Download Evaluation

ENDLINE REPORT COMMUNICATION FOR EDUCATION AND IMPROVED SCHOOL GOVERNANCE (C4E) DECEMBER 2018

Disclaimer

All opinions expressed in this evaluation report are that of the evalutor (Real-Time Evaluation, Ratha Lork and Kurt Bredenberg) or those interviewed (where indicated) and do not necessarily reflect of the views of CARE or UNICEF.

Map of Target Areas

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Summary of Sample Size by Province Table 2.2: Summary of Data Collection Methodologies Employed by Key Informant and Relevant Forms

Table 3.1: Background Characteristics of Households Table 3.2: Frequency of Children’s Attendance in the Last 3 Months Table 3.3: Awareness Levels of Children’s Absence Table 3.4: Parents Who Indicated That Their Children Have to Engage in Employ- ment Table 3.5: Parents Who Have Ever Allowed Their Children to Stay Home When NOT ill Table 3.6: Perceived Seriousness of Student Absenteeism among Local & Education Officials Table 3.7: Parental Attitudes About the Importance of Attending School Table 3.8: Frequency of Helping Children at Home with Homework Table 3.9: Perceptions among Officials Regarding the Degree to Which Parents Value Education Table 3.10: Parents Indicating, They Know one or More SSC members at Their Child’s School. Table 3.11: Quality of Parental Relationship with SSC Table 3.12: Parents Indicating, They Aware the Campaigns. Table 3.13: Campaigns Through Which Communication Channels. Table 3.14: Officials’ Perception of the Degree of Parental Awareness of about In- formation Campaigns Table 3.15: Parental Opinion about the Roles and Responsibilities of SSCs (among those who have ever been SSC members) Table 3.16: Officials’ Perception of the Relationship between School and Community Table 3.17: Variation on Key Investigative Parameters by Gender and Ethnicity Table 3.18: Final Baseline and Post-treatment Indicator Values (Treatment and Con- trol Groups)

Table of Contents

Disclaimer Map of Target Areas List of Tables Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Background 7 1.2 Purpose and Objective of the Baseline Assessment 8 2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 8 2.1 General Framework and Focus 8 2.2 Sample Construction 9 2.3 Data Collection Methods and Survey Instruments 11 2.4 Data Management 12 2.5 Data Treatment 13 3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 14 3.1 Household Representation 14 3.2 School Attendance and Associated Causes 15 3.3 Attitudes about the Importance of Education 17 3.4 Community Education Networks and Channels of Communication 18 3.5 Variations on Key Parameters by Gender and Ethnicity 21 3.6 Comparison of Key Attitudes between Treatment and Control Groups and 22 Other Stakeholders 4. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 26

ANNEXES 31 Annex 1: List of Treatment and Control Villages 31 Annex 2: Case Studies 33 Annex 3: List of Data Collection Forms 34 Annex 4: Summary List of All Data Tables 53 Annex 5: Composite Record of Focus Group Discussions 62 Annex 6: List of Key Informants 65

Page | 1

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing C4E Communication for Education DOE District Office of Education DTMT District Training and Monitoring Teams GIS Geographical Information System MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport POE Provincial Office of Education PED Primary Education Department SSC School Support Committee ToR Terms of Reference

Page | 2

Executive Summary

Background

The present report describes an internal assessment of the impact of the Communication for Ed- ucation Project (C4E) implemented by CARE in Ratanak Kiri and Mondulkiri Provinces. Under the project, a communication for development campaign was designed by CARE, in collaboration with UNICEF, MoEYS/PED and local government counterparts, to promote better awareness and positive attitudinal changes toward values of education to increase community demand for good quality education among parents, caregivers and community members. The campaign also sought to strengthen perceptions of stakeholders’ role in supporting inclusive learning environments for all children at school. The communication channels used by the campaign included sound recordings (e.g., radio, public announcements, etc.), posters, social media, and other forms of communication. In technical terms, the project focuses on the role of what are known as District-based Training and Monitoring Teams (DTMT1) and School Support Committees (SSCs) and their mandate to promote strengthened demand for inclusive quality education among community members and other stakeholders. Members of the School Support Committees (SSCs) led the campaign to improve attitudes and behaviors as these relate to education. These champions facilitated a Human-Centered Design Approach to the development of the campaign and planned events in remote communities targeted by the project. The present assessment took the form of baseline and endline data collection activities to determine the extent of impacts during the four-month period of actual implementation. The endline survey itself occurred in December 2018, approximately four months after the baseline survey. Impacts were primarily assessed through a review of changes in behaviors and attitudes among key stakeholders including households, village chiefs, and education officials. Relatedly, these impacts are thought to also reflect the effectiveness of District Training and Monitoring Teams (DTMT1) and School Support Committees in effecting the desired changes. Specifically, the baseline-endline assessment sought to document stakeholders’ understanding of the importance of education, their awareness of this importance, and possible changes in behavior and practice that may result from subsequent project interventions. Achieving this objective required the design of an assessment methodology, the development of data collection tools, the training of enumerators, and data analysis procedures. The present report documents the outcomes of these efforts, building on a baseline assessment report that was implemented and completed in August-September 2018. Methodology Employed

The current assessment collected data from households in a total of 40 village-communities1 representing a mix of rural and remote locations as well as village chiefs and educational officials in Ratanak Kiri and Mondul Kiri Provinces. A preponderance of the households visited during the assessment were of indigenous ethnicity (about two-thirds). Data was collected from 595 respondents at baseline and 598 respondents at endline. Data collected from the various stakeholders was triangulated to check for validity and areas of inconsistency. Investigators utilized focus group discussions and interviews, as key methodologies for data collection. In order to expedite the collection and tabulation of data, information was immediately encoded into mobile

1 Inclusive of 30 treatment villages and 10 control villages. Page | 3

devices that use specialized software designed for research purposes. Research Questions: 1. To what extent does communi- Conclusions about program impact are based on a comparison ty understand about the im- of baseline and endline values. The instrumentation for both portance of education? 2. To what extent do campaign surveys has been kept in large part the same. Based on discus- activities reach the community? sions with CARE, a small control group (10 villages) was includ- 3. What has been changed as a ed in the data collection methodology for comparison purposes. result of the campaign- Communi- cation for Education (C4E)? The development of data collection tools and strategies were 4. What are the key recommen- closely guided by key research questions identified in the Terms dations to raise further understanding of the importance of edu- of Reference for the baseline assessment. This included the four cation? research questions summarized in the box to the right. Summary of Impacts Key Impacts Indicated in Endline Data The present endline survey found pos- Assessment Parameter Changes from Baseline That Exceed itive impacts among 11 or 55% of the Comparable Movement in a assessment parameters investigated Control Group 1. % of parents who have children as part of the evaluation process for Decreased by -7.2% frequently absent the C4E project. These impacts are 2. % of parents who have ever al- summarized in Box 4.1. Impact in this lowed their children to stay home Decreased by -6.9% when not ill case is defined as the movement of an 3. % of parents who interact with Increased by 14.2% indicator in a desired direction among SSC ‘often’ members of the treatment group that 4. % of parents who have ever received information about educa- Increased by 10.0% exceeds comparable movement along tion ‘Often’ (Outreach Efforts) the same indicator in a control group. 5. % of officials who believe that Increased by 43.3% among Village Chiefs There were in all nine other assess- communities value education ‘a Increased by 8.5% among Education great deal’ Officials ment parameters or 45% of the total 6. % of officials who believe that in which there was no observed im- parents value education ‘a great Increased by 43.0% among Village Chiefs deal’ pact or where the observed changes 7. % of Education Officials who were less than those observed in the believe DTMTs operate ‘effective- Increased by 1.2% ly’ (not asked of Village Chiefs) control group. Thus, one can conclude 8. % of officials who believe com- that while the C4E project achieved munities are ’very effective’ in Increased by 36.7% among Village Chiefs promoting transparency, per- Increased by 13% among Education Offi- positive change among a majority of formance, and accountability of cials its stated indicators, there were still a primary schools 9. % of officials who believe that Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs number of instances where impacts SSCs ‘play a strong role’ in edu- due to the education campaign were cation not conclusive. 10. % of officials who feel that par- Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs ents are ‘very aware’ of infor- Increased by 21.8% among Education mation campaigns Officials Among the positive impacts observed, Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs 11. Mean percentage of children the most important changes included enrolled in local primary schools Increased by 21.8% among Education the following: is increasing according to the Officials perceptions of local & education officials. • Improvements in parental attitudes and behaviors relating to

Page | 4

children’s attendance • Improved parental interaction with School Support Committees • Improved outreach to parents through information dissemination campaigns. • Improved perceptions of Village Chiefs, as these relate to the degree to which communities and parents place a high value on education. • Improved perceptions of the degree to which parents are aware of the strong role that School Support Committees play in promoting education.

Areas of performance where impacts were less clear included the following: • Perceptions in the seriousness of the problem of school dropout in which there was not much evidence of a perceived diminution of the problem • Changes in the mean age of school enrollment at Grade 1 due to the information campaign • Changes in parents’ perceptions of the value of education or willingness to help their children with their homework that was due to the education campaign. • Changes in parents’ willingness to discourage using their children in employment that was due to the education campaign

The inconclusive nature of impacts on about 45% of key parameters could have been due to a number of factors. For example, attitudinal change usually takes months and even years to effect. The fact that so much attitudinal change has been registered in the present assessment in such a short period of time is both gratifying and unusual given that the interventions transpired over a period of only four months and comprised primarily targeted messaging. It is also important to remember that the contextual factors underlying the attitudes that the project seeks to change (e.g., poverty, need for seasonal employment, limitations in educational service provision, etc.) are still very much in play and likely continue to exhibit a counteractive influence over what stakeholders think and do. Thus, one can conclude that impacts across more than half of program indicators in a period of less than four months is indeed a very good result.

Positive responding patterns among the various stakeholders, where they occurred, were mostly convergent; however, there were nevertheless some areas of observed divergence as well. In this respect, parents tended to express the most optimistic views about the state of student attendance and the role of School Support Committees in promoting education while village chiefs (mostly village chiefs) tended to be a bit less optimistic (though still largely positive), and education officials tended to be even more cautious in their assessments, particularly as these relate to the problems of attendance and school dropout. Perhaps these tendencies reflected the more individualized perspectives of parents while education officials were more conscious of a ‘big picture’ view of the education system where there are indeed many problems.

Recommendations:

Investigators formulated the following suggestions with respect to recommendations for improved project implementation:

Page | 5

1. Time Frame Modification: The time frame for project implementation should be extended. Changes in attitudes and behaviors usually take months and years to effect; thus, a more extended time frame for implementation should be considered in any future iterations of this project. 2. More Precise Coupling of Messaging Content with Specific Improvement Strategies That Are Occurring on the Ground: Future messaging activities should also consider clearer links between message content and the activities that CARE is conducting on the ground. Better coordination between messaging and concrete activities could achieve additional synergies between communication campaigns and on-going projects. 3. Capacity of DTMTs: Improvements in the perceived effectiveness of District-based Training and Monitoring Teams were positive but also somewhat marginal. Future project interventions may consider capacity-building to improve the performance of the DTMT. For example, the ICT proficiency of most DTMT members is quite limited. They cannot use mobile devices for the collection of data (which will be essential for the administration of the Ministry’s new CFS Data collection tool which has now been digitized). Education officials also communicated with the team that DTMTs need to increase the frequency of visiting schools and having a clearer idea of what they should be doing when they get there. 4. Targeting the Most Effective Communication Channels: Sound recordings and meetings appear to be the communication channels with the greatest reach in local communities. So- cial media registered more minimal contact. Future messaging campaigns should, therefore, either focus on sound recordings and meetings (as these appear to be the most effective communication channels). 5. Targeting Messaging on the Most Hard Core Households That Did Not Evince Much Change: There are appears to be a hard core group of community members who have been more impervious to communication messaging. These households, comprising about 10% of the sample, did not evince much change in such behaviors as children’s regular school attendance, engagement in employment, receiving help on their homework, etc. The rest of the population appears to be demonstrating desirable attitudes and behaviors. Thus, it might be more efficient to target future campaigns on a more narrow slice of the population with messaging tailored to their needs and special situation. 6. Addressing Attitudinal Divergence among Stakeholders: The results of parental attitudinal surveys from this investigation should be shared with education officials to improve mu- tual understanding and address observed divergence of views in many areas (e.g., parental valuing of education, student absenteeism, etc.). 7. Veracity of Educational Data: Perceptions of student dropout as expressed by local and education officials appear to indicate a very dire situation. Nevertheless, official data about the incidence of dropout in both provinces does not mirror such attitudes. It would be interesting for CARE to try to determine the actual extent of dropout and whether there is wide- spread falsification of data and how educational reporting could be made more reliable.

Page | 6

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The current report provides a documented comparison between baseline and endline data points in target areas that are supported under the Communication for Education and Improved School Governance Project, also known as the C4E and Governance Project. This program is supported by UNICEF and implemented by CARE in close collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS) and Provincial Offices of Education (PoEs) in Ratanak Kiri and Mondul Kiri Provinces. Intended changes from project implementation in target areas are expected to be seen during the course of the 2018-19 academic year. In technical terms, the project focuses on the role of what are known as District-based Training and Monitoring Teams (DTMT1) and School Support Committees (SSCs) and their mandate to promote strengthened demand for inclusive quality education among community members and other stakeholders. In this respect, it should be noted that DTMT1 are comprised of local educational officials whose role is to help state schools animate the policy of the MoEYS while SSCs are primarily community bodies whose role is to support the school by providing advice, material support, and liaison with the community. Under the C4E and Governance Project, a communication for development campaign was designed by CARE, in collaboration with UNICEF, MoEYS/PED and local government counterparts, to promote better awareness and positive attitudinal changes toward values of education to increase community demand for good quality education among parents, caregivers and community members. The campaign also sought to strengthen perceptions of stakeholders’ role in supporting inclusive learning environments for all children at school. There is already a wealth of communication materials produced through the School Governance Project, including policy briefs, posters and social media posts, mainly aimed at program stakeholders. These existing materials have been used as the basis for the campaign as much as possible for purposes of cost effectiveness. In some cases, these materials have been adapted to suit a diverse audience. Members of the School Support Committees (SSCs) to lead the campaign have already been identified in the School Governance Project and featured in these materials. These champions have facilitated a Human-Centered Design Approach to the development of the campaign and planned events in remote communities targeted by the project. An additional challenge reported by district officials during the implementation of the School Governance Project relates to the high turnover of SSC members, especially literate members who have competing priorities. The communication campaign for behavioral change has sought to address this challenge by promoting recruitment of SSC members in an inclusive and attractive manner, instead of the more factual information of the current project on the roles and responsibilities as laid out in the official policy governing SSCs. The campaign has further focused on strengthening the communication between SSCs and district level authorities, empowering SSC members to raise concerns regarding the quality of education delivered in the schools they support. DTMT1 team have been trained to advocate for inclusion of illiterate members of remote communities; improve the way they conduct meetings by using more pictures in materials; and to advocate for indigenous members to chair meetings in both the local language as well as the national language Khmer, where possible. In general, building on the results of the School Governance Project is a strategic and efficient way to build demand-side interventions in Ratanak Kiri and Mondul Kiri Provinces. It is also be- lieved that the project’s design has the potential to be effectively scaled so that campaign materi-

Page | 7

als and strategies can also be applied in other provinces. Thus, the project’s efforts will further contribute to the sustainability of the work done previously to enhance school governance by providing further use of the materials developed while at the same time strengthening local capacity. 1.2 Purpose and Objective of the Baseline Assessment In general terms, the purpose of the baseline-endline assessment is to determine the outcome and impact of the Communication for Education and Improved School Governance Project in Mon- dul Kiri and Ratanak Kiri Provinces. The survey itself occurred in December 2018, approximately four months after the baseline survey. Impacts will primarily be assessed through a review of changes in behaviors and attitudes among key stakeholders. Relatedly, these impacts will also reflect the effectiveness of District Training and Monitoring Teams (DTMT1) and School Support Committees in effecting the desired changes. Specifically, the baseline-endline assessment seeks to document stakeholders’ understanding of the importance of education, their awareness of this importance, and possible changes in behavior and practice that may result from subsequent project interventions. Achieving this objective requires the design of an assessment methodology, the development of data collection tools, the training of enumerators, and data analysis procedures (see Section 2 below). The present report documents the outcomes of these efforts, building on a baseline assessment report that was implemented and completed in August-September 2018. 2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 2.1 General Framework and Focus Endline assessment activities focused on the same respondents used during the baseline in Au- gust 2018. This includes target primary schools and their associated communities in the areas currently supported by CARE. A total of 40 village-communities2 participated in the baseline- surveys representing a mix of rural and remote locations in Mondul Kiri and Ratanak Kiri Prov- inces. Due to budget limits in the DTMT teams hired by CARE to collect the data for the investigators, 40 villages were visited as part of the endline surveys. Data collected from the various stakeholders was triangulated to check for validity and areas of inconsistency. Investigators utilized focus group discussions and interviews, as key methodologies for data collection. In order to expedite the collection and tabulation of data, information was immediately encoded into mobile devices that use specialized software designed for research purposes. Conclusions about program impact are based on a comparison of baseline and endline values. The instrumentation for both surveys has been kept in large part the same. Based on discussions with CARE, a small control group (10 villages) was included in the data collection methodology for comparison purposes. This required an asymmetrical sampling strategy because the control communities were significantly smaller in number than the treatment sample.

2 Inclusive of 30 treatment villages and 10 control villages. Page | 8

The development of data collection tools and strategies were closely guided by key research questions identified in the Terms of Reference for the baseline assessment. This included the following questions: • To what extent does community understand about the importance of education? • To what extent do campaign activities reach the community? • What has been changed as a result of the campaign- Communication for Education (C4E)? • What are the key recommendations to raise further understanding of the importance of education? 2.2 Sample Construction With the exception of a few cases, investigators primarily used non-probability-based sampling techniques when constructing the baseline and endline sample for various stakeholder groupings. Non-probabilistic sampling does not use sample size calculation methods normally used when probabilistic sampling is employed because the selection of sample members is non-random in nature. In order to create a semi-scientific sample construction process that provides some degree of equivalence between treatment and control groups, the sample construction design process has relied on principles used in Propensity Score Matching3 whereby key demographic characteristics in the treatment sample are roughly matched with those in the control group. This creates some empirical basis for assuming that the two samples are roughly equivalent in terms of the key demographic characteristics agreed at the outset (e.g., demographic setting, ethnicity, etc.; see below). A summary of the equivalency scores (or percentages) between treatment and control groups is provided later in this report (see Table 3.1). Although non-probabilistic sampling designs cannot generate results that are generalizable to the overall population, variations would nevertheless be valid for the sample members in question. However, since the current investigation is a project evaluation and not a research study, non-probabilistic sampling is nevertheless relevant to the current context. Based on discussions with CARE, sampling units used in the evaluation included villages and households, as well as community members and local and government officials. Each sampling unit is described below: Villages: A purposive sample comprising a total of 30 treatment villages (at baseline) was constructed as the broadest sampling unit. In this respect, purposive sampling means that the selection of villages was non-probability-based and non-random in design. The evaluators identified 20 villages in Ratanak Kiri and 10 more in Mondul Kiri for this purpose. Likewise, 7 villages in Ratanak Kiri and 3 villages in Mondul Kiri were identified for the construction of a comparison or control group. In all, 40 villages participated in the assessment in both treatment (30) and com-

3 Propensity score matching creates sets of participants for treatment and control groups that are roughly equivalent. A matched set consists of at least one participant in the treatment group and one in the control group with similar propensity scores (e.g., scores for ethnicity). The goal is to approximate a random experiment, eliminating many of the problems that come with the use of non-probabilistic sampling. For example, in the current assessment, the treatment group had 68% of its membership comprising indigenous language groups while the control had 67%. While not chosen randomly, the control group appears to be roughly equivalent to the treatment group on this key demographic characteristic, thereby creating a semi-scientific sample composition that will provide some support for comparisons and contrasts that are reasonable.

Page | 9

parison (10) groups. The treatment and control villages selected for the assessment are listed in Annex 1. Villages were identified using criteria that were intended to maximize the representa- tiveness of the resulting sample. Selection criteria were confirmed with CARE staff members and included the following: • Demographic setting (e.g., rural/remote) • Ethnic composition (Khmer, Cham, Vietnam, Lao, Phnong, Kreung, Tampuen, Broa, Jarai, Kachak, Kavet, and Stieng.) • Economic characteristics that prevent parents from sending their children to school. • Migratory patterns Within each village, the researchers interviewed multiple groups as explained below. School Support Committees (Focus Group Discussions): Multiple groupings of SSC members within each of five villages were brought together to participate in focus group discussions. SSC members were organized into groupings of approximately 3 to 5 persons in each village. For purposes of organizing focus group discussions with SSCs, three SSCs were selected as the treatment group while two villages were selected as the comparison group. A total of 5 focus group discussions were conducted in five villages. Parents (Household Surveys): A sample of 390 parents (in treatment conditions) was originally constructed at baseline using systematic sampling methods at each of the villages participating in the study (13 per village) as well as 130 parents from 10 comparison villages. At endline, enumerators interviewed 390 parents (in treatment conditions) and 130 parents in the control condition, about 68% of respondents were the same as at baseline. Interviewers visited parents at their homes and administered short interviews using the data collection forms described below. During the baseline survey, household selection was governed by the use of ‘systematic’ sampling principles. Such sampling is characterized by the use of a standard interval of units down a list of households. Although systematic sampling is not random, it can be more efficient in limiting bias in the selection of sampling units (households in this case) than purposive sampling. If a household list was available, enumerators selected every fourth household from the list. If a household list was not available, then enumerators used the geographical configuration of the village for its systematic sampling of households. In the latter case, enumerators chose a geographical starting point, which could be a village house, a temple or a main road in the village. Enumerators then picked every fourth household from the starting point until the sampling size target had been achieved. In this respect, interviewers walked down streets selecting households on both sides according to the sampling interval. There was flexibility to go to the next household in case the selected household could not be successfully interviewed or did not meet agreed screening criteria. At endline, enumerators visited the same households wherever possible but selected substi- tute households where necessary. About 68% of respondents were the same as at baseline because some respondents were not available during the team visit. Government Level Officials: Investigators also interviewed representatives from the following offices: • Provincial Offices of Education: 1 informant from each province (2) (POE Director or Vice Director) • District Offices of Education: 14 informants (1 per district; 9 in Ratanak Kiri and 5 in Mondul Kiri

Page | 10

provinces) • Village Chiefs: 40 persons • Total: 56 key informants in government The original sample size across both provinces, including both treatment and control groups, comprised 595 individuals. At endline, the sample comprised 598 individuals and was comparable in most respects with the baseline sample, even though there was a small incidence of substi- tution. The sample is described in Table 2.1 below: TABLE 2.1: Summary of Sample Size by Province (Actual Number) Stakeholder Ratanak Kiri Mondul Kiri Actual Number Actual Number At Baseline At Endline Treatment 2 villages x 4 persons = 9 1 village x 4 persons = 5 12 14 Group School Support Control Committees 1 village x 3 persons = 4 1 village x 4 persons = 4 Group 7 8 Treatment 10 villages x 13 persons = 20 villages x 13 persons = 260 Group Parents with 130 390 390 children age 5 - Control 15 7 villages x 13 persons = 91 3 villages x 13 persons = 39 Group 129 130 Treatment Education 1 POE and 9 DOEs = 10 1 POE and 5 DOEs = 6 Group Officials 17 16 Treatment 20 Village Chiefs 10 Village Chiefs Group 30 30 Local Authorities Control 7 Village Chiefs 3 Village Chiefs Group 10 10

Total 595 598 2.3 Data Collection Methods and Survey Instruments The development of data collection tools were preceded by a process of generating discrete variables for study based on a review of the key research questions. Each question developed for use in investigatory tools was cross-referenced with these factors to ensure high levels of content validity during tool development. The investigators designed and administered 4 data collection tools, which were developed for the purpose. These tools were reviewed with CARE staff in order to modulate them to current data collection needs. As noted earlier, data collection forms were converted into an electronic format so that data could automatically be tabulated into a central file at the same time that the data was being collected. Investigators used a software program called CS-Pro software for this purpose. This software is among the most flexible data collection software on the market and can be adapted easily to multiple data collection formats. The data collection tools developed for purposes of the present investigation comprised a combi- nation of focus group discussions and one-on-one interviews with key informants. The latter occurred primarily among village chiefs at provincial, district, commune, and village level. Table 2.2 below summarizes the methodologies employed at different sampling unit levels, relevant key informants, the name of the form employed, and the number of informants.

Page | 11

TABLE 2.2: Summary of Data Collection Methodologies Employed by Key Informant and Relevant Forms

Stakeholder Methodology Form Formula Proposed Actual Number Number Baseline Endlilne

Focus Group Form School Support Committees 5 villages x 1 group 40 19 22 (60 to 90 minutes) 1 Parents with children aged 5 - Interview Form 40 villages x 13 per- 520 519 520 15 (Household Surveys) 2 sons Form Education Officials Interview POE: 2; DOE: 14 16 17 16 3 Form Local Authorities Interview 40 Village Chief 40 40 40 4 Total 616 595 598

2.4 Data Management Investigators used Common Application Program Interface or CAPI for data collection and quality control. This facility can provide real-time data collection of high quality, accuracy, and cost- effectiveness. CAPI facilities helped to indicate the current location (GIS mapping) and actual time of an interview being conducted by an enumerator. This allowed CARE to control the quality of the data collection and fieldwork over the internet. All survey materials displayed in software with CAPI capability shows the observation form, back-check form, daily contact sheet (interviewee), and database spreadsheet. These forms can be accessed on any mobile device encoded with the required software and data. CAPI also allows for database retrieval and synchronization of data to the server each time a data collection form is completed. Tablet-based databases have logic codes to help easily detect skip patterns, robust error and inconsistencies in checking to ensure the quality and accuracy of data. In order to provide high quality survey data, investigators developed a tablet-based database using CSPro, an open-source software from the US Census Bureau. This software is commonly used for large-scale research projects involving data entry with high quality controls (logic checks, cross tabulations, data verification and data checks) so that only complete and validated ques- tionnaires are entered and only skipped questions are left blank. Data for the baseline and endline assessment was entered using a method that automatically restricts out-of-range variables, checks for inconsistencies, does not allow missing fields where they are not appropriate, and ensures the accuracy of the entered data. After the fieldwork teams had completed their interviews, the data was automatically synchronized to a server. Then the indoor quality controller checked all of the data to ensure data quality and accuracy.

Page | 12

2.5 Data Treatment Standardized spreadsheets were prepared for each data collection tool involving interviews while composite responding forms were used in the case of focus group discussion forms. Data cleaning was greatly facilitated by electronic data collection. Quantitative data generated by interview schedules was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage conversions, ranking, and mean scores where appropriate. No inferential statistical analysis techniques were employed for purposes of the present investigation. Disaggregation of the data by key variables such as gender and age category was also undertaken where required. Compar- ative assessments between baseline and endline data are presented as up or down variations from baseline values followed by a narrative interpretation. Qualitative data collected from focus group discussions and interviews was analyzed using the- matic analysis. Investigators read all transcripts from the data collection forms and used coding to identify key themes. Themes were described in the context of the project and the project indicators. The analysis and writing phase describing assessment findings has sought to triangu- late the quantitative data collected with emerging qualitative data themes that were detected during focus group discussions.

Page | 13

3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

3.1 Household Representation

Enumerators visited a total of TABLE 3.1: Background Characteristics of Households (N=519 at Baseline; 519 households in treatment N=520) and control conditions during Parameter Baseline Endline baseline field visits and 520 Language Spoken at Treatment Control Treatment Control Home Condition Condition Condition Condition households during the endline N=390 N=129 N=390 N=130 surveys. The background char- Indigenous Languages 67.0% 60.4% 68.0% 59.2% Khmer 29.3% 29.5% 26.9% 26.9% acteristics of these households Cham 3.1% 0% 4.1% 0.8% during both surveys are sum- Lao 0.3% 10.1 1.0% 12.3% marized in Table 3.1. The back- Vietnamese 0.3% 0% 0% 0.8% Highest Parental Level of ground characteristics of Education households in both conditions No schooling 37.8% 36.4% 42.1% 33.1% Non-formal education 5.2% 7.8% 5.9% 6.9% (i.e., treatment and control) and Primary school 42% 44.2% 37.7% 48.5% at both baseline and endline are Lower secondary school 11.2% 10.9% 10.5% 9.2% Upper secondary school & 3.9% 0.8% 3.3% 2.3% quite similar with few varia- Higher tions of more than 5% for any Children per Household Attending School and one background characteristic. their Retention % of Children 5 to 15 There were some parameters, Years Old Attending 93.8%* 80.4%* 87.7%* 86.8%* however, where some varia- School Percentage of Children 18.7%* 21.7%* 8.5%* 15.4%* tions exceeding 5% were noted. who Earlier Dropped Out This included the slightly high- Mean Age of Children when they Enrolled in 6.7 6.7 6.2 6.2 er incidence of farmers (about Grade 1 75%) and somewhat smaller Respondent’s Primary incidence of workers in the Occupation Farmer 69.4%* 70.5% 75.1%* 74.6% sample at endline. In addition, Housewife 11.9% 14.7% 11.5% 15.4% fewer households at endline Worker 6.7%* 7.0% 1.8%* 0% Government official 3.1% 1.6% 2.8% 5.4% reported that they had children Other 3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 0.8% who had earlier dropped out of Market seller 2.7% 0.8% 4.1% 0.8% Shop owner 1.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0% school, due possibly to the fact Business 1.2% 1.6% 0.3% 0.8% that the endline survey had oc- Shepherd 0.4% 0% 0% 0% curred at the start of the school NGO Worker 0.2% 0% 0% 0% Unemployed 0.2% 0% 0.5% 0.8% year as opposed to the end of Soldier 0% 0% 0% 1.5% the year. Variations in the sam- Office Worker 0% 0% 0% 0% Migratory Status ple occurred mainly due to sub- Lived in the same house 94.6% 86.8%* 97.9% 93.1%* stitutions when enumerators for nearly whole life Every few years, we have 4.8% 12.4%* 1.8% 6.9%* could not contact the same to move households at endline that had Spend part of the year in 1 place another part of the 0.2% 0% 0.3% 0% been interviewed at baseline. year in another place Have to move from place 0.4% 0.8% 0% 0% The vast majority of the house- to place every few months holds visited at both baseline *Variations between baseline and endline that exceed 5%.

Page | 14

and endline indicated that they spoke an indigenous language at home with only about 27% to 29% indicating that they spoke Khmer language at home. About 57% of the households visited indicated that they had had any formal schooling with 38% indicating that they had no schooling of any kind. The average age of enrollment at Grade 1 appears to have moved closer to the official age of enrollment at the endline in both the treatment and control conditions. In this respect, the mean age of enrollment at Grade 1 moved from 6.7 at baseline to 6.2 at endline. Age at the time of enrollment in Grade 1 is thought to be an important determinant of school retention as children enrolled at the correct age have a higher likelihood of staying in school than if they are enrolled at an older age.4 3.2 School Attendance and Associated Causes Based on a review of variations in questions concerning the frequency of school attendance, endline data indicated that there was an uptick in attendance behavior among children, according to parental reporting. The response rate to the response ‘rarely absent’ increased by 17% since the baseline survey in August 2018 (see Table 3.2). Similarly, there was also a slight increase in awareness levels of absenteeism among parents with the ‘never aware’ response declining by 3% and the ‘sometimes aware’ increasing by about the same amount (i.e., 13%) (see Table 3.3).

TABLE 3.2: Frequency of Children’s Attendance in the Last 3 Months Baseline Endline Variation Response No. % No. % No. % Frequently absent 34 8.7% 6 1.5% -28 -7.2% Absent a couple of times each 109 27.9% 75 19.2% -34 -8.7% month Rarely absent 232 59.5% 300 76.9% +68 +17.4% Hard to say/Don’t know 15 3.8% 9 2.3% -6 -1.5% Total 390 100% 390 100% 0 0

TABLE 3.3: Awareness Levels of Children’s Absence Baseline Endline Variation Response No. % No. % No. % Never aware 31 7.9% 18 4.6% -13 -3.3% Sometimes aware 103 26.4% 116 29.7% +13 +3.3% Often aware 84 21.5% 85 21.8% +1 +0.3% Always aware 172 44.1% 171 43.8% -1 -0.3% Total 390 100.0% 390 100% 0 0% Nevertheless, there has been little indication of change in other forms of behavior related to student attendance such as the degree to which parents allow or ask their children to engage in employment. Responding patterns in this respect were remarkably stable from baseline to endline. To be sure, however, there was not much space for improvement with 87% of parents indicating

4 Children are more likely to stay in school when enrolled at the correct age because it ensures that the monetary value of their labor while they are enrolled in school is minimal. The older a child is when they are in school, the higher the value of their labor in the market place and hence the opportunity costs of staying in school. Page | 15

that their children ‘never’ engaged in employment at both baseline and endline (see Table 3.4). TABLE 3.4: Parents Who Indicated That Their Children Have to Engage in Employment Response Baseline Endline Variation No. % No. % No. % Never 340 87.2% 341 87.4% +1 +0.2% Sometimes 45 11.5% 48 12.3% +3 +0.8% Often 5 1.3% 1 0.3% -4 -1% Don’t know 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 390 100% 390 100% -- --

TABLE 3.5: Parents Who Have Ever Allowed Their Children to In terms of parental behaviors re- Stay Home When NOT Sick garding their willingness to let their Response Baseline Endline Variance No. % No. % No. % children stay at home when not sick, Yes 44 11.3% 17 4.4% -27 -6.9% there also appears to have been No 346 88.7% 373 95.6% +27 +6.9% some modest uptick in the number Total 390 100.0% 390 100% 0 0% of parents who indicated that they do ‘not’ approve of such behaviors. TABLE 3.5: Parents Who Have Ever Allowed Their Children to Stay Home When NOT Sick In this respect, the number of par- Response Baseline Endline Variance ents who indicated that they did not No. % No. % No. % engage in such behavior increased Yes 44 11.3% 17 4.4% -27 -6.9% from about 89% at baseline to 96% No 346 88.7% 373 95.6% +27 +6.9% Total 390 100.0% 390 100% 0 0% at endline or a change of almost 7% (see Table 3.5). Focus Group Discus- sions indicated that the primary reason for children staying at home when not sick relates to the need to do household chores, seasonal employment, and weather conditions. The observed improvement in attitudes echoes earlier indications that parents were more likely to report that their children were rarely absent from school. As was true during the baseline, local and education officials have a much less cheerful perception of absenteeism with most continuing to believe that absenteeism is a ‘very big’ or ‘moderately big problem’ in local schools. Indeed, this view increased slightly (3.4%) among village chiefs and by almost 16% among education officials.It is not so surprising that education officials and village chiefs take a less sanguine view of student attendance than parents since the former have a more macro perspective about educational issues whereas parents’ experience is probably more anecdotal.

TABLE 3.6: Perceived Seriousness of Student Absenteeism among Local & Education Officials Stakeholder Group Very big Moderately Not such a Hard to Say Total problem Serious Problem big problem Baseline Values No % No. % No. % No. % No. % Village Chiefs (Treatment) 16 53.3% 12 40.0% 1 3.3% 1 3.3% 30 100% Village Chiefs (Control) 6 60.0% 3 30.0% 1 10.0% 0 0% 10 100%

Education Officials 9 -- 6 -- 2 -- 0 -- 17 100% Endline Values Village Chiefs (Treatment) 17 56.7% 11 36.7% 2 6.7% 0 0% 30 100% Village Chiefs (Control) 8 80.0% 0 0% 2 20.0% 0 0% 10 100%

Page | 16

Education Officials 11 68.8% 5 31.3% 0 0% 0 0% 16 100% Variation Village Chiefs (Treatment) +1 +3.4% -1 -3.3% +1 +3.4% -1 -3.3% -- -- Village Chiefs (Control) +2 +20% -3 -30% +1 +10% 0 0% -- -- Education Officials +2 +15.9% -1 -4% -2 -11.8% 0 0% 1 0%

3.3 Attitudes about the Importance of Education An important goal of the information communication campaign was to improve the degree to which parents value education. Endline data appears to indicate that there has also been some improvement in this attitudinal parameter. In this respect, the number of parents in the treatment group indicating that attending school was ‘very important’ increased by a margin of 12% (see Table 3.7). Similarly, the number of parents who indicated that they ‘never’ help their children with their homework also declined by a similar amount (12.6%), suggesting a greater willingness to put more time (which is often scarce for working parents) into working with their children to help them learn better (see Table 3.8). These are very positive changes in the right direction. Of course, it needs to be pointed out that similar changes were also in evidence among control group members by an even greater margin, which raises the question whether these trends would have been seen regardless of project interventions or not (see Table 3.16); nevertheless, these are still positive developments and demonstrate an improvement from baseline values. Indeed, almost 93% of parents now appear to value education ‘a great deal.’

TABLE 3.7: Parental Attitudes About the Importance of Attending School Baseline Endline Variation Response No. % No. % No. % Not important 4 1.0% 1 0.3% -3 -0.7% Somewhat important 72 18.5% 27 6.9% -45 -11.6% Very important 314 80.5% 362 92.8% +48 +12.3% Total 390 100.0% 390 100 -- --

TABLE 3.8: Frequency of Helping Children at Home With Homework Baseline Endline Variation Response No. % No. % No. % Never 94 24.1% 45 11.5% -49 -12.6% Sometimes 181 46.4% 201 51.5% +20 +5.1%

Often 114 29.2% 144 36.9% +30 +7.7% Don’t know 1 0.3% 0 0% -1 -0.3% Total 390 100.0% 390 100% -- --

Responding patterns on perceived parental valuing of education showed some divergence among local and education officials. In this regard, the perceptions of parental valuing of education among village chiefs increased by about 36% among village chiefs with respect to the response that parents value it a ‘great deal’ whereas this response showed a decline of 16% among education officials during the same period (see Table 3.9). To be sure, it should be noted that education officials did not completely give up on parents either. Rather, they seemed to have shifted the

Page | 17

firmness of their belief that parents value education from a ‘great deal’ to ‘moderate valuing.’ So while the number of education officials who believe that parents value education a great deal declined from 41% to 25%, the number of officials who believe that parents value education ‘moderately’ increased from about 59% to 75%, a significant amount. In addition, it should be noted that improvements in the perceptions of village chiefs regarding parental valuing of education were greater in the treatment group than in the control group of village chiefs, buttressing the validity of the reported improvements (see Table 3.16).

TABLE 3.9: Perceptions among Officials Regarding the Degree to Which Parents Value Education Moderate A great deal Low Valuing Hard to Say Total Stakeholder Group Valuing No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Baseline Village Chiefs (Treatment) 11 36.7% 18 60.0% 1 3.3% 0 0% 30 100% Education 7 41.2% 10 58.8% 0 0% 0 0% 17 100% Officials Endline Village Chiefs (Treatment) 22 73.3% 8 26.7% 0 0% 0 0% 30 100% Education 4 25.0% 12 75.0% 0 0% 0 0% 16 100% Officials Variation Village Chiefs (Treatment) +11 +36.6% 10 -33.3% -1 -3.3% 0 0% -- -- Education -3 -16.2% -2 +16.2% 0 0% 0 0% -- -- Officials 3.4 Community-Education Networks and Channels of Communication Another important area of focus of the information campaign implemented by CARE relates to efforts to increase parents’ interaction with school and community groups such as the School Support Committee as well as to augment receptiveness to awareness-raising campaigns. At baseline, about 39% of interviewed parents said that they knew a member of the local School Support Committee (see Table 3.10) while a remarkable 46% of the parents who know the SSC members described their degree of interaction with the committee as ‘often’ (see Table 3.11). At endline, these values increased even more with the former indicator increasing by a margin of 21% to 60.8% and the latter by the same margin. TABLE 3.10: Parents Indicating They Know one or More SSC members at Their Child’s School Baseline Endline Variation Response No. % No. % No % Yes 153 39.2% 235 60.3% +82 +21.1% No 237 60.8% 155 39.7% -82 -21.1% Total 390 100.0% 390 100.0% -- --

TABLE 3.11: Quality of Parental Relationship with SSC Baseline Endline Variation Response No. % No. % No % Interact with them often 70 45.8% 125 53.2% +55 +21.1% Do not interact with them often 76 49.7% 107 45.5% +82 -21.1% Hard to say 7 4.6% 3 1.3% 0 0% Total 153 100% 235 100.0% -- -- Page | 18

A large number of household respondents in the treatment group also reported that they had received information to promote education within the last several months. In this regard, 83% of parents indicated that they had received such information through one or more channels. This compares to only about 68% of parents in the control group or a difference of over 14% in favor of the treatment group (see Table 3.12). To be sure, it must be pointed out that if this many individuals in the control group also received information about education during the period of project interventions, then this suggests that TABLE 3.12: Were you recently aware of any campaigns to some sort of contamination may have oc- promote education in your village? curred during the education campaign Response No. % though it is also possible that the infor- Treatment Yes 324 83.1% mation received may have come from a dif- No 66 16.9% ferent source, such as a different project. Total 390 100.0% Nevertheless, this magnitude of received Yes 89 68.5% outreach among parents in the treatment Control No 41 31.5% group (83%) is still remarkably high when Total 130 100.0% compared to the control group (83% versus Variation Yes -- 14.6% 68.5%). No -- 14.6% The most commonly indicated channels of TABLE 3.13: Through Which Communication Chan- information dissemination reported by parents in nels Did You Hear About the Education Campaign? Response No. % the treatment condition included ‘Sound Record- Video 2 0.5% ings (radio, loud speaker announcement)’ (44%, Recordings 172 44.1% presumably on public speaker announcement) and Posters 36 9.2% ‘Meetings’ (24%) (see Table 3.13). These channels Treatment Meetings 95 24.4% Social Media 6 1.5% registered double-digit percentage values. The Other 13 3.3% most commonly reported channels of information Total 324 -- dissemination among the control group, however, Video 0 0% included ‘Recordings’ (32%) and ‘Posters’ (18%). Recordings 42 32.3% Once again, it is not certain whether the exposure Posters 24 18.5% Control Meetings 15 11.5% to educational campaign information reported by Social Media 6 4.6% the control group emanated from the C4E Project Other 2 1.5% or other sources but the levels and magnitude of Total 89 -- this exposure nevertheless, appear to be much less than was true of the treatment group. An improved awareness of the education campaign among households was also supported by responding patterns among local and education officials in the two provinces. This was mainly reflected by a migration of respondents from responses showing uncertainty or low levels of awareness to the higher levels in the Likert scale developed for the purpose. In this respect, the number of village chiefs who reported that parents were ‘very aware’ of education campaign messaging increased to nearly 47% among village chiefs and 69% among education officials or an increase from baseline of 30% and 22%, respectively (see Table 3.14). The control group among village chiefs on the other hand reported no change in their estimation of parental awareness of education campaign activities that had recently taken place.

Page | 19

TABLE 3.14: Officials’ Perception of the Degree of Parental Awareness of the Communication Campaigns Stakeholder Very aware Somewhat Not so aware Hard to Say Total Group aware Baseline No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Village Chiefs 8 26.7% 16 53.3% 5 16.7% 1 3.3% 30 100% (Treatment) Village Chiefs 3 30.0% 5 50.0% 2 20.0% 0 0% 10 100% (Control) Education Officials 8 47.1% 9 52.9% 0 0% 0 0% 17 100% Endline Village Chiefs 17 56.7% 13 43.3% 0 0% 0 0% 30 100% (Treatment) Village Chiefs 3 30.0% 6 60.0% 1 10.0% 0 0% 10 100% (Control) Education Officials 11 68.8% 5 31.3% 0 0% 0 0% 16 100% Variation Village Chiefs +9 +30% 3 +10% -5 -16.7% -1 -3.3% 0 0% (Treatment) Village Chiefs 0 0% +1 +10% -1 -10% 0 0% 0 0% (Control) Education Officials +3 +21.7% -4 -21.6% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% Many parents in the baseline assessment survey expressed very active contacts with the School Support Committee and about 5% of those interviewed actually indicated that they had once been or were currently a member of the local SSC. This number increased slightly at endline from 18 to 21 persons or slightly more than 5% of the sample (see Table 3.15). When these individuals were asked at endline to choose a descriptor of how they saw the roles and responsibilities of the School Support Committee, their tendency to use positive descriptors showed some additional improvement when compared to baseline values (see Table 3.15). To be sure, these values were already very high at the baseline (94.5%). The vast majority of those responding to this question chose positive descriptors (e.g., useful, interesting, etc.) to describe working in the SSC with the most commonly chosen descriptor being the word, ‘useful’ (67%). This suggests that local perceptions of the SSC are generally very positive, which should create a highly receptive atmos- phere for outreach, capacity-building, and advocacy. TABLE 3.15: Parental Opinion about the Roles and Responsibilities of SSCs (among those who have ever been SSC members) Baseline Endline Variation Response No % No % No % Easy 1 5.5% 6 28.6% +5 +23.1% Hard 1 5.5% 0 0% -1 -5.5% 0 Useful 13 72.2% 14 66.7% +1 +5.5% Not useful 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Interesting 3 16.6% 1 4.8% -2 -11.8% No idea 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total Respondents/All Responses 18 100% 21 100% -- -- Total Using Positive Descriptors 17 94.5% 21 100% -- 5.5%

Page | 20

In terms of the actual relationship between the school and community, focus group discussions with parents continued to paint a very strong and positive relationship between the school and the local community, especially with the School Support Committee. This did not change much from baseline. In terms of quantitative data, most village chiefs also took a more positive view of the relationship between schools and surrounding communities with an increase of almost 27% among those village chiefs who described the relationship as ‘Very strong and active’ with more than half of those surveyed at endline (53%) describing the relationship in this way (see Table 3.16). Among education officials, however, there seemed to be little movement in attitudes about this relationship between schools and communities between baseline and endline with only about 6% of education officials describing the relationship as very strong at endline. TABLE 3.16: Officials’ Perception of the Relationship between School and Community Somewhat Not very Very strong strong and strong or Hard to say Total and active Stakeholder active active Group Baseline No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Village Chiefs 8 26.7% 22 73.3% 0 0% 0 0% 30 100% (Treatment) Village Chiefs 3 30.0% 5 50.0% 2 20.0% 0 0% 10 100% (Control) Education 1 5.9% 16 94.1% 0 0% 0 0% 17 100% Officials Endline Village Chiefs 16 53.3% 14 46.7% 0 0% 0 0% 30 100% (Treatment) Village Chiefs 10. 3 30.0% 6 60.0% 1 0 0% 10 100% (Control) 0% Education 1 6.3% 15 93.8% 0 0% 0 0% 16 100% Officials Variation Village Chiefs +8 +26.6% -8 -26.6% 0 0% 0 0% -- -- (Treatment) Village Chiefs 0 0% +1 +10% -1 -10% 0 0% -- -- (Control) Education 0 0% -1 -0.3% 0 0% 0 0% -- -- Officials 3.5 Variations on Key Parameters by Gender and Ethnicity This assessment also examined the incidence of variation on key parameters by gender and ethnicity. The key parameters analyzed in this respect involved attendance, valuing education, and helping children with their homework. These variations were examined in the context of household characteristics in the treatment group. In terms of gender, this assessment did not find any significant variations between mothers and fathers on any of the parameters examined. Varia- tions in this respect tended to be in the low to middle single digits (see Table 3.17), suggesting minimal differences between the attitudes and behaviors of parents on these parameters in terms of gender. An examination of variations in responding patterns along these parameters by ethnicity also did not yield much indication of significant differences except in the case of ‘homework helping behaviors.’ Attitudes about school attendance and valuing education yielded varia-

Page | 21

tions that were also in the low single digits, suggesting that there is not much difference between indigenous and non-indigenous groups on these parameters. However, indigenous parents seemed be less likely to help their children on their homework ‘often’ in comparison to non- indigenous parents by a margin of 33% to 45% or a variation of 12%. Informal discussions with stakeholders indicated that this variation stems mainly from both poor knowledge of the Khmer language and time constraints. Table 3.17: Variation on Key Investigative Parameters by Gender and Ethnicity Question/Response Father Mother Variation Non- Indigenous Variation indigenous No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % How would you describe your child’s attendance at school last 3 months? Frequently absent 5 4% 1 0% 4 4% 2 2% 4 2% 2 0% Absent a couple of times 33 23% 41 17% 25 20% 50 19% 8 6% 25 1% each month Rarely absent 103 73% 192 79% 89 6% 101 79% 199 76% 98 3% Hard to say/Don’t know 1 1% 8 3% 7 2% 0 0% 9 3% 9 3% Total 142 100% 242 100% -- -- 128 100% 262 100% -- -- Is education important to your child’s future? Yes 141 99% 241 100% 100 1% 128 100% 260 99% 132 1% No 1 1% 1 0% 0 1% 0 0% 2 1% 2 1% Total 142 100% 242 100% -- -- 128 100% 262 100% -- -- Do you ever help you children learn at home or do homework after school? No, never 18 13% 27 11% 9 2% 16 13% 29 11% 13 2% Yes, sometimes 76 54% 124 51% 48 3% 55 43% 146 56% 91 13% Yes, often 48 34% 91 38% 43 4% 57 45% 87 33% 30 12% Total 142 100% 242 100% -- -- 128 100% 262 100% -- --

3.6 Comparison between Treatment and Control Groups and Other Stakeholders The baseline and endline assessment surveys organized by the C4E Project generated a huge amount of data about the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of local stakeholders towards the state education system. The discussion above has sought to highlight some of the more interesting and relevant findings as points of reference to better assess possible changes resulting from the information campaign that took place between baseline and endline. A complete listing of all data collected from all relevant stakeholders is provided in Annexes 3 and 4 of this document. In order to sharpen the focus on the degree of impact of planned interventions that concentrate heavily on awareness-raising and advocacy campaigns, investigators have organized 20 key data points (or parameters) in terms of before and after comparisons as well as treatment and comparison group comparisons (see Table 3.18). Eleven of these parameters relate to household attitudes and behaviors while 9 pertain to village chiefs and education officials. The individual parameters are listed in Table 3.18 while a summary of the changes for each parameter is provided in Box 3.1 below. A review of changes in expressed attitudes and behaviors from baseline to endline among both treatment and control groups showed a mixed pattern of impacts. In this respect, we have identified three basic patterns of change summarized in Box 3.1. These patterns include cases where the treatment group exhibited change in the desired direction that exceeded the control group; cases where the treatment group exhibited change in the desired direction but which did ‘not’ Page | 22

exceed the change seen in the control group; and cases where the treatment group did not exhibit change in the desired direction. While many of the changes for the treatment group were in the desired direction from baseline to endline, the changes were often greater for the control group. For example, the percentage of parents who had children who engaged in employment (Parameter 5) declined by 0.2% in the treatment group; however, the decline was greater for the control group (-4.1%). In all, the treatment group achieved positive changes in attitudes and behaviors that exceeded those of the control group Box 3.1: Summary of Changes Between for only 4 parameters out of 11 or 36% of the parame- Baseline & Endline among Treatment and Control Groups ters measured in this way. This includes Parameters 3, 4, Findings for Households (Parame- No. % 10, and 11. In the case of six other parameters, the ters 1 to 11) treatment group achieved positive change from baseline 1. Parameters where Treatment 4 36% but the change was greater in the control group calling Households showed positive into question whether the changes would have been change exceeding Control seen anyway without project interventions. In the case 2. Parameters where Treatment 6 55% Households showed positive of Parameter 1, the percentage of children still in school change but less than Control actually declined by -6.1% to 87.7% between baseline 3. Parameters where Treatment 1 9% and endline. Households showed no change or change in wrong direction Changes in attitudes and behaviors among Village Chiefs Findings among Officials (Parame- were positive and greater than control groups for 6 out ters 12 to 20) of 8 parameters or 75% of those assessed. These includ- 4. Parameters where Village 6 75% ed Parameters 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20. In the case of Chiefs in Treatment Condition Parameters 18 and 19, however, even more Village showed positive change exceeding Control Chiefs believe that absenteeism and dropout are now big 5. Parameters where Village 0 0% problems than was indicated at baseline. Chiefs in Treatment Condition Because Education Officials comprised a very small showed positive change but less Control group overseeing both treatment and control localities, 6. Parameters where Village 2 25% it was not possible to establish a comparison group. Ra- Chiefs in Treatment Condition ther, changes in this group are assessed solely in terms showed no change or change of change from baseline values. In this respect, changes in the wrong direction in attitudes and behaviors among Education Officials 7. Parameters where Education 5 56% Officials showed positive were moving in the right direction from baseline to end- change from baseline line for 5 out of 9 parameters or 56% of those assessed. 8. Parameters where Education 4 44% In the case of 4 parameters or 44% of those assessed, Officials showed no change or Education Officials showed changes that were moving in change in the wrong direction the wrong direction. This included Parameters 13, 16, 18, and 19. These parameters related to such attitudes as the perceived degree to which parents value education (low value among education officials), whether SSCs play a strong role in education (no), and whether absenteeism and dropout are improving (no). Values regarding these parameters have not improved much from baseline among education officials. In general, Education Offi- cials seem to be less optimistic about the state of education than do Village Chiefs who work more directly with communities. Page | 23

TABLE 3.18: Final Baseline and Post-treatment Indicator Values (Treatment and Control Groups)

Treatment Group Value Control Group Value Difference Direction of Baseline (Households: N=390) (Households: N=130) in Favor of Change (Education Officials: N=0) Treatment

Parameter (Education Officials: N=17)

Local Officials: N=30) (Local Officials: N=10) Group

Note:

LO: Local Official (village chief)

EO: Education Official

(POE,DOE)

Before After Change Before After Change *Refers to changes in value for No Yes the treatment group moving in the ‘wrong’ direction. Increase Officials Decrease Stay the Same

Parental Surveys 1. % of Children still in school at the start and end of the school year ✓ ✓ -- 93.8% 87.7% -6.1%* 80.4% 86.8% 6.4% x (among families surveyed) 2. Mean Age of children 6.22 -0.48 -0.52 when they enroll at Grade ✓ -- 6.7 yrs. 6.7 yrs. 6.18 yrs. x yrs. yrs. yrs. 1 3. % of parents who have children frequently ab- ✓ -- 8.7% 1.5% -7.2% 10.1% 7.7% -2.4% x sent 4. % of parents who have ever allowed their chil- ✓ -- 11.3% 4.4% -6.9% 11.6% 7.7% -3.9% x dren to stay home when not ill 5. % parents with children who sometimes or often ✓ -- 12.8% 12.6% -0.2% 21.0% 16.9% -4.1% x engage in employment 6. % of parents who believe attending school is ‘very ✓ -- 80.5% 92.8% 12.3% 76.0% 100.0% 24.0% x important’ 7. % of parents whose children have ever voiced a ✓ -- 13.1% 5.6% -7.5% 14.8% 5.4% -9.4% x desire to quit school 8. % of parents who ‘never’ help their children with ✓ -- 24.1% 11.5% -12.6% 30.2% 13.8% -16.4% x their homework 9. % of parents who are ‘very satisfied’ with edu- ✓ -- 63.1% 69.2% 6.1% 56.6% 69.2% 12.6% x cation at the local school 10. % of parents who interact ✓ -- 17.9% 32.1% 14.2% 21.7% 21.5% -0.2% x with SSC ‘often’ 11. % of parents who have ever received information ✓ -- 7.4% 17.4% 10.0% 15.5% 12.3% -3.2% x about education ‘Often’ Surveys of Officials

12. % of officials who believe LO: 36.7% 80.0% 43.3% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% x that communities value ✓ education ‘a great deal’ EO: 29.0% 37.5% 8.5% ------x

13. % of officials who believe LO: 30.00% 73.00% 43.0% 60.00% 70.0% 10.0% x that parents value educa- ✓ tion ‘a great deal’ EO: 41.0% 25.0% -16.0%* ------x

14. % of Education Officials who believe DTMTs op- ✓ EO: 17.6% 18.8% 1.2% ------x erate ‘effectively’ (not asked of Village Chiefs)

Page | 24

Treatment Group Value Control Group Value Difference Direction of Baseline (Households: N=390) (Households: N=130) in Favor of Change (Education Officials: N=0) Treatment

Parameter (Education Officials: N=17)

Local Officials: N=30) (Local Officials: N=10) Group

Note:

LO: Local Official (village chief)

EO: Education Official

(POE,DOE)

Before After Change Before After Change *Refers to changes in value for No Yes the treatment group moving in the ‘wrong’ direction. Increase Officials Decrease Stay the Same 15. % of officials who believe

communities are ’very ef- LO: 20.0% 56.7% 36.7% 30.0% 60.0% 30.0% x fective’ in promoting ✓ transparency, perfor-

mance, and accountability EO: 12.0% 25.0% 13.0% ------x of primary schools

16. % of officials who believe LO: 16.70% 46.70% 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% 10.0% x that SSCs ‘play a strong ✓ role’ in education EO: 12.00% 6.30% -5.7%* ------x

17. % of officials who feel LO: 26.7% 56.7% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% x that parents are ‘very ✓ aware’ of information

campaigns EO: 47.0% 68.8% 21.8% ------x

18. % of officials who believe LO: 53.3% 56.7% 3.4%* 60.0% 80.0% 20.0% x that absenteeism is a ‘big ✓ problem’ EO: 53.00% 68.80% 15.8%* ------x

19. % of officials who believe LO: 66.7% 73.3% 6.6%* 60.0% 80.0% 20.0% x that dropout is a ‘big ✓ problem’ EO: 59.00% 62.50% 3.50%* ------x

20. Mean percentage of children enrolled in local LO: 79.1% 91.8% 12.7% 73.8% 79.6% 5.8% x primary schools accord- ✓ ing to the perceptions of EO: 89.0% 97.30% 8.3% ------x local & education officials.

Page | 25

4. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Overall Impact

The present endline survey found positive impacts among 11 or 55% of the assessment parameters investigated as part of the evaluation process for the C4E Project. These impacts are summarized in Box 4.1. Impact in this case is defined as the movement of Box 4.1: Key Impacts indicated in Endline Data an indicator in a desired direction Assessment Parameter Changes from Baseline That Exceed Comparable Movement in the among members of the treatment Control Group group that exceeds comparable Households 1. % of parents who have children movement along the same param- Decreased by -7.2% eters in a control group. There frequently absent 2. % of parents who have ever al- were in all nine other assessment lowed their children to stay home Decreased by -6.9% parameters or 45% of the total in when not ill 3. % of parents who interact with SSC Increased by 14.2% which there was no observed im- ‘often’ pact or where the observed 4. % of parents who have ever received information about educa- Increased by 10.0% changes were less than those ob- tion ‘Often’ (Outreach Efforts) served in the control group. Thus, Village Chiefs and Education Officials one can conclude that while the 5. % of officilas who believe that Increased by 43.3% among Village Chiefs communities value education ‘a C4E Project achieved positive great deal’ Increased by 8.5% among Education Officials change among a majority of its 6. % of village chiefs who believe stated indicators, there were still a that parents value education ‘a Increased by 43.0% among Village Chiefs great deal’ number of instances where im- 7. % of Education Officials who be- pacts due to the education cam- lieve DTMTs operate ‘effectively’ Increased by 1.2% (not asked of Village Chiefs) paign were not conclusive though 8. % of officials who believe com- variations were nevertheless posi- munities are ’very effective’ in Increased by 36.7% among Village Chiefs promoting transparency, perfor- tive. mance, and accountability of pri- Increased by 13% among Education Officials mary schools The inconclusive nature of im- 9. % of village chiefs who believe Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs that SSCs ‘play a strong role’ in pacts on about 45% of key param- education eters could have been due to a 10. % of officials who feel that par- Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs number of factors. For example, ents are ‘very aware’ of infor- Increased by 21.8% among Education Offi- mation campaigns attitudinal change usually takes cials 11. Mean percentage of children Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs months and even years to effect. enrolled in local primary schools Increased by 21.8% among Education Offi- is increasing according to the cials The fact that so much attitudinal perceptions of local & education change has been registered in the officials. present assessment in such a short period of time is both gratifying and unusual given that the interventions transpired over a period of only four months and comprised primarily targeted messaging. It is also important to remember that the contextual factors underlying the attitudes that the project seeks to change (e.g., poverty, need for seasonal employment, limitations in educational service provision, etc.) are still very much in play and likely continue to exhibit a counteractive influence over what

Page | 26

stakeholders think and do. Thus, one can conclude that impacts across more than half of program indicators in a period of less than four months is indeed a very good result.

There may also have been other constraints affecting the conclusiveness of impacts that relate to the evaluation framework itself. These refer mainly to the possibility of sample contamination between treatment and control groups as this relates to the messaging campaign. In this respect, it should be noted that it is difficult to contain messaging campaigns in a way so that only one group is receiving campaign information, especially when control groups are living in geograph- ically contiguous areas to the treatment group. In addition, it is very difficult to control who re- ceives messaging when media such as the internet, radio, and television are used. These constraints can often lead to control group contamination, which may have happened in the current investigation, where variations among both groups were often positive (see below). If future assessments require the use of control groups, it would be best to try to make provisions for the identification of such controls beforehand and structuring the campaign in a way so that the potential for contamination can be both anticipated and limited.

A fuller discussion of the results summarized in Box 4.1 Box 4.2: Original Research Questions: above is framed in terms of specific research questions sum- 1. To what extent does community marized at the beginning of this document and produced understand about the im- again in Box 4.2. portance of education? 2. To what extent do campaign activities reach the community? 4.2 Impacts in Terms of Attitudes Relating to the Im- 3. What has been changed as a re- portance of Education. sult of the campaign- Communi- cation for Education (C4E)? The assessment of Research Question 1 was operationalized 4. What are the key recommenda- in a number of different ways. This included changes in tions to raise further understanding of the importance of school attendance, the degree to which parents prioritize education? employment over school attendance, the frequency of helping children with their homework, overt statements of its importance, engagement with School Support Committees, and the age of enrollment. Among these various parameters, the vast majority of assessments on these parameters showed positive improvement though it must be noted that in several cases, control group members also showed improvement, making it difficult to conclusively attribute these positive changes to the communication campaign.

Positive change for assessment parameters relating to ‘valuing education’ was most robust for responses relating to increased engagement with School Support Committees and school attendance, such as the number of parents who keep their children home when not sick and the number of parents who report that their children are ‘frequently’ absent. According to focus group respondents, parents generally keep their children at home when not sick for purposes of household chores, seasonal employment, and the weather. Variations from baseline to endline in these latter cases exceeded changes among the control group and make it a reasonable assump- tion that the education campaign had some impact on these behaviors. Positive changes of this nature were also corroborated by responding patterns among village chiefs who by a very large margin (43%) increased their belief from baseline to endline that both communities and parents Page | 27

value education ‘a great deal.’ Corroborative evidence of this nature provide concurrently valid evidence for the conclusion that communities and parents do increasingly understand the importance of education and that they appear to translate these beliefs most visibly into actions relating to improvements in children’s school attendance.

4.3 Impacts in Terms of the Overall Reach of the Communication Campaign

A review of responding patterns among interviewed households indicates that the overall reach of the communication campaign was very great and broke the 80% level (83% to be exact). In this respect, a large majority of household respondents in the treatment condition indicated that they had received messaging about education through various communication channels. The most commonly cited communication channels were sound recordings (mainly radio and loud- speaker announcements) and local meetings. Contact through other communication channels such as social media, posters, and video were more negligible with fewer than 10% of respondents or less indicating that they had received information through such channels. These findings suggest that sound recordings and meetings appear to be the most effective ways of reaching stakeholders in target communities about education messaging. The finding that

It should be noted, however, that households in the control condition also reported that they had received messaging regarding the importance of education. In this respect, slightly more than two-thirds of the control group (69%) reported receiving education messaging relating to issues of enrollment, attendance, etc. As noted earlier in this section, this observation raised concern that there may have occurred some contamination of the control group, especially since it is difficult to compartmentalize messaging activities when using media such as radio. Thus, these responding patterns indicate that it is possible that the reach of the communication campaign was so great that it spilled over into control group communities. Contamination issues, if they had indeed occurred, may explain why changes in educational attitudes in the control group exceeded changes in the treatment group, as reported above.

4.4 Summary of Changes Resulting from the Campaign

In terms of Research Question 3, there does appear to have been conclusive evidence of positive change in parents’ understanding of the importance of education, particularly as this relates to students’ attendance. Improvements in other areas of understanding such as overt valuing of education and willingness to spend time on children’s homework could not be empirically linked to the education campaign per se because similar improvements also occurred in the control group, as was noted above. Nevertheless, the number of parents who acknowledged receiving education messaging was quite large indicating that the education campaign had a very large reach. The largest area of impact appears to have played out in terms of changed attitudes and behaviors about attendance and evidence of an enhanced role of the School Support Committee in supporting education.

Among the positive impacts observed, the most important changes included the following: • Improvements in parental attitudes and behaviors relating to children’s attendance

Page | 28

• Improved parental interaction with School Support Committees (e.g., meeting frequency, reported familiarity with SSC members, willingness to support SSC activities, etc.) • Improved outreach to parents through information dissemination campaigns. • Improved perceptions of Village Chiefs, as these relate to the degree to which communities and parents place a high value on education. • Improved perceptions of the degree to which parents are aware of the strong role that School Support Committees play in promoting education.

It should also be noted that positive responding patterns among the various stakeholders, where they occurred, were mostly convergent; there were few if any observed differences in responding patterns by gender and ethnicity, and similar responding patterns among households, village chiefs, and education officials. However, there were nevertheless some areas of observed divergence as well. In this respect, parents tended to express the most optimistic views about the state of student attendance and the role of School Support Committees in promoting education while village chiefs tended to be a bit less optimistic (though still largely positive), and education officials tended to be even more cautious in their assessments, particularly as these relate to the problems of attendance and school dropout. Perhaps these tendencies reflected the more individualized perspectives of parents while education officials were more conscious of a ‘big picture’ view of the education system where there are indeed many problems.

4.5 Recommendations to Raise Further Understanding of the Importance of Education

Investigators have formulated the following suggestions with respect to recommendations for improved project implementation:

8. Time Frame Modification: The time frame for project implementation should be extended and structured to coincide with the end of the academic year rather than at the beginning. In addition, four months is a very short time within which to expect project impacts. As noted earlier, changes in attitudes and behaviors usually take months and years to effect; thus, a more extended time frame for implementation should be considered in any future iterations of this project. 9. More Precise Coupling of Messaging Content with Specific Improvement Strategies That Are Occurring on the Ground: Future messaging activities should also consider clearer links between message content and the activities that CARE is conducting on the ground. For ex- Page | 29

ample, if there are scholarship provisions to encourage enrollment, these might be included in the messaging. If activities to improve the representation of indigenous groups among teachers in local schools have been occurring, such information could be an incentive for indigenous parents to enroll their children in the local state school. Better coordination between messaging and concrete activities could achieve additional synergies between communication campaigns and on-going projects. 10. Capacity of DTMTs: Improvements in the perceived effectiveness of District-based Training and Monitoring Teams were positive but quite marginal. Future project interventions may consider capacity-building to improve the performance of the DTMT. For example, the ICT proficiency of most DTMT members is quite limited. They cannot use mobile devices for the collection of data (which will be essential for the administration of the Ministry’s new CFS Data collection tool which has now been digitized). Education officials also communicated with the team that DTMTs need to increase the frequency of visiting schools and having a clearer idea of what they should be doing when they get there. 11. Targeting the Most Effective Communication Channels: Sound recordings and meetings appear to be the communication channels with the greatest reach in local communities. So- cial media registered more minimal contact. Future messaging campaigns should, therefore, either focus on sound recordings and meetings (as these appear to be the most effective communication channels). Conversely, if programming chooses to continue to use social media as a communication channel, there should be dedicated efforts to alert local populations to how to use social media (e.g., organizing social media groups among parents who have smart phones; training parents with smartphones about how to access the CARE or MoEYS website, etc.). 12. Targeting Messaging on the Most Hard Core Households That Did Not Evince Much Change: There are appears to be a hard core group of community members who have been more impervious to communication messaging. These households, comprising about 10% of the sample, did not evince much change in such behaviors as children’s regular school attendance, engagement in employment, receiving help on their homework, etc. The rest of the population appears to be demonstrating desirable attitudes and behaviors. Thus, it might be more efficient to target future campaigns on a more narrow slice of the population with messaging tailored to their needs and special situation. 13. Addressing Attitudinal Divergence among Stakeholders: The results of parental attitudinal surveys from this investigation should be shared with education officials to improve mu- tual understanding and address observed divergence of views in many areas (e.g., parental valuing of education, student absenteeism, etc.). 14. Veracity of Educational Data: Perceptions of student dropout as expressed by local and education officials appear to indicate a very dire situation. Nevertheless, official data about the incidence of dropout in both provinces does not mirror such attitudes. It would be interesting for CARE to try to determine the actual extent of dropout and whether there is wide- spread falsification of data and how educational reporting could be made more reliable.

Page | 30

ANNEXES:

ANNEX 1: List of Treatment and Control Villages

No Province District Commune Village Type

1 Ratanak Kiri Andoung Meas Nhang Ka Chut Control

2 Ratanak Kiri Andoung Meas Nhang Nay Treatment

3 Ratanak Kiri Andoung Meas Nhang Chang Treatment

4 Ratanak Kiri Andoung Meas Ta Lav Inn Treatment

5 Ratanak Kiri Ban Lung KaChhanh Phoum 4 Treatment

6 Ratanak Kiri Ban Lung Labansiek 7 Makara Treatment

7 Ratanak Kiri Ban Lung Yeak Laom Phnom Treatment

8 Ratanak Kiri Koun Mom Teun Teun Treatment

9 Ratanak Kiri Lumphat Chey Otdam Dei Lou Treatment

10 Ratanak Kiri Lumphat Chey Otdam Lumphat Control

11 Ratanak Kiri Lumphat La Laeng Ka Laeng Treatment

12 Ratanak Kiri Ou Chum Cha Ung Char Ung Chan Treatment

13 Ratanak Kiri Ou Chum Pouy Kang Koy Control

14 Ratanak Kiri Ou Chum Aekakpheap Pa Chon Thun Treatment

15 Ratanak Kiri Ou Ya Dav Bar Kham Des Control

16 Ratanak Kiri Ou Ya Dav Bar Kham Plor Treatment

17 Ratanak Kiri Ou Ya Dav Lum Choar Trang Treatment

18 Ratanak Kiri Ta Veaeng Ta Veaeng Leu Phlueu Touch Treatment

19 Ratanak Kiri Ta Veaeng Ta Veaeng Leu Phlueu Thum Control

20 Ratanak Kiri Ta Veaeng Ta Veaeng Kraom Ta Ngach Treatment

21 Ratanak Kiri Veun Sai Veun Sai Kang Nak Treatment

22 Ratanak Kiri Veun Sai Ka Choun Ka Choun Kraom Treatment

23 Ratanak Kiri Veun Sai Pa Kalan Kampong Cham Control

24 Ratanak Kiri Veun Sai Phnum Kok Phnum Kok Prov Treatment

Page | 31

No Province District Commune Village Type

25 Ratanak Kiri Bar Kaev Kak Yeun Treatment

26 Ratanak Kiri Bar Kaev Kak Kak Treatment

27 Ratanak Kiri Bar Kaev Keh Chong Sa Leav Control

28 Mondul Kiri Kaev Seima Srae Chhuk Ronaeng Treatment

29 Mondul Kiri Kaev Seima Srae Khtum Chhnaeng Treatment

30 Mondul Kiri Kaev Seima Srae Khtum Srae Khtum Treatment

31 Mondul Kiri Kaoh Nheaek Roya Memom Treatment

32 Mondul Kiri Kaoh Nheaek Srae Huy Chhul Treatment

33 Mondul Kiri Kaoh Nheaek Srae Sangkum Ou Yeh Control

34 Mondul Kiri Ou Reang Dak Dam Pu Chhab Treatment

35 Mondul Kiri Ou Reang Saen Monourom Pu Hoam Treatment

36 Mondul Kiri Pech Chreada Pu Chrey Me Pai Treatment

37 Mondul Kiri Pech Chreada Bu Sra Pu Lu Control

38 Mondul Kiri Saen Monourom Sokh Dom Daoh Kramom Control

39 Mondul Kiri Saen Monourom Spean Mean Chey Kandal Treatment

40 Mondul Kiri Saen Monourom Romonea Pu Trom Treatment

Page | 32

Annex 2: Case Studies Parent – Case Study As a community member, I have joined some activities with school ______such as building a school fence, joining the meetings with school support committee (SSC), helping to monitor SSC, teacher and stu- “I am a community member, age 55 dent, advising parents to send their children to school, and joining years old, living Taveng District in Ratanak Kiri province” the campaign events to disseminate messages about the im- ______portance of education. The reason that I want to involve in the Communication for Education and Improved School Governance as I want to gain knowledge and experience in providing the advice to parent/guardian to send their children to school and really want to see all the children in the community have knowledge, good job for their family future. After engaging with the project, I observed that the community have more understanding and value to education, as well as send their children to school more than last year because of coordination from school and CARE organization. I got a lot of lessons and good experiences from this project that I can understand more about the role of school support committee, teacher and community on their children. I will continue to disseminate the information to the community and other members which haven’t involve in this project to let them be able to involve in the activity next year.

School Director – Case Study I am a primary school director, as well as a teacher have been ______teaching at this school 5 years. I was involved in the Communica- tion for Education and Improved School Governance to promote “I am a school director, age 25 years old, the understand of community to send their children to school living Taveng District in Ratanak Kiri province” when they are the school age. I want the community to aware ______about the value of education for their children future and don’t want to see the people in community are literacy. I got a lot of knowledge and experiences through this education campaign and know how to use the materials for the campaign and make good communication with communities, teachers, district office of educations, and other stakeholders. After engaged in this project, I aware about the role of school support committee, teacher and student. I noticed that the community have changed their mind to value education and send their children to school. I will prepare the meeting with SSC and village chief to disseminate the value of education to the community and will use the existing school budget to continue the education campaign.

School Support Committee – Case Study I am working as school support community for 3 years and was ______involved in some school activities such as helping to build school fence, monitoring teacher and student attendant, and meeting “I am a School Support Committee, female with SSC and School related to the school issues. I was involved in and age 50 years old, Prov minority, living the Communication for Education and Improved School Govern- Taveng District in Ratanak Kiri province” ______ance to conduct the campaign on the important of education through the community. I gained a lot of knowledge and experiences in leading the community to understand about the value of education for their children future. After involving with this project, I observed that the community have changed their behavior related to education and understand it’s important for their children future and send their children to school. I really thanks to CARE organization that create this project to allow me know more about the role and responsibility of SSC and teacher, especially involving in the education campaign.

Page | 33

ANNEX 3: List of Data Collection Forms

FGD with SSC Questionnaire (Form 1)

Directions for Facilitator: Please refer to the directions accompanying this interview guide in order to re- ceive instructions about how the discussion process should be facilitated as well as how each question should be clarified and answers recorded.

Province: ______District: ______

Commune: ______Village: ______

Location: 1. Urban 2. Rural 3. Remote School Name: ______

Facilitator: ______Persons Interviewed: Total: ____ F: ___

Date of Interview: ______

Introductory Statement: Hello, my name is ______and I am working with CARE to try to better understand issues that relate to local attitudes towards education. I would, therefore, like to ask you about your opinion and views on this matter. I want to assure you that I am not trying to find faults to blame anyone but rather something that I am trying to find out what the problems are in order to help you and your school to solve the problems that may exist. In all the things that we will discuss today, I want to stress that there is no right answer, only what you think. Also, I want you to know that everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. You do not have to answer specific questions if you feel uncomfortable and you can stop the interview at any time without giving reason.

Do you agree to participate in this survey? Yes No

No Suggested Questions

1. How long have you been as a member of school support committee? How many persons: 1 to 3 years____ 4 to 6 years____ over 6 years_____ 2. How would you rate your community value education for their children? ‘5’ means highly value and ‘1’ means very low value. How many people said 1: ____; 2: ____; 3: ____; 4: ____; 5: ____ and the average: ____ Discussion Notes: Try to assess whether the people in your community value education, and discuss about sending their kids to school. 3. How would you describe your roles and responsibility as a member of school support committee? Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: Try to assess whether they understand their role and responsibility as a member of school support committee.

Page | 34

4. How would you assess your capacity to run the School Support Committee if ‘5’ means very strong capacity and ‘1’ means very low capacity.

How many people said 1: ____; 2: ____; 3: ____; 4: ____; 5: ____ and the average: ____

Discussion Notes: Do they know how to lead meetings, do they take meeting minutes, can they use technology in any way to assist them (e.g., smartphones), how well do they keep financial accounts of the money that they have collected from parents, etc.) 5. How often do you have a meeting with schools/parents in your community? What did you discuss with them about? Can you give some concrete examples? Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: find out often they have a meeting with school for school governance, arrangement, management, budget etc. meeting with parents to discuss about their children education as well as to campaign for education. 6. How did you engage parents/community people/local authorities in school events? Can you give some concrete examples? Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: This question will find out how the SSC engage parents or community people in school events, how they mobilize them to join any kind of activity related to education. 7. How do you inform or share information about the school issues or promote education to parents/community in your local area? Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: This question will find out how the SSC send the message to parents/community whether by

Page | 35

flyers/brochures/posters, meeting, media (radio, sound record, newspaper, TV), word of mouth etc. 8. Have you observed any changes in enrollment and parents’ attitudes towards education among local people in your community recently? Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: Try to assess whether changes are already happening at the baseline period in order to determine whether these will have accelerated between the baseline and endline assessments. Are changes occurring slowly (or not at all) now but accelerating since the campaign? 9. Do you think parents in your community send their school-aged children to school? Why or

why not?

Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: What is people’s perception of how frequently people send their children to school? If they don’t send their children frequently, what is the reason? 10. At the present time, do you see any changes in enrollment and dropout at your local school?

Is school retention getting better or worse or staying about the same?

Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: This question will be important to gauge the degree to which changes in school participation are occurring. Changes should be linked to attitudes both among children and parents and your questioning should follow these lines. 11. Do you see any differences in enrolment or dropout between boys and girls? Between older children and younger children? Between children of different ethnicities? If there are differences, how would

Page | 36

you account for them and how are these differences changing?

Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: The goal of this question is to ascertain how attitudes towards education might be changing as these concern characteristics relating to age, sex, and ethnicity. Do parents feel that education is as important for girls as it is for boys? Additionally, this question seeks to investigate the observation that older children tend to be more at risk of dropping out because of the increased value of their labor in the household and market place. Thus, it will be important to investigate whether there have been attitudinal changes towards education for children of all ages or only for those children who are younger. Finally, this question should also try to investigate whether parents of all ethnicities are also changing their attitudes towards education or whether some groups are changing more than others.

12. How do you feel about the relationship between the community and the school? Is it a close relationship? Has this relationship been improving over time or is it the same (or worse)? Can you give some concrete examples?

Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: This question seeks to investigate whether there have been changes between in the relationship between school and community since before and after the campaign. Try to make an assessment whether the current relationship is strong or weak and whether there have been any changes since the baseline.

13. Do you think that sending one’s children to school is the best option that parents can utilize to improve their children’s chances for the future? Why or why not?

Facilitator Notes:

Page | 37

Discussion Notes: The facilitator should try to determine whether there has been any evolution in parental attitudes towards education in terms of whether it is relevant and beneficial to their children.

14. Do you aware about the education campaign in your local community? What can you say about that campaign and who do you?

Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: Ask the participant whether they received any campaign through video, sound recorder, radio and other materials about promoting education and sending their children to school or keep them to study in the community.

15. Tell me what kinds of things the government or NGOs could do to help solve some of the problems relating to enrollment and dropout in your area? v ______v ______v ______v ______v ______Facilitator Notes:

Discussion Notes: The facilitator should inquire whether there are any special projects or programs that they know of that are very popular? What are these projects and what do they do? What kinds of common interventions would be the most effective such as scholarships, transportation to school, etc.

Page | 38

IDI with POE/DOE and MoEYS Questionnaire (Form 2)

Interviewee’s Name ______Total Participants T: ___; F: ____ Position ______Describe by Circling: POE DOE District: ______Interviewer Name: ______Province: ______Date: ______

Introductory Statement: Hello, my name is ______and I am working with CARE to try to better understand issues that relate to local attitudes towards education. I would, therefore, like to ask you about your opinion and views on this matter. I want to assure you that I am not trying to find faults to blame anyone but rather something that I am trying to find out what the problems are in order to help you and your school to solve the problems that may exist. In all the things that we will discuss today, I want to stress that there is no right answer, only what you think. Also, I want you to know that everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. You do not have to answer specific questions if you feel uncomfortable and you can stop the interview at any time without giving reason.

Do you agree to participate in this survey? Yes No

No Questions

1. In general, how much do you think that community in your district/province value education? £ A great deal £ Value it to a moderate degree £ Value it to a low degree £ Hard to say 2. In general, how much do you think that parents in your district/province value education? £ A great deal £ Value it to a moderate degree £ Value it to a low degree £ Hard to say 3. How quickly have positive attitudes about education been changing in your opinion? £ Very fast £ Moderately quickly £ Very slowly

Page | 39

£ Not changing at all £ Hard to say 4. In general, how well would you say that DTMTs are functioning at the present time with respect to promoting good school-community relationships and good governance? £ Most are functioning very well £ Some are functioning well, some are functioning not so well £ Most are not functioning well £ Hard to say 5. About what percent of the children in your district/commune are enrolled in your local primary schools? ______%

6. How effective do you think that communities are in promoting transparency, performance, and accountability of primary schools in your area? £ Very effective £ Moderately effective £ Not so effective £ Hard to say

7. In g eneral, how would you describe the Management and Governance role of School Support Commit- tees in your area in promoting good education? £ They play a very strong role

£ They play a moderately strong role

£ They are not so effective in their role

£ Hard to say

8. How aware are you of information campaigns in your area to promote educational access and quality? £ Very aware £ Somewhat aware £ Not so aware £ Hard to say

9. Please indicate the most recent change in NER for the district for the last three years.

Year NER Dropout Rate 2016 2017 2018

10. How big of a problem is absenteeism at your area? £ A very big problem £ A moderately serious problem £ Not such a big problem

Page | 40

£ Hard to say

11. How big of a problem is dropout at your area? £ A very big problem £ A moderately serious problem £ Not such a big problem

£ Hard to say

12. What activities could be done by communities to prevent dropout or strengthen student retention? £ Raising awareness of the importance of education £ Holding discussions/meetings with parents at school £ Communication with parents £ Attending SMC/PTA meeting £ Monitoring student performance (e.g. attendance, behavior) £ Monitoring school performance (e.g. tracking teacher attendance) £ Other (specify) ______13. What are the reasons that you think most prevent children from attending or staying in school? Please pick the three MOST IMPORTANT reasons from the list below that you think are the most important and put a number according to its priority

(1=first priority; 2=second priority; 3=third priority).

Factor Level of Im- portance £ Children don’t value of education £ Parents don’t value education £ Children go with their parents to work £ Children are too old for their grade £ Children have to work at home and in the fields £ Children migrate with their families in search of work £ Children do not speak Khmer well £ Families don’t have enough money to pay the costs of edu-

cation £ School is too far away £ Local culture is not compatible with education £ Children get married early £ Children feel that they are discriminated against £ The curriculum is not relevant to finding a job in life £ The quality of education is too low

Page | 41

£ It is too dangerous to walk to school £ Other: ______

14. How would you describe the attitudes of children at your district/commune towards education? Please pick the statement that best describes the situation at your school. £ Most children really want to attend school

£ Many children really want to attend school but a few feels that it is not so important

£ About half the children here really want to attend school but the other half feel

that it is not so important

£ Few of the children here feel that attending school is very important

15. How would you describe the attitudes of local parents towards education? Please pick the statement that best describes the situation at your school. £ Most parents really want their children to attend school

£ Many parents really want their children to attend school but a few feels that

it is not so important

£ About half the parents really want their children to attend school but the other

half feel that it is not so important

£ Few of the parents feel that attending school is very important 16. How would you describe the attendance of teachers at local schools? £ Nearly all the teachers come to work on a regular basis

£ Most teachers come to work on a regular basis but some are tardy

£ About half of the teachers come to work on a regular basis but half are often tardy

£ Less than half of the teachers come to work on a regular basis

£ Hard to say

17. How would you describe the relationship between the local schools and communities? £ Very strong and active

£ Somewhat strong and active

£ Not very strong and active

£ Hard to say

Page | 42

18. Do you have any suggestions to make regarding how government can improve the education system?

______

Household Survey with Parents Questionnaire (Form 3)

Province: ______District: ______Commune: ______Village: ______Location: o Urban o Rural o Remote Respondent: o Mother o Father o Other Name: ______Please explain Other: ______Age: _____ Sex: _____ Ethnicity: o Khmer o Cham o Vietnam

Introductory Statement: Hello, my name is ______o Indigenous and ethic I am minority working owith Other CARE ______to try to better understand issues that relate to local attitudes towards education. I would, therefore, like to ask you about your opinion and views on this matter. I want to assure you that I am not trying to find faults to blame anyone but rather something that I am trying to find out what the problems are in order to help you and your school to solve the problems that may exist. In all the things that we will discuss today, I want to stress that there is no right answer, only what you think. Also, I want you to know that everything you say will be kept strictly confidential. You do not have to answer specific questions if you feel uncomfortable and you can stop the interview at any time without giving reason.

Do you agree to participate in this survey? Yes No

No Question

1. What language do you normally speak at home?

o Khmer

o Cham

o Vietnam

o Ethnic/Please Specify: ______

2. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Page | 43

o No schooling

o Non-formal education (e.g., literacy classes)

o Primary School

o Lower Secondary School

o Upper Secondary School

o Vocational education

o Tertiary (university, college)

3. Number of children age 5 – 15 years old: ______

4. How many of your children attend School? ______

5. Have any of your school-aged children ever dropped out of school?

o Yes

o No (If no, skip Q6)

6. If yes, what are the main reasons that these children dropped out of school?

£ Children don’t value of education £ I don’t think go to school will help our family £ Children go with their parents to work £ Children are too old for their grade £ Children have to work at home and in the fields £ Children migrate with their families in search of work £ Children do not speak Khmer well £ Families don’t have enough money to pay for the costs of education £ School is too far away £ Local culture is not compatible with education £ Children get married early £ Children feel that they are discriminated against £ The curriculum is not relevant to finding a job in life £ The quality of education is too low £ It is too dangerous to walk to school £ Illness £ Other: ______

7. At what age did you enroll you child in grade 1? [ ] Years

Page | 44

8. How would you describe your child’s attendance at school last 3 months? o Frequently absent o Absent a couple of times each month o Rarely absent

o Hard to say/Don’t know

9. To what extent are you aware when your child misses school? o Never

o Sometimes

o Often

o Always

10. Do you think it is important for your child to attend school every day? o Not important o Somewhat important o Very important 11. Have you ever allowed your child to stay home from school when he/she was not ill? o Yes o No (If no, skip Q12) 12. If yes, what are the major reasons? (Mark no more than three response options) o Caring for sick parents, siblings o Too tired o Work on farm/outside home o Help with housework o Bad weather o Bad roads o No transportation o Didn’t have shoes/uniform/books o Traditional ceremonies/funerals o Don’t want to go to school o Other (specify) ______

Page | 45

13. Has your child ever voiced a desire to leave school?

o No never o Sometimes o Yes, often o Can’t remember

14. Is education important to your child’s future?

o Yes

o No (If no, skip Q15)

15. If yes, why is education important? (Mark all that apply) o To find a good job o To earn more money o To progress to higher levels of education o To find a good spouse o Be respected by other people/be a leader in the community o To be happier o To be smarter o Other (specify) ______16. What are the plans for your child’s schooling next academic year? o Go to the next grade or cycle o Repeat grade o Stop/leave school o Get training o Not sure yet o Other (specify) ______17. How far do you expect your child will go with his/her schooling?

o Complete primary school o Complete lower secondary o Complete upper secondary o Go to university or college 18. Do you ever help you children learn at home or do homework after school?

Page | 46

o No never o Yes, sometimes o Yes, often o I don’t know

19. Do you know any members of SSC at the school your child attend?

o Yes o No

20. How would you describe your relationship with the School Support Committee? o Very Good, interact with them often o Not So Good, do not interact with them often o Hard to say 21. Have you ever got information related to education or ask you to join the meeting from SSC?

o No never o Yes, sometimes o Yes, often o I don’t know 22. Are you a member of SSC?

o Yes o No (skip to Q24)

23. If yes Q10, what do you think about the role and responsibility of SSC member?

o Easy o Hard o Useful o Not Useful o Interesting o No idea

24. Does your child ever have to engage in employment? o No never o Yes, sometimes o Yes, often o I don’t know

Page | 47

25. What is your occupation?

o Housewife o Worker o Farmer o Shepherd o Market Seller o Soldier o Shop Owner o Government Official o NGO worker o Office Worker o Business o Unemployed o Other: ______26. Which of the following sentences best describes your situation? (Check only one)

o We have lived in the same house for nearly my whole life. o Every few years, we have to move. o We spend part of the year in one place and another part of the year in another place. o We have to move from place to place every few months. 27. How satisfied are you with the quality of education offered at your child’s school?

o Very satisfied o Satisfied with some things but no other things o Not very satisfied at all o I don’t know 28. Have you been aware of any campaigns recently in your village to promote education among local people?

£ Yes £ No

If yes, what forms have these campaigns taken?

£ Videos £ Recordings £ Posters £ Meetings £ Social Media £ Other

29. Do you have any suggestions to make regarding how government can improve the education system?

Page | 48

IDI with Village Chief Questionnaire (Form 4)

Interviewee’s Name ______Sex M: ___; F: ____

Position ______Interviewer Name: ______

Village/Commune: ______Date: ______

District: ______

Province: ______

Do you agree to participate in this survey? Yes No

No Questions

1. In general, how much do you think that community in your village/commune value education? £ A great deal

£ Value it to a moderate degree

£ Value it to a low degree

£ Hard to say

2. In general, how much do you think that parents in your village/commune value education? £ A great deal

£ Value it to a moderate degree

£ Value it to a low degree

Page | 49

£ Hard to say 3. About what percent of the children in your village/commune are enrolled in your local primary schools? ______%

4. Are you a member of SSC?

o Yes o No (skip to Q6)

5. How often do you meet with District-based Training & Monitoring Teams (DTMTs)? £ Very often £ Moderately often £ Not so often

£ I don’t know what a DTMT is.

£ Hard to say 6. How effective do you think that communities are in promoting transparency, performance, and accountability of primary schools in your area? £ Very effective £ Moderately effective £ Not so effective £ Hard to say 7. In general, how would you describe the Management and Governance role of School Support Commit- tees in your area in promoting good education? £ They play a very strong role

£ They play a moderately strong role

£ They are not so effective in their role

£ Hard to say

8. How aware are you of information campaigns in your area to promote educational access and quality? £ Very aware £ Somewhat aware £ Not so aware £ Hard to say 9. How big of a problem is absenteeism at your area? £ A very big problem £ A moderately serious problem £ Not such a big problem £ Hard to say 10. How big of a problem is dropout at your area? £ A very big problem £ A moderately serious problem

Page | 50

£ Not such a big problem £ Hard to say

11. What activities could be done by communities to prevent dropout or strengthen student retention? £ Raising awareness of the important of education £ Holding discussion/meeting with parents at school £ Communication with parents £ Attending SMC/PTA meeting £ Monitoring student performance (e.g. attendance, behavior) £ Monitoring school performance (e.g. tracking teacher attendance) £ Other (specify) ______12. What are the reasons that you think prevent children from attending or staying in school? Please pick the three MOST IMPORTANT reasons from the list below that you think are the most important and put a number according to its priority

(1=first priority; 2=second priority; 3=third priority).

13. How would you describe the attitudes of children at your village/commune towards education? Please pick the statement that best describes the situation at your local school. £ Most children really want to attend school

Page | 51

£ Many children really want to attend school but a few feels that it is not so

important

£ About half the children here really want to attend school but the other half feel

that it is not so important

£ Few of the children here feel that attending school is very important

14. How would you describe the attitudes of local parents towards education? Please pick the statement that best describes the situation at your school. £ Most parents really want their children to attend school

£ Many parents really want their children to attend school but a few feels that

it is not so important

£ About half the parents really want their children to attend school but the other

half feel that it is not so important

£ Few of the parents feel that attending school is very important 15. How would you describe the attendance of teachers at local schools? £ Nearly all the teachers come to work on a regular basis

£ Most teachers come to work on a regular basis but some are tardy

£ About half of the teachers come to work on a regular basis but half are often tardy

£ Less than half of the teachers come to work on a regular basis

£ Hard to say

16. How would you describe the relationship between the local schools and communities in your area? £ Very strong and active

£ Somewhat strong and active

£ Not very strong and active

£ Hard to say

17. Do you have any suggestions to make regarding how government can improve the education system? ______

Page | 52

ANNEX 4: Summary List of All Data Tables

Dummy Tables for C4E & Governance Project

(Part 1: Local and Education Officials)

1. Stakeholder perceptions regarding the degree to which communities value education. Stakeholder A great Moderate Low Valu- Hard to Total Group deal Valuing ing Say No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 30 75 10 25 0 0 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 6 37.5 10 62.5 0 0 0 0 Officials

2. Stakeholder perceptions regarding the degree to which parents value education. Stakeholder A great Moderate Low Valu- Hard to Total Group deal Valuing ing Say No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 29 72.5 11 27.5 0 0 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 4 25 12 75 0 0 0 0 Officials

3. Rate of change towards positive attitudes about education Stakeholder Very Fast Moderately Very Slow Not Chang- Hard to Total Group Fast ing at all Say No % No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs Education 16 100 8 50 4 25 4 25 0 0 0 0 Officials

4. Effectiveness of DTMTs Stakeholder Most are Mixed Effec- Most are Not Hard to Say Total Group Functioning tiveness Functioning Well Well No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs Education 16 100 3 18 13 81.4 0 0 0 0 Officials

5. Effectiveness of communities to promote transparency, performance, and accountability of primary schools Stakeholder Very effective Moderately Not so effec- Hard to Say Total Group Effective tive No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 23 57.5 16 40 0 0 1 2.5 40 100 Education 16 100 4 25 12 75 0 0 0 0 Officials

6. Effectiveness of SSCs with respect to their Management and Governance Stakeholder Play a strong Play a moder- Not effective Hard to Say Total Group role ate role in their role Page | 53

No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 18 45 21 52.5 0 0 1 2.5 40 100 Education 16 100 1 6.3 15 93.8 0 0 0 0 Officials

7. Degree of Awareness of about information campaigns Stakeholder Very aware Somewhat Not so aware Hard to Say Total Group aware No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 20 50 19 47.5 1 2.5 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 11 68.8 5 31.3 0 0 0 0 Officials

8. Seriousness of student absenteeism Stakeholder Very big prob- Moderately Not such a big Hard to Say Total Group lem Serious Prob- problem lem No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 25 62.5 11 27.5 4 10 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 11 68.8 5 31.3 0 0 0 0 Officials

9. Seriousness of student dropout Stakeholder Very big prob- Moderately Not such a big Hard to Say Total Group lem Serious Prob- problem lem No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 30 75 6 15 4 10 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 10 62.5 6 37.5 0 0 0 0 Officials

10. Effective Activities to prevent dropout by communities Effective Activities to prevent dropout by communities Parents SSCs Education Village Chiefs Officials No % No % No % No % 1. Raising awareness of the importance of education 16 100 35 87 2. Holding discussions/ meetings with parents at school 16 100 28 70 3. Communication with parents 16 100 29 72.5 4. Attending SMC/PTA meeting 15 93.8 1 2.5 5. Monitoring student performance (e.g. attendance, behavior) 10 62.5 10 25 6. Monitoring school performance (e.g. tracking teacher attend- 15 93.8 11 27.5 ance) 7. Other 1 6.3 1 2.5

11. Factor cited by stakeholders as most important in preventing enrollment and retention

Factor

(percentage cited by stakeholders) Chiefs Village Village Parents Officials Education Education

Children don’t value of education 1.7% 18.8% 30%

Page | 54

Parents don’t value education 0.2% 37.5% 32.5% Children go with their parents to work 0.2% 56.3 57.5% Children are too old for their grade 0.4% 6.3% 20% Children have to work at home and in the fields 0% 31.3% 35% Children migrate with their families in search of work 0.4% 31.3% 20% Children do not speak Khmer well 0% 0% 5% Families don’t have enough money to pay the costs of education 0.4% 50% 40% School is too far away 1.5% 18.8% 20% Local culture is not compatible with education 0.2% 6.3% 0% Children get married early 0.2% 37.5% 12.5% Children feel that they are discriminated against 0% 0% 0% The curriculum is not relevant to finding a job in life 0% 6.3% 2.5% The quality of education is too low 0% 0% 5% It is too dangerous to walk to school 0% 0% 2.5% Other: ______0.6% 0% 7.5%

12. Attitude of most children at one’s school Stakeholder Most really Many want to Half want to Few want to Total Group want to at- attend but a attend and attend tend school few do not half do not school No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 27 67.5 12 30 1 2.5 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 8 50 7 43.8 1 6.3 0 0 Officials

13. Attitude of most parents at one’s school Stakeholder Most really Many want Half want Few feel Total Group want their their children their children attending children to to attend but a to attend and school is attend school few do not half do not important No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 27 67.5 12 30 1 2.5 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 8 50 8 50 0 0 0 0 Officials

14. Attitudes about teacher attendance Stakeholder Nearly all Many come About half Less than Hard to say Total Group come to regularly but come regu- half come work regu- a few come larly and on time larly late half come late No % No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 20 50 18 45 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 4 25 10 62.5 2 12.5 0 0 0 0 Officials

Page | 55

15. Relationship between schools and communities Stakeholder Very strong Somewhat Not very Hard to say Group and active strong and strong or active active No % No % No % No % No % Village Chiefs 19 47.5 20 50 1 2.5 0 0 40 100 Education 16 100 1 6.3 15 93.8 0 0 0 0 Officials

Dummy Tables for C4E & Governance Project

(Part 2: Parents only)

1. Language spoken at home No % Khmer 146 28.1 Cham 14 2.7 Vietnam 3 0.6 Lao 19 3.7 Indigenous languages 338 65 Total 520 100

2. Highest level of education No % No schooling 207 39.8 No-formal education 32 6.2 Primary school 210 40.4 Lower secondary school 53 10.2 Upper secondary school 16 3.3 Vocational education 0 0 Tertiary level 2 0.4 Total 520 100

3. Average number of children age 5 to 15:__?___ (1122 children)

4. Average Percentage of children age 5 to 15 who attend school: __96.3%___

Categorize by parent education Frequency Percent No schooling 201 38.7% Non-formal education (e.g. literacy classes) 26 5% Primary school 205 39.4% Lower secondary school 52 10% Upper secondary school 15 2.9% Vocational education 0 0% Tertiary (university, college) 2 0.4%

Page | 56

Categorize by parent's job Frequency Percent Worker 7 1.3% Housewife 63 12.1% Farmer 376 72.3% Market seller 17 3.3% Soldier 2 0.4% Shop owner 2 0.4% Government official 16 3.1% Business 2 0.4% Unemployed 3 0.6% Other 13 2.5%

5. Average Percentage of children who dropped out: __10.2%_____

6. Reasons cited by parents for dropout of their children Factor No. % Children don’t value of education 13 8.7 I don’t think go to school will help our family 7 1.3 Children go with their parents to work 11 2.1 Children are too old for their grade 7 1.3 Children have to work at home and in the fields 13 2.5 Children migrate with their families in search of work 3 0.6 Children do not speak Khmer well 1 0.2 Families don’t have enough money to pay for the costs of educa- 12 2.3 tion School is too far away 18 3.5 Local culture is not compatible with education 1 0.2 Children get married early 2 0.4 Children feel that they are discriminated against 1 0.2 The curriculum is not relevant to finding a job in life 1 0.2 The quality of education is too low 0 0 It is too dangerous to walk to school 0 0 Illness 3 0.6 Other: ______6 1.2

Other Factors Frequency Percent child don't want to study 2 0.4 teacher absent 1 0.2 Teacher didn’t pay attention 1 0.2 farming 1 0.2 Do a house chore 1 0.2 Total 6 1.2

Page | 57

7. Average age of children when they enrolled in school at grade 1: __6.2__

No % Age 6 446 85.8 7 51 9.8 8 15 2.9 9 4 .8 10 3 .6 11 1 .2 Total 520 100.0

8. Frequency of children’s attendance in last 3 months No % Frequently absent 16 3.1 Absent a couple of times each 111 21.3 month Rarely absent 380 73.1 Hard to say/Don’t know 13 2.5 Total 520 100

9. Awareness levels of children’s absence No % Never aware 29 5.6 Sometimes aware 151 29 Often aware 128 24.6 Always aware 212 40 Total 520 100

10. Attitudes about importance of attending school No % Not important 2 0.4 Somewhat important 35 6.7 Very important 483 92.9 Total 520 100

11. Ever allowed children to stay home when NOT ill No % Yes 27 5.2 No 493 94.8 Total 520 100

12. Reasons why children stayed home when not ill No % Caring for sick parents 9 1.7 Too tired 1 0.2 Page | 58

Work on farm outside home 16 3.1 Help with housework 12 2.3 Bad weather 4 0.8 Bad roads 2 0.4 No transportation 0 0 Didn’t have 0 0 shoes/uniform/books Traditional ceremony 0 0 Didn’t want to go to school 0 0 Other 1 0.2

13. Has your child ever voiced a desire to quit school? No % No, never 491 94.4 Sometimes 24 4.6 Yes, often 5 1 Can’t remember 0 0 Total 520 100

14. Is education important to your child’s future? No % Yes 518 99.6 No 2 0.4 Total 520 100

15. Why is education important to your child’s future? No % To find a good job 450 86.5 To earn more money 197 37.9 To progress to a higher level 300 57.7 To find a good spouse 41 7.9 To be respected by other peo- 102 19.6 ple To be happier 113 21.7 To be smarter 145 27.9 Other 41 7.9

16. Plans for your child’s next academic year No % Go to the next grade or cycle 497 95.6 Repeat a grade 1 0.2 Stop/Leave school 1 0.2 Get training 12 2.3 Not sure yet 9 1.7 Other 0 0 Total 529 100

Page | 59

17. How far do you expect your child will go with schooling No % Complete primary school 3 0.6 Complete lower secondary 29 5.6 school Complete upper secondary 336 64.6 school Go to university or college 152 29.2 Total 520 100

18. Frequency of helping children at home with homework No % Never 63 12.1 Sometimes 268 51.5 Often 188 36.2 Don’t know 1 0.2 Total 520 100

19. Parents indicating they know one or more SSC members at their child’s school. No % Yes 297 57.1 No 223 42.9 Total 520 100

20. Quality of relationship with SSC No % Interact with them often 153 29.4 Do not interact with them often 140 26.9 Hard to say 4 0.8 Total 520 100

21. Ever received information related to education No % Never 29 5.6 Sometimes 181 34.8 Often 84 16.2 Don’t know 3 0.6 Total 520 100

22. Are you a member of SSC? No % Yes 29 5.6 No 491 94.4 Total 520 100

Page | 60

23. Opinion about the roles and responsibilities of No % Easy 9 1.7 Hard 0 0 Useful 19 3.7 Not useful 0 0 Interesting 1 0.2 No idea 0 0 Total 520 100

24. Does your child ever have to engage in employment? No % Never 449 86.3 Sometimes 70 13.5 Often 1 0.2 Don’t know 0 0 Total 520 100

25. Occupation of respondents No % Housewife 65 12.5 Worker 7 1.3 Farmer 390 75 Shepherd 0 0 Market seller 17 3.3 Soldier 2 0.4 Shop owner 2 0.4 Government official 18 3.5 NGO Worker 0 0 Office Worker 0 0 Business 2 0.4 Unemployed 3 0.6 Other 14 2.7 Total 520 100

26. Description of current living situation No % Lived in the same house for nearly whole life 503 96.7 Every few years, we have to move 16 3.1 Spend part of the year in one place another part of the year in another place 1 0.2 Have to move from place to place every few months 0 0 Total 520 100

27. Satisfaction with the quality of education at your child’s school No % Very satisfied 360 69.2 Satisfied with some things but not with other things 157 30.2 Not very satisfied at all 1 0.2 Don’t know 2 0.4 Total 520 100 Page | 61

ANNEX 5: Composite Record of Focus Group Discussions (SSC)

N Suggested Questions o 1) How long have you been as a member of school support committee?

• 11 people (1 to 3 years), 7 people (4 to 6 years), and 4 people (over 6 years)

2) How would you rate your community value education for their children? ‘5’ means highly value and ‘1’ means very low value.

• 4 people rated highly value, 17 moderate value

3) How would you describe your roles and responsibility as a member of school support committee? • Involved in dissemination the important of education, help school director to prepare the school development plan. Meeting with students’ parent whom their children dropout, help the children in school enrollment. Help to find the fund to support school, build toilet, disseminate to the community about the value of education their children future. • Help in school development plan, meeting to dissemination to parent with teacher, school director. Gather the children to school and find the fund for school. • Monitor the student and teacher absenteeism. Disseminate the value of education, help to solve any problem that happened in and out of school. • Advice and urge the parent to send their children to school, monitor the absenteeism of teacher and students. SSC meeting with community to mobilize the resource to support school. Clean school environment and gather and encourage children to school. • Gather the children to school and urge the parent to send their children to school. Help to look after the school environment. Coordinate with the team to gather children, discuss about student absenteeism and school fence repair. 4) How would you assess your capacity to run the School Support Committee if ‘5’ means very strong capacity and ‘1’ means very low capacity? • Moderate = 13, and low capacity = 9

5) How often do you have a meeting with schools/parents in your community? What did you discuss with them about? Can you give some concrete examples? • Normally one a month, but if there is any important can be 2 per month. The issue that need to talk are school development (build the fence, expense budget and when the student absent more find the solution to help them). • Meeting one a month and the issue to discuss were: budget expense of SIG, student absent more, dropout and find the solution to solve these problems. School development plan. • Discuss about the student problems, ask the parent to send their children to school regularly and respect the study time. 6) How did you engage parents/community people/local authorities in school events? Can you give some concrete examples? • Ask parent to encourage their children to school. Raise the school problem with community to find the development partner and the need of school such as lack of budget for building fence, washing hand place. • Send the letter to invite them and help with some materials and budget (e.g. when there is the ceremony to give award to student). ask them to encourage their children to school and monitor the children study.

Page | 62

• When the school has event, invite the parent, SSC, village chief to join and discus about the school issues and find the way to improve the school. • Invite them to join during the school new academic start and invite them to join the our campaign to gather the children to school. 7) How do you inform or share information about the school issues or promote education to parents/community in your local area? • Did campaign about the education by show them the model person that successful from their study. Dissemination through poster, education message, radio, TV raise about the outstanding student, well learning and good teacher. • Raised about the outstanding student, good school and teacher. Help to disseminate the education messages (tell them about the program that disseminate through radio related to education message) • When there was any issue or other important, the school always inform to parent, SSC, and community to find the solution to support school as well as the student absenteeism. • Informed the issue to community about the out-school children come to destroy school property. Inform them about the student absenteeism and asked them to find the solution and urge the parent to send their children to school. • Share information through the meeting 8) Have you observed any changes in enrollment and parents’ attitudes towards education among local people in your community recently? • Nowadays there are more dissemination from government and NGO partners about the value of education broadly, we observed that there was more student enrolled and send their children to school. Now the parent understands more about the value of education and their children future. • Have more student enrollment and send their children to school because of the dissemination broadly and the parent and communities mostly understand about the value of education. • A remote village in Ratanak Kiri (Uon) said that the enrollment rate seems decreased as the student went to study at the district as there are some support such as food, play- ground etc. • The parent seems to change their attitude to send their children to school and they reduced to bring their children to the farm with them. They monitor their children study at home and come to join the meeting at school. 9) Do you think parents in your community send their school-aged children to school? Why or why not? • Before they didn’t understand about the value of education, but now the people who have children age 5 mostly send their children to school and when their children age 6 all of them were enrolled in grade 1. However, sometimes the children who age schooling didn’t enroll as the house very far from school, and very young, also sometimes their parent was busy at the farm etc. • They send their children to school around age 6-7 year in grade 1 because there was no preschool and the school very far from their home, sometime their parent was busy with farming. • Most of them send to school when their age schooling because they want their children to have a better future and have knowledge. • They know the important of the education and want their children to have high knowledge. 10) At the present time, do you see any changes in enrollment and dropout at your local school? Is school retention getting better or worse or staying about the same? • The enrollment rate has been changed and increased as they understand about the value of education through the campaigns and the dropout decreased. Page | 63

• Because they understand about the value of education, the enrollment rate is high and the dropout rate is low. The student enrollment this year is increased. • Enrollment rate increased and less absenteeism and reduced dropout. 11) Do you see any differences in enrolment or dropout between boys and girls? Between older children and younger children? Between children of different ethnicities? If there are differences, how would you account for them and how are these differences changing?

• The enrollment of boy and girl seems to be similar both Khmer and ethnic minority. As observation the boy more likely to dropout than girl as when they growth up it’s time for them to support the family and earn money. • Nothing difference of enrollment both boy and girl. As observation the girl can’t finish the basic education as this village very far from the district and difficult condition. 12) How do you feel about the relationship between the community and the school? Is it a close relationship? Has this relationship been improving over time or is it the same (or worse)? Can you give some concrete examples?

• The relationship between the community and the school was better now, and some communities and parents support the school development by the money and some help by their labor or materials to repair the school. • The relationship between the community and the school was better now, the community help with labor and materials to school, help to disseminate the information. NGO partners help poor student through school director and SSC. • Good relationship, the community help to monitor the student study and class. 13) Do you think that sending one’s children to school is the best option that parents can utilize to improve their children’s chances for the future? Why or why not?

• Sending children to school is the best option as it provides knowledge to development their self, understand the right and wrong, better future, can find the job and have good salary to support their family and develop the country. • Great option when they send the children to school and it is important for the children to have knowledge, good job, obedient parent and develop themselves to support family and society. • When the parent saw the people who study high and have a good job to make the family economic better, then they send their children to school. 14) Do you aware about the education campaign in your community? What is the campaign and who?

• Meeting with village and commune chiefs, asked them to tell the parent to send their children to school. Meeting at the village with parent about the important of education by dis- tribute the information posters and post the big poster at household and explain them. • There were some campaigns conducted by school directors, community, parent and students and DOE. A short video clip talking about the benefit of education. Community visit the household to advise them to send their children to school. 15) Tell me what kinds of things the government or NGOs could do to help solve some of the problems relating to enrollment and dropout in your area? • Create the preschool in the village. • Provide scholarship, bicycle • Build latrines and provide enough study materials • Build dome for teacher and student to stay.

Page | 64

ANNEX 6: List of Key Informants

Key Informants Interview with Village Chiefs

No Name Position Sex No Name Position Sex

1 ភយ ុំ សមតិ េមភមូ ិ Male 21 រសង សុីននួ េមភមូ ិ Female

2 ញ៉ ង ម៉យក់ របធនភមូ ិ Male 22 មស សំអង េមភមូ ិ Male

3 រម៉ម លន់ របធនភមូ ិ Male 23 តន រកិះ េមភមូ ិ Male

4 រម៉ម ដូយ របធនភមូ ិ Male 24 ខវ ល ់ រកន់ េមភមូ ិ Male

5 ស៊ុន មន របធនភមូ ិ Male 25 ជឹម ចន់ េមភមូ ិ Male

6 កង េខៀវ េមភមូ ិ Male 26 សុ វណណ គិរ ី េមភមូ ិ Male

7 ចវ ង ខន់ េមភមូ ិ Male 27 រជ ផលី ល េមភមូ ិ Female

8 េភឿក ស៊ុនៃថ េមភមូ ិ Female 28 េពៀន លីន អនុភម ិ Male

9 េធឿន ឃឺន របធនភមូ ពិ ូឆប Female 29 សរតិ ផតិ េមភមូ ិ Male

10 រម៉ម នចិ របធនភមូ ិ Male 30 ភនឺ ដន អនភិ ូម ិ Male

11 ញិវ េស របធនភមូ ិ Male 31 សុីណន ណប អនុភូម ិ Female

12 ទឹម រ៉ េមភមូ ិ Male 32 អីុន ខមំ ៉ ន ី េមភមូ ិ Male

13 អង ទួន របធនភមូ ិ Male 33 ហូម េលឿន របធនភមូ ិ Male

14 ម៉ លី ផិន េមភមូ ិ Male 34 ណន់ សុង របធនភមូ ិ Male

15 សយ ជីង េមភមូ ិ Male 35 រចំ េធឿន របធនភមូ ិ Male

16 សន ថុង េមភមូ ិ Male 36 រម៉ម េវត របធនភមូ ិ Male

17 ខវ នុង អនុរបធនភមូ ិ Male 37 កល ន ថុញ របធនភមូ ិ Male

18 េខៀ សំបូ របធនភមូ ិ Male 38 ទីង ញូ ត េមភមូ ិ Male

19 ដវុធ ណក់ របធនភមូ ិ Male 39 ទីង ែហម េមភមូ ិ Male

20 ពិល យ ិ របធនភមូ ិ Female 40 រម៉ស់ សវនុិ េមភមូ សិ លវ Male

Page | 65

Key Informants Interview with POEs and DOEs

No Name Position Sex

1 ឈុ ំ ដ DOE Male

2 ទន់ គង់ DOE Male

3 ែហ សុីេរត៉ DOE Female

4 សម ធ ី DOE Male

5 នឺវ ធ ី DOE Male

6 ទឹម សងវត POE Male

7 យឹង ជ DOE Male

8 យុន វទ ីធ DOE Male

9 ផន សុ ភព DOE Male

10 អិុនែណមណូ រនិ POE Male

11 េចវ ភ ី DOE Male

12 េម៉ សំអត DOE Male

13 សុ ខ ែអម DOE Male

14 ប៊ុន េរឿន DOE Male

15 ផត់ សុ ផន់ណរ DOE Male

16 េហ ណរ ៉ុង DOE Female

Page | 66