Teacher Mobility Study Lecture Pour Tous

TEACHER MOBILITY STUDY

LECTURE POUR TOUS

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Revised: March 2, 2018

Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-14-00055/AID-685-TO-16-00003

Activity Start and End Date: October 26, 2016 to July 10, 2021

Total Award Amount: $71,097,573.00

Contract Officer’s Representative: Kadiatou Cisse Abbassi

Submitted by: Chemonics International

Sacre Coeur Pyrotechnie Lot No. 73, Cite Keur Gorgui

Tel: 221 78585 66 51

Email: [email protected]

[Activity Name] Activity M&E Plan [Approved or draft with date] 1

TEACHER MOBILITY STUDY

Contracted under AID-OAA-I-14-00055/AID-685-TO-16-00003

Lecture Pour Tous

DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 2 CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...... 9 2.1 Context of the Study ...... 9 2.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Study ...... 10 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 11 3.1 Definitions of concepts ...... 11 3.2 Research questions ...... 12 3.3 Data collection ...... 12 3.3.1 Data Collection Tools ...... 13 3.3.2 Data Collection Methods and Timing ...... 13 3.3.3 Data Processing and Data Entry ...... 13 3.4 Sampling ...... 13 3.5 Limitations ...... 14 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY...... 15 4.1 The current system of management of the teachers ...... 15 4.1.1 Description of the current system of management of the teachers ...... 15 4.1.2 Analysis of the current situation ...... 16 4.1.3 Management of the mobility of the teachers through MIRADOR ...... 17 4.1.4 Rules governing the assignment of the teachers that influence teacher mobility ...... 17 4.1.5 Decision-making processes related to the assignment and the transfer of the teachers ...... 18 4.1.6 Role of the unions in teacher management ...... 18 4.2 Realities of teacher management and mobility ...... 18 4.2.1 Profiles of the schools, of the directors, and of the teachers surveyed ... 19 4.3 Managing teacher mobility within schools ...... 27 4.3.1 Management of Departures ...... 29 4.3.2 Classes Preferred by the Teachers and Difficult Classes ...... 29 4.3.3 Needs for redeployment ...... 32 4.3.4 Mobility as a sanction ...... 33 4.3.5 Teachers’ Preferred Destinations ...... 33 4.3.6 Scale of the mobility of teachers ...... 35

iii

4.3.7 The most mobile teachers ...... 36 4.4 The question of language in the movement of the teachers ...... 37 4.4.1 Consider the language competencies in national languages in the requests for teacher assignments and transfers ...... 37 4.5 Retention of the teachers trained in the framework of the program ...... 39 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 43 5.1 Conclusions ...... 43 5.2 Recommendations ...... 44 6 APPENDICES ...... 46 6.1 Bibliography ...... 46 6.2 List of tables ...... 46 6.3 List of graphics ...... 47 6.4 Data collection tools ...... 48 6.5 Work schedule ...... 49

ACRONYMS APE: Association of the Parents of Students ANPE: National Association of the Parents of Students ARED: Association of Research and Education for Development CAP: Certificate of Teaching Aptitude CDF: Double shift teaching CMG: Multi-grade classrooms CFEE: Certificate of End of Elementary Studies CRFPE: Regional Center of Training for Education Personnel CI: Grade 1 CP: Grade 2 CE1 : Grade 3 CE2: Grade 4 CM1/CM2: Grade 5/Grade 6 CREM: Competitive exam of recruitment of the Student-Teachers BRH: Human Resources Office DRH: Human Resources Directorate EBJA: Basic Education of Youth and of Adults ELAN: School and National Languages in Africa EP: Educational team IA: Academy Inspection (regional level) IEF: Education and Training Inspection (district level) MIRADOR: Integrated Management of the Linked Resources on a Rational Endowment MEN: Ministry of National Education MFPAA: Ministry of Professional Training of Learning and of Trade OS: Order of Service PAQUET-EF: Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et de la Transparence dans l ’Education et la Formation [Translator’s Note: Program of the Improvement of Quality, Fairness and of Transparency in Education and in Training] PASEC: Programme d’Analyse des Systèmes Éducatifs de la CONFEMEN [Translator’s Note: Program of Analysis of the Educational Systems of the CONFEMEN] SNERS: National System of Evaluation of the Scholastic Yield PDEF: Ten-Year Program of Education and of Training TICE: Technology of Information and of Communication at School

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank all the participants of this study. The following participants were met in an individual or group interview, in addition to the directors and the teachers who responded to the questionnaires. IA/IEF First name and LAST Function NAME IA KAOLACK Khadidiatou DIALLO Inspector of the Academy of Kaolack Thierno Haby BA Chief Inspector of IEF Kaolack Commune Assane BADJI Chief Inspector of North District, IEF Kaolack Commune Sidy GNINGUE Responsible for monitoring-evaluation IEF Kaolack Edouard NDAO Head HR Office IEF Kaolack Com. IA BIRKILANE Maba Diakhou BA Inspector of the Academy of Kaffrine Ndeye Diarra Mbaye Chief Inspector of IEF Birkilane Youssoupha MAR General Secretary IEF Birkilane Alioune MAKINTAYE Head HR Office IEF Birkilane IA FATICK Papa Gorgui NDIAYE Inspector of the Academy of Fatick Sidy FALL Chief Inspector of IEF Fatick Absa Ba ATHIE Head HR Office IEF Fatick, responsible for teacher planning Abdoulaye Adama DIALLO Focal point Program AT-PNLSen Mamadou Lamine SOW General Secretary IEF Fatick

General Secretaries of Teacher Unions First name and LAST Unions NAME Souleymane DIALLO SELS Awa WADE UDEN Sewrou SENE SAEMS Abdou FATY SELS/A

Representatives HR Directorate (MEN) First name and LAST Function NAME Mamadou Seydi LY Coordinator Seydou DIALLO Head Office Mobility Mamadou SONKO Head Office MIRADOR Ibrahima Abdoulaye WATT Head of estimated Management Division of Employment and Skills Yeya LY Head of Recruitment Office Samba DIAGNE Head of Statistics Office

We would particularly like to thank the MEN for its support to the study.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The USAID/All Children Reading Activity in Senegal, referred to as Lecture Pour Tous, aims to greatly improve reading levels for students in Grades 1-3 (CI – CE1) through an effective, sustainable, and scalable national program. This technical assistance program targets three outcomes to achieve this goal: improved early grade reading instruction in public primary schools and daaras, improved delivery systems for early grade reading instruction, and improved parent and community engagement in early grade reading. The government of Senegal is launching the National Reading Program in the context of nationwide bilingual reforms that will use national languages to teach all Senegalese early grades children to read, and aid the transfer to reading in French. In the first phase of the program, which is beginning at the start of the 2017/2018 academic year, reading instruction in three Senegalese languages (Wolof, Pulaar and Serer) will be introduced in C1 in 1115 public primary schools in the four regions of Fatick, Kaffrine, Kaolack, and Matam. This study on the mobility of teachers takes place in this context. Its aim is to provide program stakeholders a glimpse into current practices related to the assignment and mobility of teachers and the potential impact of these practices on the program. Two conditions have to be in place for the program to be successfully implemented:  Each school needs to have at least one teacher mastering the national language selected for the school sufficiently well to be capable of teaching reading in this language; and  Teachers who have been trained in reading instruction in the national languages by the program should ideally stay in the school to continue to teach reading in the early grades. In the long term, teachers’ mastery of the national languages should become a key factor in teacher assignment in light of the anticipated expansion of bilingual education nationwide.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study This study reviews and analyzes the processes used in the assignment and the transfer of the teachers, and the reasons for teachers’ requests for transfer. More specifically, the study explores the following:  The rules governing the assignment of the teachers (to a school and to a class) and current practice;  The reasons of requests for transfer of the teachers (inter-school but also from one class to another within the same school);  How teachers’ language competencies in national languages could be taken into account when decisions on teacher assignments and transfers are made. The findings from this study will be used to make recommendations on the conditions that should be put in place to assure that the teachers trained under the Lecture Pour Tous program using national languages to teach reading continue to teach in classes served by the program. The findings can further be used to make recommendations on the necessary policy changes in the current mode of the assignment of teachers to ensure that teachers

with a sufficient mastery of one or more national languages are matched with schools in which the language(s) will be used in reading instruction in the early grades. The study was conducted in the IA (Inspections Académiques – regional inspections) of Fatick, Kaffrine, and Kaolack. In each IA, one IEF (Inspections de l’Education et de la Formation – sub- regional inspections covering a department) had been selected, namely: Fatick, Kaolack, and Birkilane. These IEFs are called “departure zones” by the teachers themselves, due to the numerous departures of their teachers for other zones.

Methodology The study used multiple data collection methods and sources of data:  A questionnaire was administered to school directors and teachers. A total of ten schools – 5 urban and 5 rural schools - were selected from each of the three IEF to take part in the survey. The school directors and 6 teachers were selected to participate in the survey at each school. In order to best capture the different reasons leading to teacher mobility, the 30 schools chosen were sampled to represent the four groups of postings defined by the Ministry.  Key informant interviews were also conducted with the Directorates of the Ministry of Education, particularly agents of the Human Resources Directorate, at the central and decentralized levels (IA and IEF); key informant interviews were also conducted with representatives from the teachers’ union.  Additional data were collected through a document review of key MEN policies and other documents.

Main findings Main findings on the current system of management of the teachers Teacher management is entrusted to the MEN’s Directorate of Human Resources (DRH) and to its divisions, the Offices of Human Resources located in the IAs and the IEFs. The MEN uses MIRADOR (Management Intégré des Ressources Axé sur une Dotation Rationnelle) as an integrated, online database and personnel management tool for all staff. Each teacher has a personnel file in MIRADOR, which they are required to update regularly and every teacher must use MIRADOR to request a transfer. Further inquiry will be required to understand better how MIRADOR can be used consistently and reliably at scale to better aid in deployment matters, particularly around language proficiency and matching teacher language to school language. After student teachers complete training at the Regional Teacher Training Center (CRFPE), MEN assigns these new teachers to the IA of the CRFPE. At the IA level, teachers are assigned to IEFs, always based on schools’ needs. The movement of the teachers within the education system is governed by a set of formal rules codified in the MEN regulations. Transfers take place annually and any teacher who has spent more than 2 years in a position in a given school can announce that his/her position is likely to be vacant and can thus participate in the national or regional movement. Decisions about the assignment of teachers are under the authority of the Ministry of Public Function and the MEN.

Newly trained teachers are assigned to the Academy (IA) of the same region as the CRFPE they attended. They sign a five-year commitment to serve in the academy, to ensure certain stability, especially for young teachers. Main findings on realities of teacher management and mobility Our survey shows that a large majority of teachers and directors already serve in their region or district of origin. However, the great majority of teachers expressed their desire to transfer in the coming years. “Reuniting spouses” is by far the most cited reason by the male and female teachers. It is followed by “unfavorable working and living conditions” and “problems of health or illness.” Female teachers and younger teachers are the most mobile according to directors and teachers. There is a higher concentration of teachers aged 18 to 38 working in the rural areas. This pattern is reversed for teachers aged 39 and older. The majority of the teachers (84%) prefer to transfer to Dakar. Nearly one quarter of the teachers would like to transfer to a bilingual school. Other teachers would like to go to a school with innovation (19.7%) or an urban school (18.4%). The schools with the fewest requests are the “small schools” offering fewer than 6 grades, Franco-Arabic schools, and rural schools. Main findings on managing teacher mobility within schools When asked how the school directors appoint teachers in the school, assigning the teachers with the most experience to the earliest grades was the most prevalent response. The responses also show a tendency for directors to entrust the earliest grades to the teachers who speak the language of the environment. However, the majority of the teachers who taught CI in 2014/2015 (63%) were responsible for CP the following year 2016, showing a different mechanism than previously stated. They thus continued with their students to the next grade, within one étape. This pattern exists for each étape (step) in the elementary education cycle.. Main findings on the question of language in the movement of the teachers In the requests for assignment or for transfer of the teachers, the national language spoken or understood by the candidate is currently not at all taken into account. Representatives from the HR Directorate shed light on possible options to take language competence in national languages into account in the files for requests for transfer. A large majority of the teachers surveyed (84.9%) speak the predominant language in the environments where their schools are located. Main findings on retention of the teachers trained in the framework of the program More than half of the Directors are of the opinion that the possibility to teach in a national language that they master can encourage a teacher to stay in his/her school, however, the majority of the teachers suggest a motivation, preferably financial, to encourage them to remain in the position for which they were trained. The climate within the school, motivation, and living conditions were cited as factors that influence the mobility of teachers. Conclusions 1. The Ministry of Education in Senegal has clear provisions governing the deployment of teachers and the management of teacher mobility: MIRADOR, a teacher management tool, manages all movements of teachers, from recruitment to the

assignment to a given position, including transfers and exchanges. It provides an up- to-date picture of the teacher work force and their places of assignment as well as of the different movements of teachers. 2. The linguistic factor (national languages mastered by teachers vs. the national language chosen for teaching in the first grades in the school of assignment) is currently not taken into account in teacher deployment and management of teacher mobility. 3. Teachers are mobile. Current regulations require that teachers remain at least 2 years in a school before they can apply for a new transfer. Newly trained teachers are assigned to the Academy (IA) to which the Teacher Training Center (CRFPE) they attended belongs. They can participate in a transfer to a school in another inspection area (IEF) belonging to the same academy after two years of service. However, they must remain in the academy for five (5) years before they can participate in the movement into another academy. 4. The only exception to these rules is the "social cases" which are, however, the most frequently invoked to justify transfers to other schools. These transfers are made outside of the regular movement and can be done during the school year. They create dysfunctions that the system has difficulty managing appropriately. 5. The findings indicate that teachers transfer from the rural to urban areas as they acquire seniority. This practice highlights the importance of quality pre-service training so that the inflow of new teachers to the rural areas have the required training in early grade reading. 6. Within the school, the assignment of the teachers to a grade is decided by the school director, in consultation with the teachers. Practices vary from director to director. While school directors said that they try to assign the most experienced teachers to the early grades and to the grades in which national exams are taken, the responses given by the teachers indicate otherwise. There appears to be more flexibility in adapting practices to meet needs of the new reading program in national languages. 7. The teachers and school directors questioned during the study have concrete ideas on how teachers trained by the program could be encouraged to stay in the schools to ensure that there is a trained teacher available to teach the reading classes in national languages. A financial motivation is by far the most frequently mentioned, also based on the current practice of other programs like ARED and Emile. Others refer to improving living and working conditions (materials, equipment, etc.). 8. According to directors, teachers and unions, provision of teacher training is one viable strategy that could be adopted to reduce teacher mobility. 9. When considering any proposal to change or adapt the current procedures or the rules for teacher assignment and mobility to have them better suit the needs of the new bilingual reform, communication around new measures will be important to get broad acceptance. 10. The study also revealed, although in a very limited sample of schools, that the vast majority of teachers (84.9%) said they had good command of the national language of the school environment. Recommendations 1. It seems technically feasible to take the linguistic factor into account in the practices and procedures related to the assignment of teachers and the management of teacher mobility. It was thus proposed to add a field to MIRADOR so that the teachers can report their skills in national languages. However, this self-declaration will not be sufficient. Language tests should be considered. This test could be done

upon entry to the teacher training center for student teachers. Other solutions have to be found for teachers already in service. 2. It would be necessary to see whether the linguistic factor can be introduced into mobility management so that a vacancy in a given school can only be filled by a teacher who is proficient in the national language chosen by that school. 3. Mobility will remain a right for all teachers. In particular, "social cases" cannot be called into question. However, this study has shown several avenues for proposing working and living conditions for teachers that make them stay in their schools and allow continuity for teaching in national languages. Proper pre-service training will facilitate this new challenge. The same applies to the provision of textbooks, guides and other teaching and learning materials. Particular attention should be paid to teachers working in remote areas. 4. The importance of good communication about the National Reading Program, and especially on the bilingual approach based on national languages, was regularly raised in the questionnaires and interviews as a key element for program success – and also retention of and support for teachers. It involves awareness raising about the benefits of teaching reading skills through languages that are already mastered by children when they enter school. It also involves the fact that transferring these new reading skills to other language such as French will be easier. 5. The support of teachers' unions is particularly important in managing teacher mobility issues. They should be a key target of communication activities.

2 CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

2.1 Context of the Study

Reading is a foundational skill for all further learning. The poor learning outcomes of students in the foundational skills of reading and mathematics are a challenge to the Senegalese education system. According to the 2014 PASEC, only 29 percent of Senegalese students in grade 2 met the competency threshold for reading in French which is considered “sufficient”1. An EGRA study conducted in 2010 found that 87 percent of grade 3 students could not read a text in French at what would be considered a second-grade level by international standards: 50 words or better per minute2. The Senegal All Children Reading (ACR) Activity, referred to as the Lecture Pour Tous program, is funded by USAID and implemented by Chemonics International and its consortium of partners in support of the Senegalese National Reading Program led by the Ministère de l’Education Nationale (MEN). Lecture Pour Tous runs through July 10, 2021 and aims to greatly improve reading levels for students in Grades 1-3 through an effective, sustainable, and scalable national program. This technical assistance program targets three outcomes to achieve this goal: improved early grade reading instruction in public primary schools and daaras, improved delivery systems for early grade reading instruction, and improved parent and community engagement in early grade reading. The government of Senegal is launching the National Reading Program in the context of nationwide bilingual reforms that will use national languages to teach all Senegalese early grades children to read and aid the transfer to reading in French. In support of the objectives of the National Program, Lecture Pour Tous has set an ambitious target: at least 70 percent of Grade 2 students to be reading at grade level by the end of the 2020/2021 school year. In the first phase of the program, which is beginning at the start of the 2017/2018 academic year, reading instruction in three Senegalese languages (Wolof, Pulaar, and Serer) will be introduced in C1 in 1115 public primary schools in the four regions of Fatick, Kaffrine, Kaolack and Matam. This study on the mobility of teachers takes place in this context. Its aim is to provide program stakeholders a glimpse into current practices related to the assignment and mobility of teachers and the potential impact of these practices on the program. Two conditions have to be in place for the program to be successfully implemented:  Each school needs to have at least one teacher mastering the national language selected for the school sufficiently well to be capable of teaching reading in this language; and

1 PASEC (2016). PASEC 2014 – Performances du système éducatif sénégalais : Compétences et facteurs de réussite au primaire. PASEC, CONFEMEN, Dakar. 2 Pouezevara, S., Sock, M., and Ndiaye, A, (2010). Evaluation des Compétences Fondamentales en Lecture au Sénégal, 2010. Washington: RTI International.

 Teachers who have been trained in reading instruction in the national languages by the program should ideally stay in the school to continue to teach reading in the early grades. In the long term, teachers’ mastery of the national languages should become a key factor in teacher assignment in light of the anticipated expansion of bilingual education nationwide.

2.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Study

This study reviews and analyzes the processes used in the assignment and the transfer of the teachers, and the reasons for teachers’ requests for transfer. More specifically, the study explores the following:  The rules governing the assignment of the teachers (to a school and to a class) and current practice;  The reasons of requests for transfer of the teachers (inter-school but also from one class to another within the same school);  How teachers’ language competencies in national languages could be taken into account when decisions on teacher assignments and transfers are made. The findings from this study will be used to make recommendations on the conditions that should be put in place to assure that the teachers trained under the Lecture Pour Tous program using national languages to teach reading continue to teach in classes served by the program. The findings can further be used to make recommendations on the necessary policy changes in the current mode of the assignment of teachers to ensure that teachers with a sufficient mastery of one or more national languages are matched with schools in which the language(s) will be used in reading instruction in the early grades. The study was conducted in the IA (Inspections Académiques – regional inspections) of Fatick, Kaffrine, and Kaolack. In each IA, one IEF (Inspections de l’Education et de la Formation – sub- regional inspections covering a department) had been selected, namely: Fatick, Kaolack, and Birkilane. These IEF are called “departure zones” by the teachers themselves, due to the numerous departures of their teachers for other zones.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Definitions of concepts Definitions of the terms and concepts used in this paper are presented below: Movement of personnel is a generic term that refers to the movement of a civil servant of a given job to another. In this case, the relevant administrative authority decides movement of personnel. The assignment of a civil servant of the state falls within the jurisdiction of the public power. Assignment refers to “making an agent available by the Ministry of Public Function to a given Ministry3.” In the case of education, the assignment of teachers happens in a domino effect: student teachers who leave the teacher training centers CRFP (Centre régional de Formation du Personnel de l’Education) are not automatically civil servants. However, it is still the Ministry of Public Function who makes these new teachers available to the Ministry of Education (MEN). The MEN assigns teachers at their departure from the CRFPE to the IA the CRFPE belongs to. Each IA assigns the teachers to one of the IEF under its supervision. Then, the latter assigns the teachers to schools in their district. Assignment is therefore the act by which the academic authority assigns a position to a teacher. A transfer takes place when a teacher, assigned to a school, is replaced by another teacher. The difference between assignment and transfer can be found, in a general manner, in the fact that in the first circumstance, the teacher does not yet have a position. Redeployment is an assignment based on need of service, e.g., a teacher serving in an administrative position (IA, IEF, Supervisor, etc.) or a substitute in a school. This act comes under the jurisdiction of the IA or of the IEF. An exchange (permutation) is mutually agreed upon between two teachers who exchange their respective positions, with the consent of the relevant academic authority. A social question concerns two distinct sets of circumstances: reuniting spouses and social cases. A social case is understood to mean a “child, spouse, or direct relative who is ill4.” All these movements (assignment, transfer, redeployment, and exchange) are covered under the general term teacher mobility. In this way, several types of mobility occur in the educational system and fall under two categories:  Inter-school mobility: movement from one school to another, from one IA to another, and from one IEF to another;  Intra-school mobility: movement within the same school, from one class to another.

3 Practical guide of the movement of the teaching personnel, P 6.

4 Ibid., P. 10.

3.2 Research questions

This study sought to answer the following questions: The current system of management of the teachers  What are the current practices in place for the recruitment and the assignment of teachers?  What is the decision-making process for the assignment and the transfer of teachers (including the time periods, the level of decisions, etc.)? Realities of teacher management and mobility  What are the current practices regarding the mobility of the teachers (frequency, process of request, reasons given for the requests for transfer, mobility with the school - between classes and inter-school mobility, etc.)?  What are the most frequent types of mobility? e.g. transfer between classes (a teacher having taught in C1 moves to CM1 the following year and then no longer teaches reading in the primary grades); promotion to a different position; retirement; resignation; and change of schools, and more. Managing teacher mobility within schools  How does the school director manage the mobility in his/her school?  How does s/he appoint the teachers in each class?  What are the most frequent reasons for teacher mobility?  Can one establish a typology of the teachers according to their mobility?  Which are the most mobile teachers? The question of language in the movement of the teachers  How can the linguistic factor (national languages mastered by the teachers vs. national language chosen for teaching in the primary grades in the school of assignment) be taken into consideration for the assignment?  What are the major challenges to consider in matching teachers’ language abilities with schools’ linguistic needs in teacher assignment practices?  What are the available data at the level of the DRH and of the IAs and IEFs on the teachers? How can the data on the linguistic skills be integrated into the existing personnel files? Retention of the teachers trained in the framework of the program  What are the measures to take to ensure that the teachers having taken the reinforcement training for teaching of reading in the primary grades at the start of the school year stay in the schools to which they are currently assigned?

3.3 Data collection The data was collected through a document review, key interviews with MEN staff (agents of the Human Resources Directorate) and representatives of teacher unions at the central level and MEN staff at the decentralized level (HR offices of the IAs and IEFs), and questionnaires distributed to school directors and teachers of the 30 schools in the sample (see Sampling, 3.4 below).

3.3.1 Data Collection Tools The researcher used three data collection tools developed for the purposes of this study:  An interview guide for key informants from the following institutions at the central and decentralized levels: Staff of the central HR office of the Ministry of National Education, Representatives of Teacher Unions Heads of the Human Resources offices and Inspectors of the 3 IEFs  Questionnaires for directors  Questionnaires for teachers

3.3.2 Data Collection Methods and Timing The document review continued throughout the study. Data in the three IEF was collected between June 12 and 19, 2017. Questionnaires were distributed to school directors and teachers in the 30 schools by the principal investigator, accompanied by an agent designated by the lead inspector of the district whose role was to guide the principal researcher in the 10 selected schools. During this period, he also interviewed HR agents in the IA and IEF. Once back from the field trip to the three IEF, interviews in Dakar were conducted with the teacher unions and the HR staff at central level.

3.3.3 Data Processing and Data Entry Content analysis was used in coding and interpreting the data gathered in the key informant interviews. Content analysis is described as the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics. The qualitative data stemming from open-ended questions was treated according to the same procedure. Codebooks were used to enter quantitative data. Data entry was supported using Sphinx, and SPSS and Excel were used to generate tables and graphics for this report.

3.4 Sampling The key informant interviews were conducted with persons in positions at the Directorates of the Ministry of Education at the central and decentralized levels (IA and IEF) as well as with representatives from the teachers’ union. For the selection of schools and teachers, the objective was not to have a representative sample of the schools in the three IEF of three IA covered by the Lecture Pour Tous program but to cover a variety of schools representing the different posting areas considered by the Ministry (according to the level of difficulty of the living and working conditions). At the moment of data collection, the program had not yet officially been launched in the IA of Matam and this region was thus not included. A total of ten schools – 5 urban and 5 rural schools - was selected from each of the three IEF to take part in the questionnaire survey. The school director and 6 teachers were

selected to participate in the survey from each school. In order to best capture the different reasons leading to teacher mobility, the 30 schools chosen for the sample were supposed to represent the four groups of postings defined by the Ministry. Each teacher collects points based on the level of difficulty of the posting he/she is holding. The more difficult the living conditions are in a given area, the more points the teacher gets. These points then play a role in the request for transfers5. Table 1 displays the theoretical sampling of schools, directors and teachers for the IEFs.

Table 1: Theoretical sampling IA IEF Schools Directors Teachers F M Kaffrine Birkilane 10 10 60 30 30 Fatick Fatick 10 10 60 30 30 Kaolack Kaolack 10 10 60 30 30 Commune Total 30 30 180 90 90 Source: study data

Table 2 displays the total number of respondents by IEF.

Table 2: n° of respondents by school and IEF IA IEF Schools Directors Teachers F M Kaffrine Birkilane 10 10 43 18 25 Fatick Fatick 10 10 52 32 20 Kaolack Kaolack 10 10 57 27 30 Commune Total 30 30 152 77 75

Source: study data

The total number of teachers as respondents (152) falls short of that which was anticipated (180). The response rate was only 84 percent, probably due to the short time provided for responses to the questionnaire and to the absence of teachers, particularly in the rural schools.

3.5 Limitations The major limitation was the time period in which the study was carried out. Leading a study of this nature in the month of June, a few days prior to the CFEE exam, was a challenge. The intended audiences of the study (Inspectors, Directors, and teachers) were in very high demand during this period.

5 Schools are grouped in four categories: Zone 3 = 3 points : all localities outside of the regional capitals and district capitals: Ziguinchor, Kolda, Matam and St-Louis. Zone 2 = 2 points : all localities outside of the regional capitals and district capitals: Louga, Diourbel, Fatick and Kaolack. Zone 1= 1 point : Bakel, Sédhiou, Matam, Vélingara, Oussouye, Kédougou, Waoundé, Thionck Essyl, Goudomp, Marsassoum, Ziguinchor, Bignona, Kolda, Tamba, Semmé, Thilogne. Zone 0 = 0 point : toute l’étendue des régions de Dakar et Thiès.

4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The results of the study are presented based on the initial research questions. The relevant questions are listed on top of each section.

4.1 The current system of management of the teachers Research questions: What are the current practices in place for the recruitment and the assignment of teachers? What is the decision-making process for the assignment and the transfer of teachers (including the time periods, the level of decisions, etc.)?

4.1.1 Description of the current system of management of the teachers Teacher management is entrusted to the MEN’s Directorate of Human Resources (DRH) and to its divisions, the Offices of Human Resources located in the IAs and the IEFs. The MEN uses MIRADOR (Management Intégré des Ressources Axé sur une Dotation Rationnelle) as an integrated, online database and personnel management tool for all staff. MIRADOR contains links to three user domains: a Teacher Area, Student-Professor Area and Student-Teacher Area. Teachers use MIRADOR to update their personnel files and to participate in the transfer movement. Every teacher must use MIRADOR to request transfers. Transfer requests must be submitted electronically first, then in print. The print form is used to verify the accuracy and validity of the requests. This verification is entrusted to the unions. It must be noted that even without the physical application, the system is trustworthy and fraud is nearly impossible. One of the heads of the HR Directorate pointed out that “without this possibility of verification of the physical applications, the teachers and the unions would always suspect irregularities.” MIRADOR also contains a user domain which allows the agent of the HR Directorate to request information on teacher management related concerns, e.g., the number of teachers in an academy or an IEF, a particular teacher’s situation, or the number of women seeking transfer to be able to live closer to their spouse. In this way, the agents of the DRH and of the BRH and of the IA and IEF can obtain all the statistics they need by launching a simple request in MIRADOR. After student teachers complete training at the CRFPE and pass their exit exams, MEN assigns these new teachers to the IA of the CRFPE. At the IA level, teachers are assigned to IEFs, always based on schools’ needs. Given the insufficient number of student-teachers trained each year, not all the open positions are filled. IAs and IEFs are then obliged to take mitigating action to ensure that every class has a teacher and there are no disparities in coverage between zones. Often, the lack of teachers is the reason for multi-grade classes in rural areas and double shift teaching in urban

environments.6 (Although in rural areas there are also cases where schools have small numbers of students for one or more grades and thus group them in multi-grade classes.) The following are the required steps in the teacher transfer process: 1. Declaration of position (November to February) by IEF/IA 2. A vacancy is posted in MIRADOR. In this step, the candidate (teacher) signs up online and declares his/her position likely to be vacant 3. Teachers submit their transfer requests, indicating their desired position and school, to IEFs 4. Validation workshop (IA level) 5. National Commission holds a conference to make personnel transfer decisions 6. Transfer decisions are announced 7. Possible submission of complaints, in case the teacher would like the transfer decision to be changed. MIRADOR is the software application that supports the management of all MEN personnel. Each year, the HR Directorate publishes guidelines on the transfer and exchange of teachers as well as the assignment of new graduates of training schools, institutes, and colleges. These guidelines explain the criteria and conditions for transfer and also contain instructions that explain how to fill out the transfer requests and the reasons why transfer requests might be denied.

4.1.2 Analysis of the current situation Each teacher has a personnel file in MIRADOR, which they are required to update regularly. The personnel file contains the following information: marital status, number of children, living or not with spouse; certificates of assignment, of transfer, of promotion; marriage certificate, residency certificate, medical procedures, and more. Each personnel file exists in physical form and electronically on MIRADOR. The information in the personnel file is used to verify teachers’ requests. For example, a teacher who requests a transfer on the basis of a social case must provide the medical certificates of the child, spouse or direct descendant who is either ill or has disabilities. Note that the information provided, to be valid, must be certified by the doctor of the precinct or of the district. Every teacher working in schools and in the central structures are listed in MIRADOR; each teacher has an identification number and password which permits them access to the platform. Teacher must sign up, enter, and update the information in their personnel file by themselves. Before MIRADOR was introduced in 2013, the commission responsible for teacher assignment and transfer across the country brought together the unions, the authorities of the ministry and those in charge of personnel of the IA and IEF for one month to make decisions on teacher transfer and assignment each year. The results were highly contested by teachers at the end of this meeting. The contestation phase and litigation could take one month in average. With the introduction of MIRADOR, in less than one week, the entire movement was achieved with very little dispute, reducing therefore the cost and the length of the process and consequently improving its efficacy. A head of office of the HR Directorate notes that “last year, we had fewer than 30 disputes among nearly 14,000 requests.”

6 We note that the case of schools that do not have enough teachers to assign one teacher per class may encounter more challenges when identifying a teacher with sufficient language skills in the national language of the school to be able to teach reading in the early grades, simply because there will be fewer teachers at that school to choose from.

With MIRADOR, teachers themselves announce their own position vacancy, using the teacher transfer guidelines. Teachers manage their own career, and no individual can prevent them from competing for other positions.

4.1.3 Management of the mobility of the teachers through MIRADOR

With the introduction of MIRADOR, the time required to manage transfers has been substantially reduced. An illustration is given by one of the agents of the DRH: “The transfers took us 2 months for elementary education; now, in one week, all is closed off.” The application also allows the DRH to make projections, for example, the number of teachers the system will need in 5 or 10 years or the number of teachers expected to retire, participate in training, or be on extended leave. MIRADOR allows data on teachers to be updated in real time. MIRADOR also allows for a clear idea on where there are gaps and oversupply of teachers, in preparation for redeployment at the level of the IAs and of the IEFs. MIRADOR also has gaps, detailed further below, like the absence of data on national languages, for example. 4.1.4 Rules governing the assignment of the teachers that influence teacher mobility The movement of the teachers within the education system is governed by a set of formal rules codified in the MEN regulations7. At the elementary level, teacher mobility is managed by a series of regulatory texts8. Transfers take place annually during the national and regional movements, and they also occur at times outside the movement calendar. Any teacher who has spent more than 2 years in a position in a given school can announce that his/her position is likely to be vacant and can thus participate in the national or regional movement. In all cases, the teacher must fill out a transfer form. Thus, teachers who would like to change positions must: . Have completed a minimum of two (2) years in the position that s/he would like to leave or at least three (3) years if it concerns a position of responsibility (director); . Declare his/her post likely to be vacant through MIRADOR; . Complete the transfer form online (MIRADOR) and on paper. MIRADOR manages each teacher’s individual request and the “mirror” which is the list of all the positions declared to be vacant or likely to be vacant by the teachers. A committee is then established at the national and regional levels under the authority of the Minister of Education or of his/her representatives. The committee develops the criteria to evaluate the applications in accordance with the regulatory texts while, at the same time, taking the needs

7 “practical guide on teacher mobility” and “practical guide on teacher career” 8 Revised guide of the movements of personnel of 2013, Circular No. 05979 from 11/25/2015 relative to the utilization of teaching personnel of preschool and elementary.

for service into account. The committee proposes the transfers and submits their proposal for a decision by the authority. Newly trained teachers are assigned to the Academy (IA) in the same region of the CRFPE they attended. They can participate in a transfer to a school in another inspection area (IEF) belonging to the same academy after two years of service. However, they must remain in the academy for five (5) years before they can participate in the movement into another academy. They sign a five-year commitment to serve in the academy. This regulation can ensure a certain stability at the level of the Academy, especially for young teachers. Transfer requests related to “social cases” are the major cause of teacher mobility. There are essentially two types of “social cases:” reuniting spouses, and the illness of family members. These transfers, which take place out of the movement and during the school year, create some dysfunction that the system has a hard time managing properly. “These transfers that take place during the whole school year concern above all else the employees of the peripheral zones who are not replaced after their departure, therefore leaving classes without a teacher that the IEFs are sometimes obligated to turn into multi-grade classrooms, to institute double shift teaching or simply to shut down9.” Transfers from one academy to another can be authorized for teachers who have completed at least two years of service (or five years of service for student-teachers recently affected to a school). 4.1.5 Decision-making processes related to the assignment and the transfer of the teachers Decisions about the assignment of teachers are under the authority of the Ministry of Public Function and the MEN. For each transfer, a committee is convened to review the candidacy of the teacher. The committee is made up of representatives from the MEN, the teachers’ unions, the FENAPEES (Fédération nationale des associations de parents d’élèves et étudiants du Senegal) and the CONAPES (Collectif ou coordination nationale des APE). The candidate obtains the position if s/he fulfills the conditions and criteria of the movement, respects the submissions deadlines established by the academic authorities, fills out the transfer request form properly, respects the chain of command, and more.

4.1.6 Role of the unions in teacher management According to union representatives, the unions play a monitoring role. Their presence is indispensable at all the phases of the transfer process. They control the physical applications (print forms). Union representatives also participate at the decentralized level, assuring the communication around the use of the Guide and the different tools for the management of teacher mobility edited by the HR Directorate.

4.2 Realities of teacher management and mobility This section presents the findings based on the data collected through questionnaires with the 30 directors and 152 teachers in the schools covered by the study. Research questions:

9 Ibid. P. 3.

 What are the current practices regarding the mobility of the teachers (frequency, process of request, reasons given for the requests for transfer, mobility with the school - between classes and inter-school mobility, etc.)?  What are the most frequent types of mobility? e.g. transfer between classes (a teacher having taught in C1 moves to CM1 the following year and then no longer teaches reading in the primary grades); promotion to a different position; retirement; resignation; change of schools, and more.

4.2.1 Profiles of the schools, of the directors, and of the teachers surveyed Profiles of the schools The following is a summary of the responses to the survey administered at the 30 schools: Graphic 1: Distribution of Schools by Rural / Urban Zone The majority of the schools are in urban environments. Thirty seven percent are in rural zones. All 10 schools in the IEF of Kaolack commune are urban. The 5 schools considered by the IEF to be rural schools are situated at the periphery of the town, in Kaolack Department, but the teaching conditions are similar to those in the urban schools.

[Translator’s note: Blue: Rural, Orange: Urban] Graphic 2: Number of classes by school

Number of classes by school Total 3 6 7 8 9 11 12 15 Fatick 0 5 0 0 1 0 3 1 10 IEF Kaolack 0 1 0 0 1 1 7 0 10 Birkilane 2 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 10 Total 2 10 1 2 2 1 11 1 30 The majority of the schools surveyed had, at minimum, 6 classes. A little over one third of schools had 12 classes and about a third of the schools had 6 classes. Small schools count only three classes in the IEF of Birkelane. In Kaolack Commune, there are schools of 12 classes, and in Fatick and Birkilane, schools of 6 classes are more frequent.

Profiles of the school directors All 30 Directors of the schools were interviewed. All Directors were men.

Table 3: IEF of practice and regions of origin of the Directors

DAKAR FATICK KAFFRINE KAOLACK ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL The directors serving in the Region of three IEF visited are originally origin of from 5 regions, in the following the school order: Fatick, Kaolack, Kaffrine,

directors Dakar, and Ziguinchor. They

are predominantly from the regions in which they serve:

IEF they 90% of the directors of the IEF are now of Fatick are originally from the serving in region of Fatick. These proportions are 80% for Fatick 0.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 100 Kaolack and 60% for Birkilane (IA Kaffrine). Kaolack 0.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 100 All these school directors were men. Birkilane 10.0 10.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 100

TOTAL 3.3 40.0 20.0 33.3 3.3 100

Graphic 3: Age of the Directors The ages of the directors range from 32 years to 52 years and older. The majority (53%) of them are 39 years old and above. 43% of them are 52 years old or older. This latter group is near the retirement age, set at 60 years for Senegalese civil servants.

[Note: the columns from left to right are (1) 32-38 years, (2) 39-44 years, (3) 45-51 years, (4) >52 years] Table 4: Directors’ years of experience in teaching Years of Experience % <5 years 0.0 5-10 years 3.3 11-15 years 13.3 16-20 years 26.7 21-25 years 16.7 26-30 years 6.7 >32 years 33.3 TOTAL OBS. 100

Approximately one third of the directors have at least 32 years’ teaching experience. A little more a quarter have between 16 and 20 years’ teaching experience. No director of school had fewer than 5 years of experience Graphic 4: Status of the Directors (Relieved/Non-relieved) [Note: “Relieved” refers to Directors who are relieved of teaching duties. “Non-relieved” refers to Directors who maintain any sort of teaching duties in addition to their director’s duties.] The majority of the directors are relieved; that is, they do not have courses to teach. They, therefore, have more time to supervise the teachers in their school.

[Note: Columns left to right are (1) Relieved directors, (2) Non-relieved directors Table 5: Professional diploma of the Directors Professional diploma Number CEAP (Certificat Elementaire d'Aptitude Pédagogique) 1 CAP (Certificat d'Aptitude Pédagogique) 29 TOTAL OBS. 30 29 out of the 30 directors had a CAP. Only one is a CEAP holder.

Graphic 5: Desire to change schools A small majority of directors responded negatively to the question, asking if they would like to change schools.

[Translator’s Note: Blue: Yes, Orange: No]

Table 6: Languages spoken fluently by the directors The directors speak the language of the environment % Very well 66.7 Well 23.3 A little 6.7 Not at all 3.3 TOTAL OBS. The vast majority (90 percent) of the directors speak the predominant language of the area well.

Graphic 6: Desire to change schools and status of the director (relieved/non- relieved) Of the 20 relieved directors, 65 percent (13 directors) did not express an interest in changing schools. In all, 7 out of 10 of the non-relieved directors expressed a desire to change schools.

[Note: Columns from left to right are (1) Yes, (2) No. Blue: Relieved directors, Orange: Non-relieved directors] Profiles of the teachers interviewed In total 152 teachers responded to the survey. 77% of the teachers surveyed were civil servants and 23% were contract teachers or teacher trainees.

Graphic 8: Sex of the Teachers A little more than half (51 percent) of the respondents were men.

[Note: Blue: Women, Orange: Men]

Graphic 7: Residence of the teachers by urban/rural environments As with the directors, we questioned more teachers in urban environments (70%) than in rural environments.

[Translator’s Note: Blue: Rural, Orange: Urban]

Table 8: IEF of practice of the teachers and Regions of origin

Dakar Diourbel Fatick Kaolack Louga Sédhiou Thiès Ziguinchor Kaffrine Matam Tamba Total Region

of origin

IEF

Fatick 7.7 1.9 71.2 7.7 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Kaolack 5.3 1.8 5.3 77.2 1.8 1.8 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Birkilane 27.9 0.0 0.0 20.9 2.3 0/0 7.0 7.0 30.2 2.3 2.3 100

We cross referenced the IEFs in which teachers serve with the teachers’ region of origin. The pattern for Fatick and Kaolack is clear. The majority of teachers in these 2 IEFs serve in their regions of origin. For Birkilane, the pattern is less clear. It should be noted that the schools located in the commune of Birkilane are the “positions of preference” because they are close to Kaolack and situated on the national road. However, the rural schools of the IEF of Birkilane are very isolated and their teachers live in difficult conditions. Postings are considered difficult for living conditions when there are no or very limited basic social services such as health care and education, no electricity and no running water. Telephone coverage and internet access are also not always readily available. In all, 30.2% of the teachers teaching in this IEF are originally from the Kaffrine region, of which Birkilane is part. Twenty eight percent are originally from Dakar and 21 percent from Kaolack. To explain this situation, three hypotheses can be brought forward: 1. Between 2010 to 2012, those leaving the CRFPE (teacher training center) of Dakar were all assigned to regions outside of Dakar. The region of Kaffrine received a quota of teachers without a doubt at this time. This could explain the 28 percent originally from Dakar. 2. The second hypothesis concerns the establishment of the IEF of Birkilane in 2009. Before, it was part of the IA of Kaolack. The teachers who were based at the IDEN (Inspection départementale de l'éducation nationale, the predecessor to the IEF) without a doubt stayed there. This explains the presence of the teachers originally from the region of Kaolack, the former IA of Birkilane. 3. Finally, there were a higher percentage of young teachers in Birkilane (apart from those aged 18-24 years who are very sparsely represented in the sampling) than in the other two IEFs. This might be due to the fact that young teachers are mostly assigned to schools in rural areas. They are required to work in a rural area until they acquire sufficient seniority (a sufficient number of points) to be able to apply to zones where work and living conditions are easier.

Table 9: Teachers’ Age by the IEF of Service IEF/Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-44 45-51 >52 TOTAL years years years years years Fatick 3.9 13.5 48.1 21.2 13.5 0.0 100 Kaolack 3.5 10.5 36.8 31.6 14.0 3.5 100 Birkilane 0.0 23.3 51.2 11.6 14.0 0.0 100 TOTAL 2.6 15.1 44.7 22.4 13.8 1.3 100 There are a higher percentage of young teachers in Birkilane (25-31 years) than in the two other IEFs.

Table 9 bis : IEF * Gender * Age Age Gender Total Women Men Fatick 1 1 2 IEF 18-24 years Kaolack 2 0 2 Total 3 1 4 Fatick 6 1 7 IEF Kaolack 2 4 6 25-31 years Birkilane 5 5 10 Total 13 10 23 Fatick 17 8 25 IEF Kaolack 12 9 21 32-38 years Birkilane 7 15 22 Total 36 32 68 Fatick 7 4 11 IEF Kaolack 7 11 18 39-44 years Birkilane 4 1 5 Total 18 16 34 Fatick 1 6 7 IEF Kaolack 3 5 8 45-51 years Birkilane 2 4 6 Total 6 15 21 IEF Kaolack 1 1 2 >52 years Total 1 1 2 Fatick 32 20 52 IEF Kaolack 27 30 57 Total Birkilane 18 25 43 Total 77 75 152

Table 10: Age of the Teachers by Rural / Urban Environments

Teachers are predominantly between Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-44 45-51 >52 TOTA the ages of 32 to 38 (44.7 years years years years years years L percent). 17.7 percent are between the ages of Environment 18 to 31 and 15.1 percent are 45 years and Rural 4.4 17.8 55.6 11.1 11.1 0.0 100 above. Urban 1.9 14.0 40.2 27.1 15.0 1.9 100 There is a higher TOTAL 2.6 15.1 44.7 22.4 13.8 1.3 100 concentration of teachers aged 18 to 38 working in

the rural areas. This pattern is reversed for teachers aged 39 and older. There is not, for example, any teacher in a rural environment aged 52 years or older.

Table 10 bis: Rural or Urban environment * Gender * Age

Age (years) Gender Total Women Men Rural 1 1 2 Environment 18-24 Urban 2 0 2 Total 3 1 4 25-31 Environment Rural 3 5 8 Urban 10 5 15 Total 13 10 23 Rural 9 16 25 32-38 Environment Urban 27 16 43 Total 36 32 68 Rural 2 3 5 39-44 Environment Urban 16 13 29 Total 18 16 34 Rural 2 3 5 45-51 Environment Urban 4 12 16 Total 6 15 21 >52 Environment Urban 1 1 2 Total 1 1 2 Rural 17 28 45 Total Environment Urban 60 47 107 Total 77 75 152

Graphic 9: Years of Teaching Experience A majority of the teachers have between 11 and 15 years’ teaching experience.

[Note: Columns from left to right are (1) <5 years, (2) 5-10 years, (3) 11-15 years, (4) 16-20 years, (5) 21-25 years, (6) >32 years]

Table 11: Professional Diplomas of the Teachers Nearly all the teachers interviewed (96%) hold a professional degree (CEAP or CAP). Professional diploma % CAP 65.8 CEAP 30.3 OTHER 0.7 No response 3.3 TOTAL OBS. 100

Table 12: Teachers’ Interest in Transferring to Another School In Question 32, survey respondents shared whether or not they had an interest in transferring to another school in the coming years.

Wish to Transfer % Yes 80.9 No 18.4 No response 0.7 TOTAL OBS. 100 Source: study data

The great majority of teachers (81 percent) expressed their desire to transfer in the coming years.

Table 13: Teachers’ Ability to Speak the Predominant Language in the Environment

The teachers speak the language of the % environment Yes 84.9 No 15.1 TOTAL OBS. 100 Source: study data

A large majority of the teachers (84.9%) speak the predominant language in the environments where their schools are located. About 15 percent do not speak the language of the environment. 4.3 Managing teacher mobility within schools Research questions: How does the school director manage the mobility in his/her school? How does s/he appoint the teachers in each class? What are the most frequent reasons for teacher mobility? Can one establish a typology of the teachers according to their mobility? Which are the most mobile teachers?

One question of the directors’ questionnaire asked about criteria used by school directors to assign teachers to specific classes within the school. Three categories of criteria or practices can be observed: 1. Assignments based on the personal characteristics of the teachers: the assignment to a class is based on the personal characteristics of the teachers, in particular, teachers’ experience and expertise. According to these directors, expertise must be the most important factor in the assignment of the teachers. It is necessary that the teacher have the skills required to hold such and such a class, it is necessary as well that she or he has taught this class previously. 2. Assignments based on dialogue within the school: for the directors in this category, all is decided in teachers’ counsel or through dialogue with the interested parties. “Me, I summon the teachers in my office and consult with them to know what class they would wish to hold” affirms a Director of school during a group interview. 3. Assignments based on the idea to have teachers accompany their students throughout one étape: the Director can ask the teacher to follow the same students until the end of the étape10. This directors’ category preference is to retain a teacher at least until the end of the étape. Otherwise stated, when a teacher starts CI with his/her students, s/he should continue with them until CP.

10 The Curriculum of Basic Education is organized according to étapes, not single class levels. Progression is again determined by étape. It is therefore recommended that a teacher having taught a class of Level 1 follows this class also to level 2 of the étape. The elementary education cycle is organized in three étapes: étape 1: CI/CP, étape 2: CE1/CE2, étape 3 CM1/CM2.

Table 14: Principles used by directors in teacher assignment within schools Table 14 displays the principles which guide directors as they assign teachers to certain grades or classes. These principles are directly linked to the directors’ profile, described in Question 42, above. Eight multiple choice questions were presented. The director could check as many responses as s/he wanted. The directors’ responses follow:

% Principles I make the teachers change level each year 16.7 I would like a teacher to keep the same level several years in a row 16.7 I am not in favor of a teacher following one class over several years (the same students) 16.7 I assign the teachers with the least experience to the youngest classes (CI/CP/CE1) 0.0 I assign the teachers with the most experience to the youngest classes 26.7 I assign the teachers with the least experience to higher levels (CE2/CM1/CM2) 0.0 I assign the teachers with the most experience to the higher levels 3.3 I pay attention so that a teacher who speaks the language of the environment is 20.0 assigned to a young class (CI/CP/CE1) so that s/he can help the children who have a hard time understanding French TOTAL 100 Source: study

Assigning the teachers with the most experience to the earliest grades was the most prevalent response. However, the responses also show a tendency for directors to entrust the earliest grades to the teachers who speak the language of the environment. The data collected on the classes taught by teachers in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 confirm a pattern of teachers following students through a step as well. Table 15 illustrates this pattern.

Table 15: Grades taught by the teachers in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 Grades taught CI CP CE1 CE2 CM1 CM2 CMG Total 2015/2016

Grades taught 2014/2015 CI 10.0 63.3 3.3 6.7 3.3 3.3 10.0 100 CP 32.0 24.0 32.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 100 CE1 6.7 6.7 13.3 60.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 100 CE2 16.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 100 CM1 10.5 5.3 0.0 5.3 21.1 57.9 0.0 100 CM2 4.4 8.7 13.0 0.0 17.4 56.5 0.0 100

The majority of the teachers who taught CI in 2014/2015 (63%) were responsible for CP the following year 2016. They thus continued with their students to the next grade. This pattern exists for each grade level. 60 percent of the teachers responsible for CE1 in 2014/2015 went on to teach CE2 in 2015/2016. This practice is apparently not prescribed anywhere officially but good practice in use. The only prescription concerns the fact that teachers should not teach the same grade in two subsequent years. Table 16: Grades taught by Teachers in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 Grade taught in CI CP CE CE CM1 CM CM CDF TOTA 2016/2017 1 2 2 G L

Grade taught in 2015/2016 CI 19.1 61. 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 100 9 CP 10.3 27.6 44.8 0.0 6.9 0.0 3.5 6.9 100 CE1 0.0 5.6 16.7 50. 0.0 5.6 5.6 11.1 100 0 CE2 50. 11.1 5.6 5.6 16.7 5.6 0.0 5.6 100 0 CM1 13.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 24.1 37.9 3.5 10.3 100 CM2 12.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 52.0 0.0 8.0 100 CMG 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 66.7 0.0 100 TOTAL 16.8 16.8 13.4 8.7 12.1 18.1 6.7 6.7 100

Table 16 presents the grades taught by the teachers in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017. Similar to the results presented in Table 15: teachers have a tendency to follow their students to the next step or grade. Only CE2 is an exception: 50 percent of the teachers who taught CE2 in 2015 also taught CI in 2016 and not CM1.

4.3.1 Management of Departures Sometimes a teacher who leaves the school during a school year leaves a class vacant. In these cases, the directors contact the IEF to request another teacher to be assigned to the class. While waiting, directors manage the classes themselves or combine them with another class to form a multi-grade class. Whatever the case, the quality of the teaching- learning will be affected.

4.3.2 Classes Preferred by the Teachers and Difficult Classes It was possible to determine teachers’ most preferred or popular grades using the responses to Question 24 (the most requested class in the teachers’ council) and Question 30 (the most requested classes).

Graphic 11: Classes preferred by the teachers, according to the teachers According to the teachers themselves, CE2 and Non réponse CI CP CE1 CE2 CM1 CM2 CP are the classes that the teachers prefer to hold. Of the 152 teachers interviewed, about 16% 1% 10% 20% prefer CP and 24% CE2.

20% 16% Some grades are known as consolidation classes 13% 24% (to consolidate knowledge and skills introduced in earlier grades), opposite to acquisition classes in which new knowledge and competencies are acquired (CI, CE1, CM1).

The data shows that teachers prefer consolidation classes to acquisition classes. The latter have the reputation of being more difficult to hold. [Translator’s Note: Light blue: No response]

Graphic 12: Teachers’ Most Requested Classes According to the Directors The responses of the directors confirm those of the teachers. CP and CE2 (consolidation classes) are the classes the most requested by the teachers, with a slight preference for CP. According to the directors, no teacher requests CE1 or CM1 (acquisition classes).

[Translator’s Note: Dark blue: No difference]

Graphic 13: The Most Difficult Grades The following pie charts display male teachers’ and female’s teachers’ responses to Questions 32 and 33. For these questions, male teachers and female teachers identified the most difficult grades to teach.

The men The women According to the male teachers, the most difficult classes are CI, CE1, and CM2. More than half of the male teachers interviewed said that CI is the most difficult class.

74% of the female teachers said that the most difficult class is CM2.

The reasons for transfer requests In response to Question 22, male teachers shared the general reasons why men request transfers. Their responses are presented in Table 16. Table 16: Reasons for the request for transfer of male teachers Reasons % 1. Reuniting spouses and other family reasons 76.8 2. Unfavorable working and living conditions 35.5 3. Problems of health, illness 31.6 4. Continuing study or preparation for professional examinations 17.1 6. Return home 12.5

5. Tense climate at the school or with the population11 9.2 “Reuniting spouses” is by far the most cited reason by the male teachers. It is followed by “unfavorable working and living conditions” and “problems of health or illness.” Unfavorable working and living conditions relate to the infrastructure available, especially basic social services, but also electricity, running water, telephone coverage, and internet access. In response to Question 23, female teachers shared the general reasons why women request transfers. Their responses are presented in Table 17. Table 17: Reasons for Transfer Requests According to Female Teachers Reasons % 1. Reuniting spouses and other family reasons 81.6 3. Problems of health, illness 33.0 2. Unfavorable work and living conditions 16.4 4. Tense work environment at the school or with the population 12.5 5. Return home 8.5 6. Continuing study or preparation for professional examinations 6.6

11 A tense climate in the school is described by the teachers as difficult relationships between colleagues, and between teachers and the school directors, or between teachers and parents.

For female teachers, the principal reason is also “reuniting spouses,” followed by “health problems,” and “work and living conditions.” Question 35 was more specific. Teachers were asked to explain the reasons why they left their previous school. The results are presented in Table 18: Table 18: Reasons for the Departure from the Previous School Reasons for departure % Unfavorable conditions 21.4 Reuniting spouses 20.8 Return home 19.6 I have not left yet 10.1 Problems of health, illness, etc. 7.1 Necessity of service 6.6 Continuing study 6.6 Have a position of responsibility 1.8 Tense work environment at the school 1.8 Source: study

“Reuniting spouses and family factors,” “unfavorable living and work conditions,” and “return home” were the most cited reasons for teachers’ departures from their previous schools. These reasons match with those given by the teachers for requesting a transfer in Questions 22 and 23. Directors provided the same reasons as teachers in their responses to Question 29 in the directors’ survey about transfer requests. Table 19 presents their responses. Table 19: Reasons for Request for Transfer According to the Directors Reasons % 1. Reuniting spouses and family-related factors 39.1 2. Unfavorable work and living conditions 21.7 3. Tense work environment at the school or with the population 4.4 Source: study

4.3.3 Needs for redeployment Redeployment is a special kind of transfer or mobility of the teachers. It is under the jurisdiction of the IA or the IEF and belongs in the “necessity of service” category of transfers. Redeployment can be initiated at the moment it comes to the attention of the academic authority that there is an excessive number of teachers in one school and a gap in another within its district. Despite its intention to ensure an adequate number of teaching staff at every school, it is an act not well appreciated by teachers. According to a union representative, “These last years, the Ministry abused it, and the unions denounced it.”

4.3.4 Mobility as a sanction Mobility, used as a sanction, is a rare phenomenon that no longer takes place today according to the representatives of the DRH. An inspector, General Secretary of an IEF, clarified, “if there is a serious mistake or if the teacher has disagreements with the population, s/he can be transferred in a different position without his/her consent. This can be understood as a sanction. But it remains that the cases are rare.” We did not encounter any cases or mention of the use of transfer as a sanction in the interviews and surveys. Different levels of sanctions exist; they are: i) sanctions of the 1st degree (warning and blame), ii) sanctions of the 2nd degree (reduction of years of experience not to exceed 2 years), and iii) sanctions of the 3rd degree (removal from the table of advancement for 2 years, demotion, temporary exclusion from work for a maximum duration of 6 months, revocation without suspension of pension rights, and revocation with suspension of pension rights)12.

4.3.5 Teachers’ Preferred Destinations In response to Question 37, directors shared teachers’ preferred destinations in their transfer requests. Their responses follow: Table 20: Preferred Destination of the Teachers According to the Directors Destination % Urban environment 48.4 Dakar 25.8 Region of origin 12.8 Kaolack commune 6.5 IEF 3.2 Thiès 3.2 TOTAL 100.0 Source: study

According to the directors, the teachers seek transfers to the urban centers. Dakar is particularly targeted. In Question 31, teachers responded to the same question concerning their preferred destination in the form of multiple choice questions (Dakar, Kaolack, Fatick, Kaffrine, Other urban centers). Their responses are presented in Table 21.

12 Ministry of National Education, Practical guide on the carrier of the teacher, Dakar, 2003, p.24.

Table 21: Teachers’ Most Preferred Destinations Destination % Teachers’ preferred destination is clearly Dakar. The majority of the teachers (84%) Dakar 84.2 prefer to transfer to Dakar, whereas 9% Kaolack 8.6 targeted Kaolack and 5% other urban centers. Other urban centers (Specify) 4.6

Fatick Kaffrine 0.7

No response 2.0

TOTAL OBS. 100

The DRH representatives mentioned that the teachers would like to come to Dakar to be able to give home-based remediation courses that they cannot obtain in rural environments or even in certain large towns. This phenomenon, known as “xar matt13”, was also mentioned by some directors of a school during a group interview to justify the preference for Dakar. In their responses to Question 33, teachers described the types of schools in which they would prefer to work if they had the opportunity to change schools. In Question 34, teachers justified their responses. The results of Question 33 are presented in Table 22 below: Table 22: Type of school in which Teachers would Prefer to Work Type of School % Bilingual school 23.0 School with Innovation 19.7 Urban school 18.4 Franco-Arabic 0.7 Rural school 0.7 School without double shift teaching 9.9 School without multigrade classrooms 2.6 Small school (1-5 grades) 0.0 “Normal” school (6 grades) 7.9 Large school (more than 1 class per 14.5 grade) No response 2.6 TOTAL 100

Source: study

Nearly one quarter of the teachers (23%) would like to transfer to a bilingual school. Other teachers would like to go to a school with innovation (19.7%) or an urban school (18.4%). The schools with the fewest requests are the “small schools” offering fewer than 6 grades, Franco-Arabic schools, and rural schools.

13 This expression which literally means “break wood” signifies a lucrative parallel activity completed outside of official work for which one is paid.

The teachers explain their preferences in their responses to Question 34:  Urban school: Parents are more attentive to the school, and they facilitate the task of the teachers in taking care of their children.  School with innovation14: here one acquires more experience. In these schools, there is a possibility to use ICT.  Bilingual school: the majority of the teachers who would like to transfer to bilingual schools justify it by the fact that they had already received training in national languages. Some teachers are activists who back the introduction of national languages at school, like this teacher who thinks that it is important to “teach Senegalese youth their national languages.” It should be noted that the IA of Kaolack is an experimental zone for the NGO ARED15 that promotes a bilingual approach based on the Pulaar language. The ELAN initiative is also operating in the three IAs covered by this study. The teachers are therefore aware of the existence of bilingual classes and their advantages like the enhancement of the quality of teaching-learning, notably reading and mathematics. This explains the choice of the bilingual schools by the teachers. According to one director, this choice is also motivated by the fact that the teachers know that teachers who work in ARED’s and ELAN’s bilingual classes receive financial incentives. The director explained, “The teachers who hold bilingual classes are paid well and they go to a lot of trainings.” In fact, the teachers prefer the schools with innovation because of the opportunities for training to improve their practice and also for the compensation, which is added to their monthly salary.

Generally speaking, the most sought-after schools are the bilingual schools, schools with innovation, and schools in urban areas. More than 61 percent of teachers would like to work in one of these three types of schools if they had the possibility to do so.

4.3.6 Scale of the mobility of teachers All teachers surveyed are interested in changing schools. Mobility is a very wide-spread phenomenon among elementary school teachers.

Graphic 14: Level of Teachers’ and Directors’ Interest in Changing Schools Teachers Directors The large majority of the teachers (82%) expressed a desire to change schools. The opinions of the directors are rather mixed; a small majority does not want to change schools. The group interview revealed that in fact they had all

14 A school with innovation is a school that develops a particular experiment. From it, the teachers often benefit from training sessions and other financial advantages which are added to their salary.

15 http://www.ared-edu.org/IMG/pdf/bilingue-ared.pdf

“returned home” and no longer had an interest in changing schools.

[Translator’s Note: Blue: Yes, Orange: No]

4.3.7 The most mobile teachers Results for Question 29 from the teachers’ survey and Question 25 from the director’s survey are presented in Table 23: Table 23: Perceived Mobility of Women and Men According to the Directors According to the Female teachers are the most Teachers mobile according to directors Mobility F_M % and teachers. A higher Mobility F_M % The women 80. percentage of directors (80%) 0 The women 57.9 believe that there is greater mobility among female teachers The men 3.3 The men 25.7 than teachers (58%). No difference 16.7 No difference 15.8 TOTAL 100 TOTAL 100

Questions 30 and 36 of the teachers’ and directors’ surveys address age as a factor in mobility. Their responses are presented in Table 24: Table 24: Perceived Mobility by Age According to Directors According to Teachers Directors and teachers stated that younger teachers are more mobile Mobility and age % Mobility and age % than older teachers. They responded in nearly the The young teachers 66.7 The young teachers 67.8 same proportion. The older teachers 13.3 The older teachers 21.2 No difference 16.7 No difference 10.5 No response 3.3 No response 0.7 TOTAL 100 TOTAL 100

Table 25 displays the percentage of teachers who expressed interest in changing schools by age group.

Table 25: Desire to transfer by Age Group Age/Desire for Yes No TOTAL All the teachers who are 52 years and above Transfer expressed a desire to transfer. However, in reality, there are only 2 respondents at that 18-24 years 25.0 50.0 100 age. The greatest percentage of teachers 25-31 years 91.3 8.7 100 who expressed an interest in changing schools ranged from age 25 to 31. 32-38 years 79.4 20.6 100 39-44 years 82.4 17.7 100 45-51 81.0 19.1 100 >52 years 100 0.0 100 TOTAL 80.9 18.4 100

The majority of teachers, regardless of their age, generally expressed a desire to change schools. They are in search of new experiences, looking to continue their studies or to move closer to their spouse or urban environments for a better quality of living and working conditions.

4.4 The question of language in the movement of the teachers Research questions: a. How can the linguistic factor (national languages mastered by the teachers vs. national language chosen for teaching in the primary grades in the school of assignment) be taken into consideration for the assignment? b. What are the major challenges to consider in matching teachers’ language abilities with schools’ linguistic needs in teacher assignment practices? c. What are the available data at the level of the DRH and of the IAs and IEFs on the teachers? How can the data on the linguistic skills be integrated into the existing personnel files?

4.4.1 Consider the language competencies in national languages in the requests for teacher assignments and transfers Current Situation In the requests for assignment or for transfer of the teachers, the language spoken or understood by the candidate is not at all taken into account. In MIRADOR, the specialty of the candidate is recorded, but this refers to his/her initial training. There are in fact 2 categories of teachers: those who obtained their diplomas in Arabic and the others who did the French option. We are talking therefore of an “Arabic” Specialty and a “French” Specialty. There is no section where the candidate must indicate his/her linguistic competencies in national languages, neither in MIRADOR, nor in the application file.

Considering teachers’ skills in national languages in transfer requests Representatives from the DRH shed light on possible options to take language competence in national languages into account in the files for requests for transfer. It should in theory be possible. In the “Speciality” section, an option for teachers to self-report the “best mastered national language” next to the options for “Arabic” and French” could be added to MIRADOR. According to DRH representatives, it is necessary however to take time to study the question to consider all aspects of it. In the physical personnel file of all teachers, the national languages for which teachers have reported mastery must be verified. However, according to the representatives, there is little interest for a teacher to falsely declare to have mastered a language, knowing that s/he will be called to teach in that language. According to the staff from the HR Directorates interviewed, one of the methods to ensure more objectivity would be to test the teachers. This seems possible for student teachers leaving CRFPE but more difficult for teachers already serving in schools. Taking language into account in the movements of the teachers Question 39 is an open-ended question that asks respondents for recommendations on ways that teachers’ mastery of national languages could be taken into account in the movement of teachers. Teachers advocated for proposals that center on the assignment of teachers to their environment of origin. Other recommendations, in fewer numbers, include an option for MIRADOR to reference the national language selected for each school and to include this criterion when teacher mobility is decided on. Directors made similar suggestions for MIRADOR. But the majority of the directors limit themselves more or less to say that it is necessary to take the language spoken fluently by the teacher into account when assigning him/her to a given school. The unions also put forward the assignment of the teachers in their localities of origin. But this idea is not shared by everyone because certain individuals highlight the “risk of splitting the nation.” Our survey shows however a clear pattern, where a large majority of teachers and directors actually already serve in their region or district of origin. For instance, 90 percent of the directors of the IEF of Fatick are originally from the region of Fatick and more than 70 percent of the teachers of Fatick and of Kaolack are also originally from these regions. The representatives of the HR Directorate simply suggest including the question of the language in MIRADOR, clarifying even the place, namely in “Profile and Career.” So, an update to MIRADOR would provide an inventory of all the teachers mastering this or that national language. Representatives of Human Resources Office of the IAs and IEFs also favored the option of including language information in the MIRADOR personnel files.

4.5 Retention of the teachers trained in the framework of the program Research questions What are the measures to take to ensure that the teachers having taken the reinforcement training for teaching of reading in the primary grades at the start of the school year stay in the schools in which they are currently assigned? What are the factors that can push a teacher to leave his/her school? What are those than can convince him/her to stay? Can the mastery of a language of teaching (a national language) push a teacher to stay in his/her school? Can a motivation retain a teacher in his/her school? The mastery of the language, retention factor Question 43 of the teacher survey asks teachers if the possibility to teach in a national language that s/he has mastered can encourage the teacher to stay in his/her school. The responses represented in the following graphic are rather mixed. Graphic 15: Retention in one school and possibility to teach in a national language For a little more than half of the teachers, the possibility to teach in a national language that they master can push them to stay in their school. But for the other half, this possibility would not be sufficient. For the latter group, other aspects come into play: difficult living conditions, necessity to get closer to one’s family, etc. One teacher expresses it in these terms “The problem of transfer is not a problem of language but above all else social, economic, cultural, environmental, administrative.” It must be noted that more than half of the Directors of schools are of the opinion that the possibility to teach in a national language that they master can encourage a teacher to stay in his/her school. [Translator’s Note: Green: Yes, Blue: No]

Retention factors in the schools of the program Questions in the teachers’ survey and the director’s survey about the teachers who will be trained in the framework of the program of Lecture Pour Tous gave rise to a lot of reactions from teachers and directors. These questions generated recommendations from respondents on how to retain the teachers trained to teach reading in national languages. The majority of the teachers suggest a motivation, preferably financial, to encourage them to remain in the position for which they were trained. Financial motivation is mentioned in the questionnaire responses but also in the interviews conducted with HR representatives and teacher unions. The responses of the teachers are presented in Table 26 as follows.

Table 26: Factors Associated with the Retention of Teachers according to Teachers Retention factors Percentage 1. Motivation 53.3 2. Train them and accompany them 9.4 3. Improve the work conditions 9.4 4. Assign them to a school in their town 5.0 5. Sign contracts with the teachers 2.2 Source: study

For the directors, the responses to the same question (50) are somewhat different: Table 27: Factors Associated with the Retention of Teachers according to Directors Retention factors Percentage 1. Motivate the teachers 47.2 2. Sign a commitment 11.1 3. Train them, supervise them 5.6 Source: study

Motivation had the highest response. A little less than half of the directors stated that motivating teachers is related to the retention of teachers. Eleven percent of directors suggested the use of a letter of commitment, signed by teachers prior to their training. According to the unions, the first measure to take in the retention of teachers is related to motivation. They do not think only of financial motivation, but rather the motivation of “improved access.” According to them, the teachers in a rural environment suffer from an isolation that must be combatted. For example, equip the teachers with solar kits and computers so that they can connected to the internet and charge their cell phones. Motivation, unanimous retention factor All the participants questioned believe that, to retain the teachers in their positions, it is necessary to motivate them. The questionnaire responses show that motivation clearly relates to financial motivation for teachers. As providing a financial motivation might be difficult to sustain, teachers were asked in another question what other form of motivation could be suitable? Some teachers simply responded “none.” Teachers’ responses to Question 40 are presented in Graphic 16.

Graphic 16: Other Forms of Motivation The majority of the teachers wish for a choice of promotion16 in the absence of a financial motivation. Other forms of motivation are acceptable, but by fewer than 20% of the teachers.

[Translator’s Note: Columns from left to right are (1) Choice of promotion, (2) Points to the position, (3) Distinctions, (4) Priority for the positions of responsibility, (5) Other (Specify)]

Discouraging and motivating factors Questions of the Teacher and Directors’ Survey concern the factors that discourage or motivate a teacher to leave his/her position or to stay in it.

Table 28: Discouraging factors, motivating factors for teacher mobility Discouraging factors Motivating factors A good work environment Bad work environment at the school Motivation Unfavorable conditions Favorable conditions Bringing together of spouses Nothing (No factor could dissuade them) Promotion Good level of students Lack of motivation

The work environment within the school, motivation, and living conditions were cited as factors that influence the mobility of teachers. The social climate in the school is significant. It is a reason for a request for transfer, but here, it is both a discouraging factor and a motivating factor. If the climate is good, the teachers can stay in the school. However, if the climate within the school degrades, it becomes a reason for departure. The teachers explain this question of social climate in positive terms, “Good connection within the school and the environment”, “Good relations with colleagues”, “Familiarity between colleagues and children” or negative “Difficulties within the team or with the directors” or “Tense social climate with his/her colleagues,” etc. The directors explain it in these terms: “A healthy social climate”, “Harmony of the educational team and fraternal relations with the community”, “Good connection with colleagues.” They speak also certain circumstances, like “if s/he is not in good terms with the director or with the educational team”, “a difficult director, difficult social climate,” etc.

16 The teachers advancing from one class to another at the end of a certain number of years. If they advance by choice, this number of years is reduced. To pass from the 2nd class for example to the primary class, a teacher who advances by choice will put 2 years in the last stage when another will put 5 years in the same stage.

The question of the management of a same class over several years It is important for the program that a teacher can stay with his/her students from the first to the second étape (CI/CP-CE1/CE2). For Question 37 of the teacher survey, teachers responded to the following: “What could motivate you to stay with your students (from grade to grade)?” Their responses are presented in Table 29. Table 29: Types of motivation to continue in the subsequent classes Type of motivation % Improvement of work conditions 54.6 Compensation for special class 19.1 Frequent organization of workshops and training 15.1 Construction of housing 5.3 Gift of a piece of land for farming 0.7 Gift of land in the area 2.6 Distinction 2.0 Certification 0.7 Gift of supplementary bonus 0.0 TOTAL OBS. 100 Source: study

Good working conditions (allocation for pedagogical materials both printed and non-printed) was cited by teachers as a motivational factor which could convince them to stay with their students. The second and third responses ranked far below good working conditions. These are compensation for special classes and frequent workshops and training. Far fewer mentioned the second and third ranked responses: compensation for special classes and workshops and training.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions 1. The Ministry of Education in Senegal has clear provisions governing the deployment of teachers and the management of teacher mobility. MIRADOR, a teacher management tool set up by the HR Directorate at the Ministry of Education, manages all movements of teachers, from recruitment to the assignment to a given position, including transfers and exchanges. It provides an up-to-date picture of the teacher work force and their places of assignment as well as of the different movements of teachers. 2. The linguistic factor (national languages mastered by teachers vs. the national language chosen for teaching in the first grades in the school of assignment) is currently not taken into account in teacher deployment and management of teacher mobility. The teacher personnel files sheets in MIRADOR do not have a field (if online) or an area (in the print form) in which teachers can self-declare their competence in national languages. Adding this information would not be complicated technically. In addition to this self-declaration on language skills, it is important to find a way to test the actual language proficiency of teachers in national languages. 3. Teachers are very mobile. Current regulations require that teachers remain at least 2 years in a school before they can apply for a new transfer. Newly trained teachers are assigned to the Academy (IA) to which the Teacher Training Center (CRFPE) they attended belongs. They can participate in a transfer to a school in another inspection area (IEF) belonging to the same academy after two years of service. However, they must remain in the academy for five (5) years before they can participate in the movement into another academy. They sign a five-year commitment to serve in the academy. This regulation can ensure a certain stability at the level of the Academy, especially for young teachers. 4. The only exception to these rules is the "social cases" which are, however, the most frequently invoked to justify transfers to other schools. These are essentially cases of family reunion or mobility due to illness of a spouse or other family member. These transfers are made outside of the regular movement and can be done during the school year. They create dysfunctions that the system has difficulty managing appropriately. 5. The findings indicate that teachers transfer from the rural to urban areas as they acquire seniority. Young teachers, leaving the teacher training centers, are often assigned to rural areas. This practice highlights the importance of quality pre-service training so that the inflow of new teachers to the rural areas have the required training in early grade reading. 6. Within the school, the assignment of the teachers to a grade is decided by the school director, in consultation with the teachers. Practices vary from director to director. While school directors said that they try to assign the most experienced teachers to the early grades and to the grades in which national exams are taken, the responses given by the teachers indicate otherwise. The teacher questionnaire on the classes taught in the last three years show that teachers most often continue with their students to the next class. Since the assignment within the school is managed by the directors, there appears to be more flexibility in adapting practices to meet needs of the new reading program in national languages.

7. The teachers and school directors questioned during the study have concrete ideas on how teachers trained by the program could be encouraged to stay in the schools to ensure that there is a trained teacher available to teach the reading classes in national languages. A financial motivation is by far the most frequently mentioned, also based on the current practice of other programs like ARED and Emile. Others refer to improving living and working conditions (material, equipment, etc.). 8. According to directors, teachers and unions, provision of teacher training is one viable strategy that could be adopted to reduce teacher mobility. If the teachers are aware that they receive regular trainings in the framework of the program, they will be less likely to leave their schools. 9. When considering any proposal to change or adapt the current procedures or the rules for teacher assignment and mobility to have them better suit the needs of the new bilingual reform, it should be taken into account that the so-called democratic management that brought more transparency in the assignment and the transfer of the teachers is seen as an important gain. Again, communication around new measures will be important to get broad acceptance. 10. The study also revealed, although in a very limited sample of schools, how many teachers were proficient in the national language of the school environment in which they teach. The vast majority of teachers (84.9%) said they had good command of the national language of the school environment. Fifteen percent do not speak the local language. These are often young teachers whose first assignment is in a rural school.

5.2 Recommendations 1. It seems technically feasible to take the linguistic factor into account in the practices and procedures related to the assignment of teachers and the management of teacher mobility. It was thus proposed to add a field to MIRADOR so that the teachers can report their skills in national languages. However, this self-declaration will not be sufficient. Language tests should be considered. This test could be done upon entry to the teacher training center for student teachers. Other solutions have to be found for teachers already in service. 2. It would be necessary to see whether the linguistic factor can be introduced into mobility management so that a vacancy in a given school can only be filled by a teacher who is proficient in the national language chosen by that school. 3. Mobility will remain a right for all teachers. In particular, "social cases" cannot be called into question. However, this study has shown several avenues for proposing work and living conditions to teachers that make them stay in their schools and allow continuity for teaching in national languages. Proper pre-service training will facilitate this new challenge. The same applies to the provision of textbooks, guides and other teaching and learning materials. Particular attention should be paid to teachers working in remote areas. 4. The importance of good communication about the National Reading Program and especially on the bilingual approach based on national languages was regularly brought up in the questionnaires and interviews as a key element for program success – and also retention of and support for teachers. Support for the program will be strengthened and teaching and learning supported when school directors, teachers and parents are confident about the benefits of the approach. It involves awareness raising about the benefits of teaching reading

skills through languages that are already mastered by children when they enter school. It also involves the fact that transferring these new reading skills to other language such as French will be easier. 5. The support of teachers' unions is particularly important in managing teacher mobility issues. They should be a key target of communication activities. 6. As a next step for the LPT program, the data from the teacher mobility study will be used to inform program implementation and to support the MEN in revising policies related to teacher assignment to the early grades. A guidance note was developed to describe next steps and guide collaboration with the MEN. This note recommends the following: - further clarify the process and procedures used at IEF level and by school directors to assign teachers to the CI classes covered by LPT for the school year 2017/2018; - capitalize on the findings of the teacher mobility study and other related studies available; - draft strategic orientations, in collaboration with the MEN (HR DIrectorate, DEE, DFC, IA and IEF): to guide assignment of teachers, regulate mobility, facilitate the selection of teachers best suited for early grade reading instruction and ultimately reform pre-service teacher training based on the new needs of the reading reform and the bilingual approach.

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Bibliography  ZARATE, Geneviève. La mobilité transnationale en éducation : un espace de recherche. In: Revue française de pédagogie, volume 129, 1999. L'école pour tous: conditions pédagogiques, institutionnelles et sociales.  Ministry of Education, Guide pratique sur la carrière de l’enseignant, Dakar, 2003.  Ministry of National Education, Direction of Human Resources, Guide pratique du mouvement des personnels enseignants, Dakar, 2016.  Ministry of National Education, Lettre de politique générale pour le secteur de l'éducation et de la formation, Dakar, 2013. http://www.education.gouv.sn/root fr/upload_docs/Lettre 20de 20Politique 20Generale 20pour 20le 20Secteur 20de 20l'Education 20et 20de 20la 20Formation 202012.pdf  UNESCO : Rapport mondial de suivi sur l’éducation, 2016. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002437/243713F.pdf  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002437/243713F.pdf  Bruno Maurer, Les langues de scolarisation en Afrique francophone: Enjeux et repères pour l'action, General report, 2010. http://www.bibliotheque.auf.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=431  PASEC, CONFEMEN, PASEC2014 – Performances du système éducatif sénégalais: Compétences et facteurs de réussite au primaire. Dakar, 2016. http://www.pasec.confemen.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/RapportPasec2014_FR_BD1.pdf  Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et de la Transparence-EF 2013- 2025

6.2 List of tables Table 1: Theoretical sample Table 2: Achieved sample Table 3: IEF of practice and Regions of origin of the Directors Table 4: Years of experience in teaching of the Directors Table 5: Professional diploma of the Directors Table 6: Languages spoken fluently by the directors Table 7: Regions of origin of the teachers Table 8: IEF of practice of the teachers and Regions of origin Table 9: Age and IEF of practice of the teachers Table 10: Age of the teachers and environment of exercise (rural/urban) Table 11: Professional diplomas of the teachers Table 12: Desire to change schools of the teachers

Table 13: Languages spoken fluently by the teachers Table 14: Principles of the directors for the assignment of the teachers in the classes Table 15: Classes maintained by the teachers in 2014 and 2015 Table 16: Reasons for the request for transfer from the Male teachers Table 17: Reasons for the request for transfer according to the Female teachers Table 18: Reasons for departure from the previous school Table 19: Reasons for the request for transfer according to the Directors Table 20: Destination of the teachers according to the Directors Table 21: Destination of the teachers according to the teachers themselves Table 22: Type of schools wished for according to the teachers Table 23: Mobility between Women and Men Table 24: Mobility according to age Table 25: Age and desire for transfer of the teachers Table 26: Retention factors of the teachers according to the teachers Table 27: Retention factors of the teachers according to the Directors Table 28: Deterring factors, motivational factors for teacher mobility Table 29: Types of motivation for continuing in the subsequent classes

6.3 List of graphics Graphic 1: Distribution of the school according to rural/urban zones Graphic 2: Number of classes by school Graphic 3: Age of the Directors Graphic 4: Status of the Directors (Relieved, Non-relieved [Translator’s Note: of teaching duties]) Graphic 5: Desire to change schools Graphic 6: Desire to change schools and status of the director (relieved, non-relieved) Graphic 7: Residential environment of the teachers Graphic 8: Sex of the teachers Graphic 9: Years of experience in teaching Graphic 10: Years of experience in the school Graphic 11: Classes preferred by the teachers Graphic 12: Classes the most requested by the teachers

Graphic 13: The most difficult classes Graphic 14: Desire to change schools of the Teachers and of the Directors Graphic 15: Upkeep and mastery of a language Graphic 16: Other forms of motivation 6.4 Data collection tools Please see ANNEX I.

6.5 Work schedule Dates Places Activities June 12 IEF Kaolack - Meet IEF Head of district Commune - Administration of the interview Guides to IEF Kaolack Commune - Administration of the questionnaires to Directors and Teachers. June 13 IEF Kaolack - Administration of the Guides to BRH IEF Kaolack Commune Commune - Administration of the questionnaires to Directors and Teachers. June 14 Mbirkilane - Rencontre IEF Head of district Administration of Guides to IA/IEF of Mbirkilane (SG) - Administration of questionnaires to Directors and Teachers June 15 Mbirkilane - Administration of Guides to IA/IEF of Mbirkilane (BRH) - Administration of questionnaires to Directors and Teachers June 15 Fatick - Administration of Guides to IA/IEF of Fatick (BRH) -Administration of questionnaires to Directors and Teachers. June 16 Fatick -Administration of Guides to IA/IEF of Fatick (SG and Focal Point Program AT-PNLSen) -Administration of questionnaires to Directors and Teachers. June 17 Kaolack - Start data processing -Administration of questionnaires to a Director (completed poorly originally) June 18 Kaolack Data processing June 19 Fatick - Administration of Guides to IA/IEF of Fatick (IA) -Administration of questionnaires to Directors and Teachers. June 20 Kaolack-Dakar Return to Dakar June 21- Dakar -Input of data 30 - Scheduling an appointment with DRH and Unions July 3 Dakar - Union Individual interview - Union group interview July 5 Dakar - DRH group interview