1. Supported by UNICEF, UNESCO, The World Bank, SERP, MHRD, MWCD, CARE India State Research Partners NIPCCD Guwahati & Andhra Mahila Sabha Hyderabad Quality Variations in Early Childhood Education

2. Overview of presentation Background of the study Design of the Study Objective Introduction Quality variations among ECE Programs Preliminary findings based on pre-test data

3. Background of the study Part of a larger Longitudinal Study which is looking at: (a)Trends in participation in ECE across public, private & NGO sectors. (b)Quality variations in ECE across sector. (c)Impact of quality variations on school readiness of children at age 5 years. (d)Longer term impact of school readiness in terms of primary level outcomes –both cognitive and personal-social.

4. Conceptual Framework Participation in good Quality of ECE: Play way method, interactive & age-appropriate learning opportunities Better attendance & participation in ECE programs Improved school readiness skills & concepts: cognitive, language, socio-emotional, physical Better utilization of primary schooling opportunities through better attendance & participation Better primary level outcomes in term of retention, attendance, achievement & social adjustment

5. Baseline of 3 ½ - 4 ½ year olds on school readiness skills & socio-emotional behavior Pre-test Tracking of Attendance & Observation of quality of ECE program, to estimate ‘dosage’ of ECE Quarterly Tracking Impact assessment through Post-test of cohort on school readiness skills & socio-emotional behavior, after a year of ECE intervention. Post-test Quarterly tracking to record Attendance & observe quality of classroom teaching learning in primary grades (1,2 & 3) to control for school factors Medium term Impact Assessment through annual age appropriate learning achievement & personal social behaviour assessment on completing ages 6, 7 & 8 Follow up in primary school Design of the study

6. Sample STATES: 3 (Assam, Andhra Pradesh & Rajasthan) DISTRICTS: 6 ; 2 districts per state. SITES: 9 villages & 1 urban site with 2000+ population per district, to ensure variance in provisions. CHILDREN: 50 children (3 ½ - 4 ½ year olds) per village planned from household lists, but actual numbers changed in field. ECE CENTRES: Children ‘followed’ to select ECE centers where they were actually ‘participating’, and were not just ‘enrolled’

7. Objective of phase 1 analysis To study variations in quality in ECE in terms of content and method used, as observed across public, private and NGO programs.

8. Categories of ECE programmes studied Selected Anganwadi centre (AWC): ECE Centers run under Government's Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). Only centres found functioning with children were included in sample, with at least 5 sampled children of required age participating. Private preschool (PP): Preschool sections like nursery, LKG, UKG, run as part of private low cost primary schools. Known practice centre (KPC): a low cost ECE program, other than AWC & Private school, which is ‘known’ as an innovative program and is available only on a small scale.

9. What are we assessing as quality of program through ECEQAS ? Infrastructure & Materials: Physical infrastructure Learning and play materials Class composition Program Quality: Meal time & Self help skills Language & Reasoning Experiences Creative activities Fine &Gross motor skills Social development Teacher disposition Scores converted out of 10 for every domain

10. Quality variations among ECE programs Preliminary findings based on pre-test data

11. Govt ECE Centres Private Preschools Known ECE practice Centre Govt primary school Total Andhra Pradesh 54 (42.5%) 13 (10.2%)6 (4.8)127 Assam107 (91.5%)10 (8.5%)00117 Rajasthan10 (18.6%)33 (61%)9 (16.7)2 (3.7%)54 Total171 (57.4%)97 (32.6%)22 (7.4%)14 (4.6%)298 Steady Expansion of private preschools ‘Underage’ children attending government primary school; may not be registered Distribution of Centers, by types

12. Infrastructure, materials & classroom composition

13. Physical Infrastructure Toilets & clean drinking water – No toilets in 83% AWC & 77% KPC whereas in 78% PP toilets are in use – Clean covered drinking water available in 59% AWC & KPC whereas it is in 83% PP Classroom space & cleanliness – Enough space for conducting activities in 51% AWC, 59% KPC & in only 37% PP – 46% AWC were littered or had unclean seating arrangement; whereas 72% PP & 77% KPC had clean classrooms Private Preschools give priority to clean and good building & infrastructure

14. Availability of outdoor equipment – Overall 50% centres have space but limited or no equipment for outdoor play Availability of indoor material & its use – Some indoor material present in 24% PP, 64% AWC & 77% KPC – Material used in classroom by all children in only 4% PP, 24% AWC & 55% KPC Availability of play & learning aids Known ECE practices were better equipped with learning & play materials, specifically indoor manipulative material

15. Categories comparable on domain of class composition Availability of teacher >90% times teacher found present in class across categories Age wise composition of class In 6% AWC, 32% KPC & 43% PP Student teacher ratio More than 40:1 in 33% PP classrooms whereas 68% KPC & 20% AWC had 25:1 ratio Class composition

16. Content of programme

17. Known practice centres provide most opportunities & private school least. AWC score better due to focus on song & rhymes Listening opportunities for children No opportunity except instructions in 32% AWC & PP Specific listening activities planned in 96% KPCs Opportunities to speak & social interaction Children encouraged to talk & interact in 59% KPC & 43% AWC; children not allowed to speak, except when asked a question in 80 percent PPs! Activities for development of speaking skills No planned activity in more than 45% AWC & PP; in 86% KPC activities are planned 11% across categories of ECE centres had children who did not understand teacher’s language Language development experiences

18. Private preschools & AWC focus on formal education & rote memorization! Concept formation No opportunity/activity in 87% PP & 66% AWC; whereas 72% KPC provide materials & conduct activities Development of Cognitive skills No activities for dev of high order skills in 93% PP & 77% AWC; observed in 59% KPC Formal education & rote memorization common in 88% PP, 73% AWC & 32% KPC Opportunities for cognitive development

19. Known practices provide most opportunities for motor development; but focus is on fine motor skills Outdoor activities Conducted in 15% AWC, 18% PP & 23% KPC Activities for fine motor development No opportunities in 95% PP & 77% AWC but in 45% KPC given priority Fine & gross skills

20. Known practice provide better opportunities for creative activities Art/craft activities No art/craft activities in 68% AWC & 80% PP; activities conducted in 68% KPC In PP 80% of time children told exactly what to draw! Creative activities

21. ‘Known practice’ provide a better environment for social development in children Opportunity to learn to share & help No activity in ½ of AWC & PP but in 32% KPC specific activity conducted Free play No free play in 64% AWC & 75% PP; whereas in 68% KPC free play a major component Social Development

22. Categories of ECE comparable on this domain with private preschools leading Sanitation Children in 76% PP, 68% KPC & 51% AWC habitual to washing hands Personal grooming 75% teachers at PP give priority; but 45% AWW & KPC teachers do not pay attention Meal time & self help skills

23. Proportionate time on Task in ECE ActivityAWS ( Widespread) PRIVATE (Widespread) INNOVATIVE (Scarce) Developmentally appropriate activities like language, cognitive, social, creative activities. Low Medium Rhymes and songsHighMediumHigh ConversationMediumLowMedium Formal TeachingHigh Routine ActivityHigh Unplanned PlayLow No ActivityHighMedium

24. OpportunitiesAWS ( Widespread) PRIVATE (Widespread) INNOVATIVE (Scarce) Learn to shareLow Think and answerMedium Express curiosity and ask questions. Low Learn to wait for turnMediumHighMedium Play/work with other children Low Medium Rote MemoryHigh Medium

25. Physical infrastructure important, but not significant for quality of ECE program; availability of learning & play aids significantly associated Relationships between quality, infrastructure & learning aids

26. Teacher Factors

27. No significant variation observed across categories of ECE centres Sensitivity & awareness towards gender 96% of KPC, 74% AWC & 57% PP teachers gender sensitive Quality of teacher-child interaction Teachers in 68% PP, 58% AWC & 32% instruct children & limited their participation Teacher’s disposition

28. Teacher’s perceptions on ECE Almost all teachers think ECE important for young children Reasons given – Get Habituated for primary school, Foundation for grade 1 – Over all development – Learn good habits, become smart & confident. – Learn Songs, stories, rhymes – Development of social skills & mingle with others Anganwadi Cared for at ECE centre Identify animals, birds, letter etc Discipline Sit for long time at a place Talk freely Habitual to separation from mother Known Practice Learn by doing Interested in school Recognise alphabets Holistic development Respect for elder Joyful learning Free conversation Private Preschool Learn to read & write Write alphabet Good teaching in private school Discipline Follow rules

29. Parent’s Perceptions Parents send their children to ECE centres to prepare them for formal school & learn the required skills for class 1

30. Parent’s Perceptions Scope of improvement in learning possible in every category Learning a concern for all parents AWC lack physical facilities & need improvement according to parents Quality & attendance of teacher a concern among AWC parents Food not provided for in KPC parents: advocate for provision for mid meals

31. Anganwadi Limited infrastructure & play & learning aids; Mixed age group of children with appropriate student teacher ratio; Formal teaching with some opportunity for free play, song & rhymes, creativity & social interaction. Private Preschool Relatively better infrastructure but very less or no learning aids; Homogenous group of children with very high student teacher ratio; Fixed weekly schedule supervised; Formal teaching with rote memorization. Innovative ECE practice Limited infrastructure; good contextually relevant play & learning aids; Flexible weekly & monthly curriculum plans; Age appropriate planned activities for development of concepts, language, social skills, fine & gross motor skills & creativity. Emerging Models of ECE provisions

32. Implications Highs and Lows!!: Most children attending ECE programmes; but not getting developmentally appropriate curriculum. Focus on rote memorization. Private preschools expanding: considered as the place ‘where learning & teaching happens’ by community; but actually lack in terms of quality & content!! Need for community education to determine parental choice and influence quality of private preschools. ‘Known practices’ emerge as better practices due to planning, supervision & on site support for teachers; tips for the system. Physical infrastructure, though important component for attracting parents, is not as significant as learning & play aids in determining quality.

33. Implications Known practices also lack in certain domains, e.g. mealtime & self help skills; outdoor play; need to emphasize holistic curriculum. Outdoor space available but no play equipment for gross motor skills. Teacher training does not emerge as significant factor. Possibly a reflection of the duration, quality and content of training.eg AW training. Need to plan more comprehensively for content and quality in terms of training, materials, space and teacher.

34. Further Analysis: The Way Ahead …… After post test: Estimation of immediate impact of quality of ECE of one year duration (ECEQAS Scores) on School readiness scores of 5 year old children. Identification of ‘quality elements’ that have proportionately more significant impact. Understand the household determinants of school readiness. Estimate contribution of teachers’ characteristics to the quality of ECE content and method. After annual follow up at primary stage: Assess the extent to which impact of school readiness levels is sustained on primary level outcomes. What is the immediate impact at entry to formal school and how far is it sustained along the primary stage in terms of primary level outcomes?