries like Uganda where most schools, especially those in rural areas covered by SCORE have poor learning infrastructure such as classrooms, do not have adequate learning materials such as text books, lack trained and competent teachers and have generally poor child-friendly learning environments123.

1.2 The SCORE Child Friendly School Approach The SCORE Child Friendly School (CFS) model was designed for selected schools in areas covered by the program. SCORE identified schools that were to be made child-friendly and conducted childfriendly activities there. The enrolment of schools into the CFS model was based on the number of direct SCORE vulnerable children attending a particular school within the program’s geographical area of implementation. SCORE engaged 593 schools in child friendly school activities. The main activities included: 

creation of awareness on HIV/AIDS, promotion of HIV testing through outreaches and linkages for HIV care, in which over 5000 children and adults were reached;



promotion of positive preventive behavior through life skills trainings that imparts positive behavior including cognitive thought, negotiation, decision making, and being assertive;



promotion of activities that improve child school attendance, retention and survival for instance by directly responding to and handling the different forms of child abuse by teachers and even among students, following up cases of students that drop out due to child marriage, family break ups, domestic violence and also handling cases at community level to ensure children are back in school. Girls in particular girls were retained through handling menstrual hygiene related issues;

1

See UNICEF (2010). Child Friendly Schools Case Study: Uganda, pages 4-13. Available at: st https://www.unicef.org/uganda/CFS_Uganda_Case_Study_January_2010.pdf. Accessed on 21 January 2018 2 See for example Walakira, E.J., D. Muhangi, S. Munyuwiny, F. Matovu, E. Awich, I. Ddumba Nyanzi, J. Kayiwa, J. Akellot, P. Mubiri, J. Majugo, A. Mutebi (2015).

Analysis of the situation of the Ugandan Child.

Kampala/Washington DC: USAID/QED. 3 Also see Mbabazi Mpyangu, C., Awich E. O, Olowo Onyango, O. E, and Lubaale, Y. M. (2014). Out of School Children Study in Uganda. UNICEF, Eriks, Save the Children, UNHCR and Stromme Foundation, Kampala; and AVSI (2011). Sustainable, Comprehensive Responses (SCORE) for Children and their Families: Programming Guide, 20112018. AVSI Foundation SCORE Project, Kampala.

8



promotion of child participation through clubs, events, drama, and suggestion boxes;



promotion of the use of positive discipline, for instance through child courts, junior farmer field schools (JFFS) – where children learned basic agriculture and nutrition;



improving the school environment through institution of talking compounds, wall of fame, walk ways, water and sanitation facilities, latrine and washing facilities for menstrual management, and involvement of parents in school activities through institution of parent teacher committees (PTCs). The schools were also encouraged to promote governance structures that enable teachers, parents and students to get involved in decision making and several other management aspects that enable growth.

These activities were based on the understanding that a child-friendly school is that which provides an environment, relationships and governance structures that enable children to grow to their full potential4. A safer school on the other hand was seen as that which enables children to become compassionate, responsible, creative and thoughtful individuals and helps children build courage and confidence in all three areas of their development: cognitive development (how children think), social development (how children interact with others) and ethical development (how children become responsible citizens)5. Following the SCORE guidelines, a child-friendly school promotes aspects such as cognitive development, social development, ethical development, and positive discipline6. A child friendly school is also sensitive to the varying needs of children, such as girls who may need special protection from sexual violence, including harassment from teachers and older boys. A child-friendly school also meets the needs of children with disabilities by equally including them in the learning process and ensuring their participation is not undermined by bullying and stigma.

Thus, SCORE used certain parameters to make the schools child friendly materials that SCORE developed in partnership with Raising Voices Uganda7, and broader UNICEF standard features such as inclusivity of all children; effective teaching and learning; health, safety and protection; gender equality; and community involvement. These parameters were adapted from the child protection information education communication (IEC) materials SCORE developed in partnership with 4

See AVSI (2011). Sustainable, Comprehensive Responses (SCORE) for Children and their Families: Programming Guide, 2011-2018. AVSI Foundation SCORE Project, Kampala, pp 139-140.

5 Ibid 6 Ibid, pp 139-141 7 See AVSI (2011). Sustainable, Comprehensive Responses (SCORE) for Children and their Families: Programming Guide, 2011-2018. AVSI Foundation SCORE Project, Kampala, pp 139-140.

9

Raising Voices8, which are analogous to the Delaware County Intermediate Unit (DCI-U) and the UNICEF CFS Model9, which has also been tested in Uganda10 and other countries in Africa11. The major output was SCORE-supported VC attending child-friendly schools, and teachers in child friendly schools using child-friendly approaches.

1.3 Aim and Objectives 1.3.1

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the changes in the schools that benefitted from the SCORE Child Friendly Schools interventions, their key achievements and challenges.

1.3.2

Specific Objectives

More specifically, the study sought to: i.

Determine the status of the schools that benefitted from the SCORE CFS interventions between 2011 to 2017.

ii.

To identify the key achievements made by the schools that benefitted from the SCORE CFS interventions.

iii.

To examine the challenges faced by the schools that were targeted in the CFS interventions.

iv.

To derive beneficiaries’ recommendations and solutions for improving the CFS approach in future.

1.3.3 i.

Study Questions What are the changes in the status of schools that benefitted from the CFS SCORE interventions?

ii.

What key achievements have been made by the schools that benefitted from the SCORE CFS interventions?

iii.

What key challenges were faced by the schools that were targeted by the CFS interventions?

8

See the Good School Toolkit by Raising Voices, available at http://raisingvoices.org/good-school/download-goodschool-toolkit/ 9 See UNICEF (2009). Child Friendly Schools Manual. Available at: th https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Child_Friendly_Schools_Manual_EN_040809.pdf. Accessed on 20 January 2018 10 See UNICEF (2010). Child Friendly Schools Case Study: Uganda. Available at: st https://www.unicef.org/uganda/CFS_Uganda_Case_Study_January_2010.pdf. Accessed on 21 January 2018.

11 See UNICEF (2009). Child Friendly Schools Case Study: The Gambia. Available at: st https://www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_Gambia_Case_Study_December_2009.pdf. Accessed on 21 January 2018.

10

iv.

What recommendations do the beneficiaries of the schools targeted by the CFS interventions have for improving the CFS approach in future?

1.4 Scope of the Assessment As explained in Section 2, the CFS assessment was based on the child protection IEC materials SCORE developed in partnership with Raising Voices, with themes such as inclusivity of all children; effective teaching and learning; health, safety and protection; gender equality; and community involvement. At least 23 parameters were used to assess the schools and these are expounded in the next Chapter (under Section 2.5). Geographically, the SCORE CFS interventions covered all the program’s 35 districts and five regions, and SCORE activities are still being actively implemented in 21 districts. Only 201 schools were available for this assessment due to mainly transitions that happened in 12 districts (see annex ii).

1.5

Report Structure

This report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 provides a background to the assessment, its aim, objectives and study questions. Chapter 2contains the methodology used in the study, mainly the study design, participants, study area, sampling strategy, data collection methods, quality control, data management and ethical considerations. Chapter Three discusses the main findings of the assessment following the stipulated objectives and themes. It begins with the characteristics of the respondents, followed by the changes in the CFS parameters of the SCORE schools, the key achievements made, challenges faced in implementing the CFS interventions and the beneficiaries’ recommendations and solutions for improving the CFS approach. Chapter Four provides the conclusion and recommendations for future CFS interventions.

11

2.0

Methodology

2.1 Study Design and Strategy Since there was no baseline for the CFS interventions, this study followed a cross-sectional survey design12. This design allowed the collection of data from two groups - the learners and teachers and at one point in time, between July and September 2017 using a semi-structured questionnaire (SSQ).

2.2 Study Participants This assessment covered the key beneficiaries or target persons of the SCORE CFS interventions.

Based on the CFS model and its underlying ideology and key principles that drive its defining characteristics in different contexts13, the direct target persons included teachers and learners/pupils in each of the identified primary schools. Teachers for example are critical in governance, effective teaching, protection and safety of learners, while children or learners are central in inclusivity and effective learning among others.

2.3 Study Area Between 2011 and 2017, SCORE supported over 593 schools located in the program’s regions and covering the 35 districts to become child friendly. Of these, 201 schools were targeted in this assessment and the majority were from Northern Uganda.

Table 1. Schools Supported by SCORE (2011-2017) No.

Region

No. of Schools

1

North

67

2

Central

52

3

East

34

4

East Central

27

5

West

21

Total

201

2.4 Study Sample and Selection Whereas SCORE supported 593 schools, this study covered 201 schools and only 158 schools were reached, representing about 27% of the total. Of the 158 schools, Kitgum and Buyende had 11 percent each, while Mukono had the least (about 1 percent, see annex ii). In each school, at least eight teachers and eight pupils/learners were selected, giving a total 1,170 teachers and 1,515 pupils.

12

As stated by Bechhofer, F. and Paterson, L. (1999). Principles of Research Design in the Social Sciences.

Routledge, London.

13 See UNICEF (2009). Child Friendly Schools Manual, Chapter 2.

12

2.5 Data Collection Methods The assessment was done using a combination of individual/personal interviews with pupils and teachers in the selected schools as well as on-site observation. A semi-structured questionnaire (SSQ) was used to conduct the interviews, with some questions specifically tailored to the teachers as appropriate (see CFS assessment semi-structured questionnaire in annex i). The SSQ had four parts: 

part one of identification particulars for teachers;



part two on bio data (name, sex, year of birth, designation and signature) for teachers and learners; and



part three on the CFS parameters. These included 23 questions on the key child-friendly parameters as below: 1. registration with the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES); 2. teachers training and orientation on the good school concept by SCORE, their sex and whether still present in the school; 3. presence of CFS sub committees - teacher’s subcommittee, learner’s subcommittee, and parents subcommittee and their functionality in the last four months; 4. presence of permanent classroom structures; 5. presence of democratically elected pupils'/students’ council/prefects; 6. presence of a functional suggestion box; 7. presence of a talking compound; 8. presence of a functional Wall of fame; 9. presence of a proper school latrine or toilet facilities; 10. whether the latrine/toilet facilities are separated according to sex; 11. presence of functional hand washing facilities; 12. presence of facilities for children with disability; 13. whether the school has a playground; 14. whether the school has play materials; 15. presence of clubs, their number and names; 16. whether children are engaged in co-curricular activities like games, sports and MDDs, and what games and sports children engage in; 17. presence of senior female and male teachers; 13

18. presence of clear mechanisms of addressing child abuse; 19. whether the school uses positive discipline measures and which ones are actually used; 20. whether the school has abolished corporal punishments and whether there is policy or SMC/ Board of Governors (BOG) minute to back it up; 21. whether school has children’s court; 22. whether girls are free to engage in school leadership and other activities such as sports just like the boys?; and 23. Whether the school administration or governing body (SMC/BOG) meet regularly or at least once a term. 

part four on key achievements as a result of implementing CFS, key challenges and recommendations for improving CFS. These were open questions.

The 23 key parameters in part three of the SSQ mainly contained a Yes/NO response. Any “Yes” response qualified for 1 point and any “No” response qualified for 0 points. A Maximum of 23 points would be generated if all the questions were indicated “Yes” and a minimum of 0 points would be generated if all the questions indicated “No”. The scores were then rated as either “excellent”, “good”, “fair” or “bad”, as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2. The Child Friendly School Rating Matrix Pr. no 1 2 3 4

Scores 23 17-22 9-16 0-8

Rating Excellent Good Fair Bad

Additional questions were added to complement the main variables already listed. The complementary variables are highlighted in the 23 question areas listed in part three above, for example 2b (total number of male and female teachers trained on the good school concept by SCORE and still present in the school); 3b-3d (functionality or sittings of the teacher’s subcommittee, learner’s subcommittee, and parents subcommittee in the last four months respectively); 15b and 15c (number of clubs in the school and their names); 16b (what games and sports children engage in); 19b (list of positive discipline measures used in the school); and 20b (whether there is a policy/SMC/BOG minute to back up abolition of corporal punishment).

14

On-site observation was also used together with the SSQ to observe certain parameters such as presence of permanent class room structures, functional suggestion boxes, talking compounds, functional walls of fame, proper school latrines and functional hand washing services.

2.6 Data Quality Control The data was collected by the SCORE Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) team, which was guided by the school lists provided by the program’s regional Child Protection Project Officers. The MEAL Manager then identified data collectors bearing in mind the need to control for biases. The interviewers/data collectors were oriented on the goals of the assessment. In order to reach the worlds of the children in the selected intervention schools, the data collectors were also trained in child-friendly interview techniques14, the data collection tool and the procedures for collecting data.

The data collectors also participated in piloting the tool. Different data collectors interviewed different categories of respondents – the teachers and learners. Mobilization and introduction of the data collection team to the schools was done by the SCORE local implementing partners (IPs). The data collectors/interviewers reported to the IP M&E officer at the end of every work day and together checked and verified the proper filling of the SSQs that had been filled.

2.7 Data Management and Analysis After data collection, the M&E coordinator of each region centrally managed data entry into the system that was provided by the MEAL Manger. All the verified questionnaires were then submitted by the IP M&E person to the regional M&E Coordinator who ensured proper entry into the MS Access database. The data was then analyzed descriptively and using content analysis, following the objectives and themes of the assessment.

2.8 Ethical Considerations Attention was also paid to the micro ethics of research with children and adults. As such, before and during data collection, all the data collectors were advised to be reflexive about their power vis-à-vis the children and teachers who were interviewed. For the children, innovative interview techniques were used to establish rapport with them and in recognition of their concentration, different cultures

14

See for example Kirk, S. (2007). Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44(1): 1250–1260.

15

and the diverse nature of their childhood15. For both groups, the respondents were informed about the objectives of the assessment and their consent was sought. They were also assured of confidentiality. The data collected was also kept securely by the SCORE regional M&E Coordinators.

15

Ibid, pp 1252-1255

16

3.0

Findings

3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population Table 3 shows that a total of 1,515 children/learners and 1,170 teachers were identified in the targeted schools.

Table 3. Characteristics of the Study Population (n= 1,515 for children, n=1,170 for teachers) Sex of children Female Male Age of children >=11 years 12 years 13 years 14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years >=18 years Sex of Teachers Female Male Age of Teachers <=30 Years 30-39 Years 40-49 Years >=50 Years

N 800 715

% 52.8 47.19

147 136 245 393 241 152 111 90

9.7 8.98 16.17 25.94 15.91 10.03 7.33 5.94

426 744

36.41 63.59

285 399 329 157

24.36 34.1 28.12 13.42

The majority of learners were females (52%) while most of the teachers were males (about 64 %).

Altogether, 70 percent of the children were aged between 13 and 16 years, with a mean age of 14.

Table 3 further shows that about 26 percent of the children were aged 14; only 6 percent were aged above 18. Most of the teachers were aged between 30 and 39 (34%) and their mean age was 38.

As noted in Chapter Two (Section 2.4), only 158 schools were reached in this assessment, and one pupil and one teacher were interviewed in each school, making a total of 158 teachers and 158 pupils.

17

3.2 Changes in the CFS Intervention Schools 3.2.1 Child Friendly Characteristics Schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Registration with the Ministry of Education and Sports Most of the teachers that were interviewed (97%, n=148) confirmed that their schools were registered with MOES (Figure 1).

Is your school registered with MOES? 3%

Yes No

97%

Figure 1. Schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Registration Status with the Ministry of Education and Sports Figure 1 shows that only 3% of the teachers said their schools were not registered with the ministry.

This means that the majority of the SCORE schools that were visited were now registered with MOES. Teachers Training On the Good School Concept Teachers in the SCORE schools were asked to state if they had received any training by SCORE on the good school concept. Figure 2 shows that 93% of the teachers (n=149) admitted that their schools had teachers who were trained and oriented on the good school concept.

18

Are there any teachers in this school who were trained and oriented on the good school concept?

7%

Yes No

93%

Figure 2. Teachers Trained and Oriented on the Good School Concept The teachers also mentioned the sex and number of teachers that were trained by SCORE who were still present in their schools. When totaled up, these came to 273 males and 216 females. Hence, the schools had more male than female teachers who had been trained by SCORE and who were still present.

Presence of Senior Female and Male Teachers Asked to state if their schools had senior male and female teachers, 99% of the teachers said â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;yesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Figure 3). The fact that almost all the CFS schools had senior teachers is encouraging because senior teachers command respect and are crucial in providing psychosocial support to the most vulnerable children who have been victims of sexual harassment, rape and abuse in and around the schools16.

16

See for example UNICEF (2009). Child Friendly Schools Manual, page 15.

19

Are there senior male and female teachers in your school?

1%

Yes No

99%

Figure 3. Whether Senior Male and Female Teachers are Present in the Schools School Governance Regarding governance of the schools, key aspects such as presence and functionality of CFS subcommittees, regular meetings by the school administration or governing body (SMC/BOG) and presence of democratically elected pupils'/studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; council/prefects were examined.

Presence and Functionality of CFS Sub Committees Here, the teachers were asked if their schools had formed CFS sub committees, and whether each of these committees had sat in the last four months. The majority of the teachers (86%, n=147) noted that CFS sub committees had been formed in their schools (Figure 4).

20

Were CFS Sub Committees Formed in this School?

14% Yes

86%

No

Figure 4. Whether CFS Sub Committees Were Formed in the Schools The teachers that confirmed that their schools had CFS subcommittees were also asked whether the teacher’s subcommittee and parents subcommittee had sat in the last four months. The pupils answered the question on whether the learner’s subcommittees in their schools had met in the last four months.

Figure 5 shows that whereas the majority of the teachers (62%) noted that the teachers subcommittees in their schools had sat in the last four months, only half (50%) said their schools’ parents subcommittees had met in the same period.

21

70 60

Percentage

50 40

Yes

30

No

20 10 0

Teachers Subcommittee

Learners Subcommittee

Parents Subcommittee

CFS Subcommittees and Whether Sat Figure 5. Whether CFS Subcommittees Had Sat in the Last Four Months Figure 5 further demonstrates that 63% of the pupils interviewed said that the learners subcommittees in their schools had met in the last four months. The responses from the teachers and learners suggest that the teachers’ and learners’ subcommittees had sat more than the parents subcommittees in the last four months from the interview dates. This could mean that the parents subcommittees in the SCORE schools were less active than the teachers’ and learners’ subcommittees.

Functionality of the School administration or governing bodies Again on governance, teachers were asked whether the administration or governing bodies (mainly SMCs or BOGs) in their schools met regularly or at least once a term. Figure 6 shows that 93% of the teachers admitted that the SMCs or BOGs in their schools met at least once every term.

22

Does your school's SMC or BOG Meet regularly?

7%

Yes

93%

No

Figure 6. Whether SMCs or BOGs Meet At Least Once Every Term This means that most of the governing bodies of the SCORE schools were functioning well. Having active and inclusive SMCs or BOGs is crucial as it enabled community involvement in planning and monitoring of the activities of the SCORE schools.

Presence of Democratically Elected Pupils'/Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Council/Prefects Figure 7 below shows that 94% of the pupils that were interviewed confirmed that their schools had democratically elected pupils'/studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; councils and prefects.

23

Does the school have democratically elected pupils/students council/prefects?

6%

Yes No

94%

Figure 7. Whether Pupilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;/Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Council and Prefects Were Democratically Elected This means that in most of the SCORE schools, students were allowed to exercise their democratic rights of choosing their leaders, which is indispensable in promoting good governance.

Presence of School Structures The presence of school structures was established through asking teachers and pupils in the SCORE schools, and through physical observation. The structures or arrangements that were investigated include: permanent classroom structures, school latrines, hand washing facilities (and whether they were separated according to sex), facilities for children with disability, playgrounds and play materials.

As shown in Figure 8, 96% of the teachers confirmed that their schools had permanent classroom structures. Ninety five percent of the pupils said their schools had proper school latrines or toilet facilities (with 92% saying the toilets were separated according to sex or boys and girls, n=156), while 55% of the pupils said their schools had functional hand washing facilities. Sixty-four percent of the teachers and pupils each added that their schools had facilities for children with disability, and 93% said their schools had playgrounds. As for the play materials, 77% of the pupils confirmed that these materials were present in their schools.

24

120%

100%

96%

95%

93% 77%

Percentage

80% 64% 60%

55% Yes

45%

No

36%

40%

23% 20% 7%

5%

4% 0% Permanent School Structrures

Proper latrines

Handwashing Children With Playgrounds Play materials facilities Disability Facilities

School Structures Present

Figure 8. Types of School Structures Present in SCORE Schools With over 90% of the respondents saying that their schools had permanent classroom structures, latrines or toilet facilities (separated by sex), and playgrounds, it can be said here that the SCORE schools had most of the basic school structures.

Child Participation This assessment also explored the status of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in school activities, particularly presence of clubs, girl pupilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; freedom to engage in school leadership and other activities, and presence of suggestion boxes.

Presence of School Clubs Ninety three percent of the learners that were interviewed said that their schools had clubs (Figure 9). These same learners were asked to state how many clubs were in their schools, for which they mentioned between 1-8 clubs. After counting, the figure came to 463 clubs from the 158 schools that were visited. This means that each school had an average of at least three clubs.

25

Are there clubs in your school?

7%

Yes

93%

No

Figure 9. Presence of Clubs in the SCORE Schools The learners also mentioned the types of clubs in their schools. The dominant clubs they mentioned in their order included: 

Debating Clubs;



Music, Dance and Drama (MDD) Clubs;



Sanitation and Health Clubs such as Sanitation Club, Straight Talk, HIV/AIDS Club, First Aid Club, Guidance and Counseling Clubs etc.



Sports clubs such as Sports Clubs, Football Clubs;



English Clubs;



Science Clubs;



Protection Clubs;



Religious Clubs such as Young Christian Society (YCS), Missionaries Clubs, Scripture Union;



Scout and Guide Clubs Or Scouting Clubs;



Agriculture or Farming Clubs e.g., Farming Club, Agriculture Club, School Farm Club, Junior Farmers Club; Farmers Clubs 26



Piascy Clubs;



Nationalist Clubs such as Patriotism Clubs;



Environment Clubs such as Tree Talk, Environment Club, Youth Go Green Clubs, etc.;



Rights Clubs, such as Human Rights Club, Child Rights Clubs;



Social Skills Clubs, e.g., Life Skills Clubs; and



SCORE Club (mentioned by pupils in Kyehara Integrated Primary School in Sheema District and Kanshande Primary School in Kanyanda Sub County, Rubirizi District)

Girls’ Freedom to Engage In School Leadership and Other Activities This assessment went ahead to ask the pupils whether the girls in their schools were free to engage in school leadership and other activities such as sports just like the boys. Propitiously, 99% of the pupils said girls were free to engage in school leadership and other activities (Figure 10).

Are girls free to engage in school leadership and other activities just like boys?

1%

Yes No

99%

Figure 10. Whether Girls are Free to Engage in School Leadership and Other Activities This is promising given that most basic schools in Uganda are characterized by gender differences in participation in leadership and sports.

27

Presence of Functional Suggestion Boxes Another CFS parameter related to child participation is that of suggestion boxes. Asked if their schools had functional suggestion boxes, about three quarters of the pupils (65%) answered ‘yes’, while 35% said ‘no’ (Figure 11).

Does your school have a functional suggestion box?

35% 65%

Yes No

Figure 11. Whether Schools Have Functional Suggestion Boxes Thus, about a third of the SCORE schools did not have functional suggestion boxes at the time of the assessment last year. Compared to the other parameters, the aspect of suggestion boxes was perhaps not given much attention by the schools.

Improvements in the School Environment On improvements in school enrolment, this assessment probed presence of a talking compound and a functional wall of fame. These two CFS parameters are known to not only provide a more welcoming and conducive learning environment, but to also motivate children to have good characters17.

17

See AVSI (2011). Sustainable, Comprehensive Responses (SCORE) for Children and their Families: Programming Guide, 2011-2018. SCORE Project, AVSI Foundation, Kampala, page 145.

28

Figure 12 illustrates that 63% of the teachers declared that their schools had talking compounds, while only 56% of the pupils said their schools had walls of fame.

70

63 56

60

44

Percentage

50

37 40

Yes No

30 20 10 0

Talking Compound

Wall of Fame

School Environment Parameter Figure 12. School Environment The SCORE schools were perhaps not as keen on talking compounds and walls of fame as was the case with for example play grounds, play materials and latrines.

Mechanisms against Child Abuse On child abuse, pupils were asked whether their schools had clear mechanisms of addressing child abuse in its various forms, whether physical, sexual, psychological or emotional. Seventy four percent of the pupils noted that indeed their schools had clear mechanisms of addressing various abuses against children (Figure 13).

29

Does your school have clear mechanismss of addressing child abuse within the school?

26% 74%

Yes No

Figure 12. Whether Schools Have Clear Mechanisms of Addressing Child Abuse Although not quantified, some of the pupils mentioned counseling and referrals as some of the mechanisms that their schools used to address cases of child abuse.

Modes of Punishment On mechanisms of punishment, the school teachers and childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views were sought on abolition of corporal punishment and policies/SMC/BOG minutes to back it up, use of positive discipline (that is the use of non-violent, child-based and non-humiliating discipline strategies such as no beatings or canings18) and presence of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s courts. Figure 14 shows that 80% of the teachers disclosed that their schools had abolished corporal punishment, and 74% of these added that their schools had policies/SMC/BOG minutes to back up the abolition.

18

See UNICEF (2009). Child Friendly Schools Manual, page 5

30

100%

92%

90% 80% 70%

63%

62%

55%

60% 50%

38% 40%

37%

35%

Yes No

30% 20%

8% 10% 0%

Abolished Corp.

Pun.

Policy/SMC/BOG Minute Against Corp. Pun.

Positive Discipline

Children's Court

Modes of Punishment Figure 14. Existing Modes of Punishment in the SCORE Schools Figure 14 further indicates that 92% of the pupils supposed that their schools use positive or nonviolent and non-humiliating discipline measures, and another 55% said their schools have a children’s court. It is evident here that the use of children’s courts in the SCORE schools was relatively low compared to other CFS modes of punishment.

3.2.2

General Ranking of Child Friendly Services

The respondents (learners and teachers) were also asked to state the key improvements they had observed or experienced in their schools following the SCORE CFS interventions. As stated in Chapter two (Section 2.5), these improvements were probed using the 23 CFS parameters or questions in the SSQ, with a maximum of 23 Points being generated if all the questions were indicated “yes” and a minimum of 0 points if all the questions were indicated as “no”. The schools that scored the maximum point of 23 were ranked as “excellent”; those that scored between 17-22

31

were ranked as “Good”; those that scored between 9-16 were ranked as “Fair”, while those that scored between 0-8 were ranked as “Bad”.

Learners Ranking of Child Friendly Services in their Schools The results from the learners show that the majority (67.1%) ranked their schools as having fair child friendly services, meaning that they scored between 9-16 points (see Figure 15 and annex iii).

80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Figure 15. Pupils’ Ranking of Child Friendly Services Provided by Their Schools This means that most of the learners thought that their schools provided them with fair child friendly services.

Teachers Ranking of Child Friendly Services in their Schools Teachers in the targeted schools were also asked similar questions to those of the children, with a few additional ones as indicated in SSQ in annex i. The results in Figure 2 show 70 percent of the teachers ranked their schools as having good child friendly services, followed by 27.9 percent who thought that their schools provided fair child friendly services (Figure 16).

32

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Figure 16. Teachers’ Ranking of Child Friendly Services Provided by Their Schools

3.3 Key Achievements Made by the Schools as A Result of CFS Interventions The learners and teachers were asked to state the key achievements made by their schools as a result of the SCORE CFS interventions.

The data from learners and teachers generally shows that the major achievements made by the schools following SCORE interventions were in line with standard CFS features (such as effective teaching and learning, inclusivity of all children; health, safety and protection; and community involvement) and the 23 parameters that were assessed. The key achievements related to CFS interventions can be summarized as follows: 

Changes in positive behavior by the pupils. Pupils were reported to be more respectful, disciplined, confident, assertive, good time-keepers and with fewer peer groups



Improved infrastructure19, such as desks, latrines and new buildings like a kitchen and bathroom in one school

19

This was as a result of lobbying and engaging with parents, schools and the local government towards allocating funds for infrastructural development

33



Improvements in the school environment – Learners and teachers reported that their schools now have talking compounds, walk ways and water and sanitation facilities;



20

Increased participation of children in school activities through for example more active

suggestion boxes where pupils aired their views for change 

Pupils learnt to abstain from sex, as a result of the HIV/AIDS awareness CFS activities;



Improved communication between pupils and teachers as a result of instituting parentteacher committees 

21

Reduced drop outs and absenteeism

of pupils from school22. This was because of SCORE’s CFS activities such as handling the different forms of child abuse, following up cases of students that drop out due to child marriage or family break ups, and girls’ menstrual hygiene. The girl pupils also reported here that they had learnt how to make pad 

Improvement in co-curricular

activities 

Improved positive discipline and knowledge of farming. Teachers admitted that there had been a reduction in corporal punishments and that positive discipline had become more common. The children admitted that they were more disciplined and that they had learnt a number of

20

CFS in Entebbe. Photo credit: AVSI Picture: Teaching school girls how to make re-useable sanitary pads in St. Balikuddembe Primary School Mukono. Photo credit AVSI 22 Education: overall enrollment increased from 78% to 86% and absenteeism reduced from 44% to 9.2% through the 7 years of SCORE activities. Source SCORE VAT Data 21

34

agricultural and nutrition skills as a result of the JFFS skills where they were given vegetable seeds to demonstrate at school. The pupils have also set up kitchen gardens 

Improved governance, through pupils saying they had gained their right of freedom of expression and that the improved relationship between teachers and their pupils.

3.4 Key Challenges Schools Faced During the Implementation of the CFS Approach Again here, through the open-ended questions in the SSQ, the pupils and teachers were asked to provide the major challenges that their schools faced during the implementation of the CFS approach. A number of challenges were cited as summarized below: 

Teacher’s comprehension of the CFS approach. Some teachers said they still do not clearly understand the meaning and contrasts between corporal punishment and positive discipline;



Negative attitudes towards the CFS approach. For example, some teachers think that the positive discipline measures are very mild - pupils tend to repeat the same mistake they have done. The measures are also not used or are neglected by some teachers who are still using corporal punishment against the pupils. One teacher said that ‘In fact teachers no longer care about children due to the so called positive discipline’;



Girls lacking access to materials to use in toilets, including pads. The CFS activities in each selected school involved training some girls on how to make pads so as to improve their menstrual hygiene and school attendance and retention. But perhaps some girls were not reached;



Inadequate infrastructure or facilities such as classrooms and libraries. Whereas SCORE improved the environments of some schools, some learners and teachers argued that their schools do not have enough washrooms/toilets and that some toilets have broken doors.

Inadequate access to safe drinking water was also mentioned by some learners, with some saying their bore holes had unpalatable water – one school borehole was said to have water with ‘bad particles’ (silver materials).



Class environment – some students lacking enough seats in class;



Poor coordination between teachers, pupils and parents of the schools. This threatens or threatened the active involvement of teachers, parents and students in decision making and several other school management aspects;

35



Freedom of expression and speech – Some pupils said their schools had no functional suggestion boxes and others had no wall of fame.

The learners and teachers mentioned some challenges that were not related to or were beyond the CFS interventions, but which could be useful for other SCORE interventions or future programs. Examples here include: inadequate sports equipment and playing materials. Some pupils complained that the playing materials that were provided by SCORE were not enough compared to the population of pupils. Others include lack of enough farm inputs/garden tools and seeds in the schools; students not getting food or meals at school apart from those in S4; limited class rooms; lack of libraries and books which would enable the pupils to study well; lack of hostels for boys and girls; some not having wall fences around; pupils delaying to pay fees; staff, especially science teachers not being enough; failure to provide school fees to some SCORE students; and some teachers asking for money from parents.

3.5 Recommendations for Improving the CFS Approach The learners and teachers provided some recommendations for improving the CFS approach based on what they had observed in their schools. The main recommendations that were relevant to the CFS interventions included: 

More follow ups of the schools to track progress of CFS approach. This was raised by the teachers and the learners themselves;



Grouping boys and girls separately while talking about certain issues;



Improving even more infrastructure especially toilets, kitchens, classrooms, housing or changing rooms and clean or safe water sources. The kitchen for example is needed for the pupils’ food to be safe and free from disease. Some teachers rightly argued that bore holes or permanent hand washing facilities were needed in the schools;



More training and sensitizations on the CFS approach, especially for the community, parents/caregivers, pupils themselves and more teachers, including ‘senior women teachers’.

There were concerns here that the training largely left out the children and their caregivers/parents, who were not given much attention during the program’s implementation period;



Provision of equipment to the schools, especially more sports equipment;



Establishment or expansion of the talking compounds; and 36

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Provision of more scholastic materials.

There were also some recommendations made by teachers and pupils that are perhaps not relevant to the SCORE CFS interventions. These included: provision of good play grounds; provision of motivation gifts; directly providing meals or food to all pupils at school; introducing boarding sections.

37

4.0

Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that the CFS interventions positively improved the SCORE schools, mainly their registration with the Ministry of Education and Sports, the capacity of their teachers on the good school concept, governance and formation of CFS subcommittees, school structures, child participation in school governance and other activities such as clubs and abolition of corporal punishment. The ranking of the schools also changed from bad to fair or good. With regard to key achievements of the CFS interventions, the teachers and pupils recognized mainly changes in infrastructure, behavior and skills such as farming and communication among the pupils.

There is also evidence that despite the positive achievements made, children/pupils and teachers still face a number of obstacles that make their schools less child friendly, such as some teachers not using positive discipline and others being skeptical about it; some schools still lacking elements of good learning environments due to for example learners not having adequate access to drinking water bathrooms, and toilets.

4.2 Recommendations Based on the findings of this assessment and in particular the rating of the schools using CFS parameters and the challenges they face, it is imperative that SCORE takes into account the following in order to improve future interventions; 

More regular follow-ups of the CFS intervention schools and consistently tracking their progress in all the key CFS indicators. This could help in promoting the approach more in future;



More regular sensitization of the head teachers, teachers and the school management committees more about CFS, with a focus on improving the teaching and learning environment and the health, safety and protection of children, inter-alia. Particular attention should be given to positive discipline so as to change negative attitudes towards it;



The pupils, their care-givers and the community at large should also have been trained on the CFS approach so that they understand what it entails and also try to put it into practice in their schools. Training the teachers and pupils alone was perhaps not enough given that these persons also have a huge role to play in realizing the CFS approach; and



The scope of the CFS parameters should be expanded to include some inclusivity aspects such as enrollment.

38

References AVSI (2011). Sustainable, Comprehensive Responses (SCORE) for Children and their Families: Programming Guide, 2011-2018. SCORE Project, AVSI Foundation, Kampala.

Bechhofer, F. and Paterson, L. (1999). Principles of Research Design in the Social Sciences.

Routledge, London.

Kirk, S. (2007). Methodological and Ethical Issues in Conducting Qualitative Research with Children and Young People: A Literature Review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44(1): 1250â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1260.

Mbabazi Mpyangu, C., Awich E. O, Olowo Onyango, O. E, and Lubaale, Y. M. (2014). Out of School Children Study in Uganda. UNICEF, Eriks, Save the Children, UNHCR and Stromme Foundation, Kampala.

UNICEF

(2009).

Child

Friendly

Schools

Manual.

Available

at:

https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Child_Friendly_Schools_Manual_EN_040809.pdf.

Accessed on 20th January 2018.

UNICEF

(2009).

Child

Friendly

Schools

Case

Study:

The

Gambia.

Available

at:

https://www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_Gambia_Case_Study_December_2009.pdf. Accessed on 21st January 2018.

UNICEF

(2010).

Child

Friendly

Schools

Case

Study:

Uganda.

Available

at:

https://www.unicef.org/uganda/CFS_Uganda_Case_Study_January_2010.pdf. Accessed on 21st January 2018.

Walakira, E.J., D. Muhangi, S. Munyuwiny, F. Matovu, E. Awich, I. Ddumba Nyanzi, J. Kayiwa, J. Akellot, P. Mubiri, J. Majugo, A. Mutebi (2015). Analysis of the situation of the Ugandan Child.

Kampala/Washington DC: USAID/QED.

39

Annexes Annex I: Child Friendly School Assessment Questionnaire CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Interviewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name: _______________________________________________________ ID: Date of Interview: (DD/MM/YYYY) ____/_____/_____ To be independently responded to (in Focus Group Discussions) by groups of selected teachers and learners in schools that implemented the CFS approach (2011-2017) under the SCORE project.

Part1: Only teachers a) b) c) d) e)

Name of the School_________________________________________________________________ Sub-county________________________________________________________________________ District___________________________________________________________________________ Status (Government aided/Private)_____________________________________________________ Registration Number ________________________________________________________________

Part 2: Bio Data for all (Teachers and Learners) ID NO. Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

sex

YOB

Designation

Signature

PART3: Child Friendly School Parameters Instructions; write/Tick as appropriate (Either Yes or No) for each of the 23 questions below. Take care of some embedded sub-questions and respond as instructed. Some questions apply to both teachers and learners while others should be responded to by teachers only as instructed in each.

1 2

Question Is your school registered with Ministry of Education and Sports? (only for teachers) a) Are there any teachers trained and oriented on the good school concept in this school? (only for teachers) b) If yes, write down the total number of male and female teachers trained by SCORE and still present 40

Yes

No

NA

Comments

3

in the school. (Only for teachers) a) Were Child Friendly School sub committees formed in the school? b) If yes, has the Teachers’ CFS sub-committee sat in the last four months? (Only teachers)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

c) If yes, has the learners’ subcommittee sat in the last 4 months? d) If yes, has the parents’ subcommittee sat in the last 4 months?

Does the school have permanent classroom structures? (Observe) Does the school have democratically elected pupils'/students’ council/prefects?

Does the school have a functional suggestion box?

(Observe and ask) Does the school have a talking compound?

(Observe and ask) Does the school have a functional Wall of fame?

(Observe and ask) Does the school have proper school latrine or toilet facilities? (Observe) If yes to 9 above, are the latrine/toilet facilities separated according to sex (Boys and Girls)?

Are there functional hand washing facilities in the school? (Observe) Are there facilities for children with disability in the school? (Observe) Does the school have a playground? (Observe) Are there play materials in the school? (Observe) a) Are there clubs in this school? b) If yes, how many are they? c) list them

16

a) Are children engaged in co-curricular activities like games & sports and MDDs? b) List the games and sports the children engage in at the school

17

Are there Senior Women/Men teachers in the school?

Are there clear mechanisms of addressing child abuse

18

41

19

20 21 22 23

within the school?

(E.g., a signed child protection policy by teachers, or signed Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; code of conduct) a) Does the school use positive discipline measures? b) If yes, List them.

a) Has the school abolished corporal punishments? b) If yes is there a policy or SMC/BOG minute to back this up?) (only for teachers) Does the school have a children's court?

Are girls free to engage in school leadership and other activities such as sports just like the boys?

Does the school administration / Governing body (BOG or SMC) meet regularly (at least once a term)?

(See evidence of minutes for the last three terms before selecting the options). (only for teachers)

Part 4: Qualitative assessment: a) What were the key achievements made by the school as a result of implementation of the CFS approach?

b) What were the key challenges the school faced during the implementation of the CFS Approach?

42

c) What recommendations do you make for improving the CFS approach?

Thank you for your involvement

43

Annex II: Number of Schools Assessed per District District

No.

%

Alebtong

8

5.06

Amuru

6

3.8

Budaka

6

3.8

Bududa

6

3.8

Buhweju

5

3.16

Buikwe

4

2.53

Busia

9

5.7

Butaleja

7

4.43

Buvuma

3

1.9

Buyende

17

10.76

Kampala

4

2.53

Kitgum

17

10.76

Lamwo

13

8.23

Mitooma

5

3.16

Mukono

2

1.27

Namayingo

10

6.33

Nwoya

10

6.33

Otuke

9

5.7

Rubirizi

5

3.16

Sheema

6

3.8

Sironko

6

3.8

158

100

Total

44

45

Annex III: Summary of Responses from the Pupils Question No Q1_1 Is your school registered with Ministry of Education and Sports?

No 1 Yes 17 Total 18 Q2a_1 Are there any teachers trained and oriented on the good school concept in this school?

No 19 Total 19 Q3a_1 Were Child Friendly School sub committees formed in the school?

No 30 Yes 93 Total 123 Q3b_1 If yes, has the Teachers’ CFS sub-committee sat in the last four months?

No 10 Yes 15 Total 25 Q3 c) If yes, has the learners’ subcommittee sat in the last 4 months?

No 40 Yes 68 Total 108 Q3d) If yes, has the parents’ subcommittee sat in the last 4 months?

No 33 Yes 54 Total 87 Q4 Does the school have permanent classroom structures?

No 6 Yes 145 Total 151 Q5_1 Does the school have democratically elected pupils'/students’ council/prefects?

No 9 Yes 147 Total 156 Q6_1 Does the school have a functional suggestion box?

No 54 Yes 101 Total 155 Q7_1 Does the school have a talking compound?

No 63 Yes 93 Total 156 Q8_1 Does the school have a functional Wall of fame No 68 Yes 87 Total 155 Q9_1 Does the school have proper school latrine or toilet facilities?

No 8 Yes 148 Total 156 Q10_1 If yes to 9 above, are the latrine/toilet facilities separated according to sex (Boys and Girls)?

No 13 Yes 143 Total 156 Q11_1 Are there functional hand washing facilities in the school?

No 70 Yes 87

46

% 5.6 94.4 100 100 100 24.4 75.6 100 40 60 100 37 63 100 37.9 62.1 100 4 96 100 5.8 94.2 100 34.8 65.2 100 40.4 59.6 100 43.9 56.1 100 5.1 94.9 100 8.3 91.7 100 44.6 55.4

Total 157 Q12_1 Are there facilities for children with disability in the school?

No 56 Yes 101 Total 157 Q13_1 Does the school have a playground?

No 11 Yes 145 Total 156 Q14_1 Are there play materials in the school?

No 36 Yes 120 Total 156 Q15a_1 a) Are there clubs in this school?

No 10 Yes 140 Total 150 Q16a_1 a) Are children engaged in co-curricular activities like games & sports and MDDs? No 153 Total 153 Q17_1 Are there Senior Women/Men teachers in the school?

No 3 Yes 151 Total 154 Q18_1 Are there clear mechanisms of addressing child abuse within the school?

No 32 Yes 91 Total 123 Q19a_1 a) Does the school use positive discipline measures?

No 11 Yes 134 Total 145 Q20a_1 a) Has the school abolished corporal punishments?

No 44 Yes 94 Total 138 Q20b_1 b) If yes is there a policy or SMC/BOG minute to back this up?)

No 14 Yes 23 Total 37 Q21_1 Does the school have a children's court?

No 66 Yes 80 Total 146 Q22_1 Are girls free to engage in school leadership and other activities such as sports just like the boys?

No 2 Yes 148 Total 150 Q23_1 Does the school administration / Governing body (BOG or SMC) meet regularly (at least once a term)?

No 5 Yes 19 Total 24

47

100 35.7 64.3 100 7.1 92.9 100 23.1 76.9 100 6.7 93.3 100 100 100 1.9 98.1 100 26 74 100 7.6 92.4 100 31.9 68.1 100 37.8 62.2 100 45.2 54.8 100 1.3 98.7 100 20.8 79.2 100

Annex IV: Summary of Responses from the Teachers Question No Q1_1 Is your school registered with Ministry of Education and Sports?

No 5 Yes 143 Total 148 Q2a_1 Are there any teachers trained and oriented on the good school concept in this school?

No 11 Yes 138 Total 149 Q3a_1 Were Child Friendly School sub committees formed in the school?

No 21 Yes 126 Total 147 Q3b_1 If yes, has the Teachers’ CFS sub-committee sat in the last four months?

No 51 Yes 83 Total 134 Q3 c) If yes, has the learners’ subcommittee sat in the last 4 months?

No 89 Yes 50 Total 139 Q3d) If yes, has the parents’ subcommittee sat in the last 4 months?

No 68 Yes 68 Total 136 Q4 Does the school have permanent classroom structures?

No 6 Yes 151 Total 157 Q5_1 Does the school have democratically elected pupils'/students’ council/prefects?

No 3 Yes 154 Total 157 Q6_1 Does the school have a functional suggestion box?

No 52 Yes 105 Total 157 Q7_1 Does the school have a talking compound?

No 57 Yes 96 Total 153 Q8_1 Does the school have a functional Wall of fame No 156 Yes 1 48

% 3.4 96.6 100 7.4 92.6 100 14.3 85.7 100 38.1 61.9 100 64 36 100 50 50 100 3.8 96.2 100 1.9 98.1 100 33.1 66.9 100 37.3 62.7 100 99.4 0.6

Total 157 Q9_1 Does the school have proper school latrine or toilet facilities?

No 3 Yes 154 Total 157 Q10_1 If yes to 9 above, are the latrine/toilet facilities separated according to sex (Boys and Girls)?

No 8 Yes 146 Total 154 Q11_1 Are there functional hand washing facilities in the school?

No 70 Yes 85 Total 155 Q12_1 Are there facilities for children with disability in the school?

No 56 Yes 100 Total 156 Q13_1 Does the school have a playground?

No 10 Yes 144 Total 154 Q14_1 Are there play materials in the school?

No 30 Yes 124 Total 154 Q15a_1 a) Are there clubs in this school?

No 2 Yes 150 Total 152 Q16a_1 a) Are children engaged in co-curricular activities like games & sports and MDDs? Yes 154 Total 154 Q17_1 Are there Senior Women/Men teachers in the school?

No 2 Yes 153 Total 155 Q18_1 Are there clear mechanisms of addressing child abuse within the school?

No 24 Yes 128 Total 152 Q19a_1 a) Does the school use positive discipline measures?

No 4 Yes 150 Total 154 Q20a_1 a) Has the school abolished corporal punishments?

49

100 1.9 98.1 100 5.2 94.8 100 45.2 54.8 100 35.9 64.1 100 6.5 93.5 100 19.5 80.5 100 1.3 98.7 100 100 100 1.3 98.7 100 15.8 84.2 100 2.6 97.4 100

No 31 20.5 Yes 120 79.5 Total 151 100 Q20b_1 b) If yes is there a policy or SMC/BOG minute to back this up?)

No 32 25.8 Yes 92 74.2 Total 124 100 Q21_1 Does the school have a children's court?

No 55 36.4 Yes 96 63.6 Total 151 100 Q22_1 Are girls free to engage in school leadership and other activities such as sports just like the boys?

No 3 1.9 Yes 151 98.1 Total 154 100 Q23_1 Does the school administration / Governing body (BOG or SMC) meet regularly (at least once a term)?

No 11 7.5 Yes 136 92.5 Total 147 100

50

COPYRIGHT Š 2017 | AVSI Foundation Design and production by: Sustainable Comprehensive Responses for Vulnerable Children and their families Activity Published by: AVSI Foundation Plot 1119 Gaba Road, P.O. Box 6785 Kampala, Uganda Email: communication.uganda@avsi.org Website: www.avsi.org Website: http://uganda.avsi.org First Edition: 2017

AVSI Uganda @avsiuganda