School Conditions Survey 2016
Ghana, 2016
Get MicrodataIdentification
GHA_2016_MCC-SCS_v01_M
School Conditions Survey 2016
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Ghana | GHA |
Performance Evaluation
The objectives in this ex-post performance evaluation target how the education sub-activity was implemented, if and how it has been sustained, and its perceived outcomes. To meet these objectives, MCC and Social Impact, Inc. (SI), outlined four evaluation questions:
- What are the current conditions of MCC investments made for the education sub-activity? How do the conditions of MCC investments compare to non-MCC-supported sites?
- How did the implementation process and/or post-completion maintenance contribute to current conditions of MCC investments?
- What other factors explain both perceived school-level outcomes and the current conditions of schools?
- What are the perceived outcomes of the investments in school infrastructure?
To answer the evaluation questions, SI supplemented existing data with two distinct but related data collection activities: first, a school conditions survey to answer Evaluation Question 1, and second, cross-case studies to answer Evaluation Questions 2, 3, and 4.
Overall findings show that on average, MCC schools are in better condition than non-MCC schools, while schools in the Southern zone are in better condition, on average, compared to those in Afram zone and Northern zone.
Qualitative data shows that differences in implementation and maintenance practices had an effect on the current condition of schools. Lack of maintenance funding and community buy-in were identified as major barriers to maintenance. Respondents also highlighted misuse of school facilities by community members (across all zones and schools), harsh weather (primarily in Afram and Northern zones, but all school types), and environment (primarily in low scoring MCC schools) adversely affected school conditions. However, PTAs and SMCs in high scoring MCC and non-MCC schools were more proactive in addressing these factors than those at low-scoring MCC schools. The perception across all zones in all study schools was that improvements in infrastructure positively affected enrollment, attendance, completion and learning.
Sample survey data [ssd]
School
Version
Anonymized dataset for public distribution
Scope
| Topic | Vocabulary |
|---|---|
| Education | MCC Sector |
Coverage
Data was collected from schools in the three zones where MCC interventions took place: Afram Basin, Northern Region and Southern Horticulture Zone.
All the schools that had been considered for the MCC education intervention.
Producers and sponsors
| Name |
|---|
| Social Impact |
| Name |
|---|
| Millennium Challenge Corporation |
Sampling
MCC schools: All 221 schools that received MCC funding were included in the study.
Non-MCC schools: All 337 remaining schools that (1) had been considered for MCC funding but didn't receive it and (2) that MiDA could provide names for.
N/A
MCC schools: All 221 schools surveyed
Non-MCC schools: 192 schools out of 337 could be surveyed. This is because many of the schools in the list provided by MiDA were duplicates (already included in the MCC funded list).
N/A
Survey instrument
Quantitative questionnaire: School Conditions Survey
The school conditions survey was a systematic examination of current school infrastructure conditions against international standards, GoG building guidelines, and the MiDA maintenance manual. The enumerators scored different aspects of school infrastructure, including the condition of school grounds, classroom blocks, equipment and furniture, and toilet facilities and polytanks. Ratings of condition were made on a three-point system-poor, average, and good-and each rating was followed up with a photograph of the object being rated.
Qualitative questionnaires: Key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and community score cards (CSCs) were conducted with parents, students, teachers, school leaders or headmasters, district education officers, individuals responsible for operations and management, construction consultants and implementers, MiDA and MCC staff, and a representative from the Ministry of Education. Questions were asked to understand the processes that may have led to the current conditions of school infrastructure, and perceptions of key stakeholders on the relationship between the investments made and school-level outcomes such as enrollment, attendance, completion, and learning.
Data collection
| Start | End | Cycle |
|---|---|---|
| 2016-06-15 | 2016-07-07 | School Conditions Survey |
| 2016-09-19 | 2016-10-21 | Qualitative Interviews |
| Name |
|---|
| TNS Ghana |
N/A
School conditions survey: The team of enumerators and supervisors were trained on the survey instrument in Accra by SI staff and TNS senior management from 8-10th June 2016. During the training, enumerators practiced conducting the survey using tablets. Following the training, there were two days of piloting at schools in urban and peri-urban locations where enumerators were accompanied by the SI team. Each day of piloting was followed by a detailed debrief session where all inconsistencies were discussed and corrected.
Qualitative survey: The qualitative surveys were conducted by two teams. One team was led by the PI for the evaluation who was accompanied by a translator and note-taker. The second team was led by SI's local education expert who was also accompanied by a translator and note-taker. Prior to the interviews, the PI and local education expert met with those accompanying them to discuss and explain the questionnaires. Both teams visited two schools to pilot the school level questionnaires prior to starting data collection.
Data processing
Data cleaning was done for the school conditions survey. This included:
- consistency checks and removing duplicate entries
- coding and labeling variables
- checks on ratings by enumerators
- corrections made to 'Don't Know' ratings where a rating could be given from the photograph
Data appraisal
N/A
Access policy
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Millennium Challenge Corporation
https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/172
Data Access
School Conditions Survey: Public use files, accessible to all
Qualitative transcripts: Not for public use
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Kerry Bruce, Fahmina Rahman, Catherine Ludwig Villada. Social Impact (2017). Education Endline Data (School Conditions Survey).
Contacts
| Name | |
|---|---|
| Monitoring & Evaluation Division of the Millennium Challenge Corporation | impact-eval@mcc.gov |
Metadata production
DDI_GHA_2016_MCC-GEPE_v01_M
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Millennium Challenge Corporation | Review of Metadata |
| Social Impact | Independent Evaluator |
Metadata version
Version 2.0 (March 2017)
Version 3.0 (June 2020). Edited version based on Version 2.0 (DDI-MCC-GHA-SI-EDU-2017-v02) that was produced by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Focused solely on school rehabilitation, the education sub-activity did not include direct services to participants and thus had no program participants per se. However, the entire compact specifically targeted rural farmers and their families. Direct beneficiaries of the sub-activity included students, parents, teachers, and school leaders.
Originally targeting 23 districts, the number of districts was expanded to 30 following a redistricting and creation of new districts. The program was ultimately implemented in 30 districts across the Northern Agricultural Zone (Northern Region), the Afram Basin Zone (Ashanti and Eastern regions), and the Southern Horticultural Zone (Akwapim South, Awutu Senya, Gomoa East, and Gomoa West). These sites were chosen because they had a high percentage of farmers as well as a high percentage of income entering the community as a result of farming.