Malawi

Literacy Boost 2009

Year 1 Report

Amy Jo Dowd Karen Wiener Francis Mabeti 1 April 2010

© 2010 Save the Children

- 2 -

Executive Summary In Malawi in 2009, the Save the Children Basic Education Team followed the reading skills development of 234 Standard 2 and 222 Standard 4 pupils in Literacy Boost and Comparison schools during the school year. These children were given assessments of concepts of print, familiar word reading, and text reading for fluency, accuracy and comprehension. Among the finding this report highlights are: • For standard 2 students, this year’s Literacy Boost implementation did not realize hoped for

demonstration of strength relative to the comparison group for concepts about print and vocabulary. However, by the end of the school year, significantly fewer Standard 2 students had zero scores in reading fluency, accuracy and comprehension, supporting the conclusion that Literacy Boost is supporting Standard 2 pupils to demonstrate progress in reading and comprehending connected Chichewa text.

• Among a smaller group of standard 2 students whose homes were visited, we find three points of preliminary evidence of Literacy Boost parent workshop and Book Bank impact:

1. those children whose parent attended a Literacy Boost workshop demonstrated significantly greater vocabulary gains than those whose parents did not attend;

2. the workshop effect for children was greater (although non-significantly) for those whose parents were illiterate; and

3. those children who brought home and read Literacy Boost Book Bank books demonstrated significantly greater vocabulary gains than those who did not.

• For Standard 4 students, Literacy Boost supported significantly greater learning scores and gain across the school year in Chichewa fluency, accuracy, and comprehension, and in English vocabulary, fluency, accuracy and comprehension. Literacy Boost is supporting Standard 4 pupils to demonstrate significant reading progress in both Chichewa and English.

In this first year of Literacy Boost intervention, children have made demonstrable significant gains during a single school year, whether moving out of the group of children unable to read at all, or beginning to read with enough fluency and accuracy for comprehension. These data offer evidence that Literacy Boost, built upon a half-year Save the Children sponsorship programming base, has achieved a significant impact on children’s reading skills at the junior primary level. Troublesome, however, is the relative lack of Chichewa word-level skills among Standard 2 children and the low English skills – the text-level skill of comprehension in particular – for Standard 4 children who are facing this language of instruction in 2010. We are onto something, but Literacy Boost Year 2 in Malawi needs to be one of consolidation and strengthening. The Literacy Boost Team, Ministry of Education partners and communities have already gathered to reflect on the year and identify areas of challenge for moving forward: teachers’ consistent implementation through adequate support/supervision; reading camp leader training and support; quality of reading camp activity curriculum; enhanced community sensitization meetings and Literacy Boost workshops; enhanced reading and writing materials provision and creation efforts; and continued data collection, especially on home literacy survey.

- 3 -

These areas and a plan of action to support these developments are the focus of SC staff action in 2010 with technical assistance visits by SC global staff to incorporate learning from other country sponsorship programs implementing Literacy Boost.

- 4 -

Introduction In 2008, SC began programs in Zomba District in the Southern Region of Malawi. The package of basic education interventions included: community mobilization, teacher training on classroom management and participatory learning, and interventions to enhance child protection and child empowerment. These latter interventions included the formation and training of committees to support orphans and vulnerable children, and to counsel teachers and students on protection issues, such as abuse or ill treatment of children, especially orphans. In order to organize child-driven action at the local level, children’s committees of ten students from each school were also trained in child rights, life skills, HIV/AIDs awareness and child involvement in decision making processes in the school. These programming elements did not commence until May 2008, however, halfway through the January-November school year. In addition, planned teacher training sessions were later replaced instead by Ministry of Education (MOE) sessions on the new primary education curriculum. While this first year of sponsorship action laid the groundwork and relationships with communities and teachers on which Literacy Boost built, the activities did not significantly impact children’s reading. In 2009, Save the Children extended their sponsorship interventions in Malawi with a pilot effort called Literacy Boost. This program seeks to strengthen children’s reading ability through both community and teacher-focused elements. On the community side, Literacy Boost brings literacy more strongly from the school into children’s villages and homes. Community mobilization was complemented by reading awareness and materials creation workshops, as well as reading camps and book banks established in villages surrounding the schools. All of these program elements gave children greater opportunity to learn and practice literacy skills in daily life. For teachers, support in classroom management and participatory teaching were expanded with sessions featuring how to teach the five key reading skills (letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension) in the Malawi National Curriculum and how to follow learners’ progress in developing these skills by using formative assessment. This program is an example of evidence-based practice. The Save the Children Sponsorship Basic Education Team uses the assessments and surveys reported on here to ensure that Save the Children Sponsorship Basic Education Program delivers initiatives informed by ongoing evidence of progress, or lack thereof. Save the Children supports children to learn and develop to their full potential, and conducts this data collection and analysis to maximize investment toward that goal. This report therefore first presents results from Literacy Boost and comparison schools, then reveals some of the uses of literacy in the household and their relationship to learning in 2009 among a subsample of standard 2 children involved in the Literacy Boost. Each of these analyses holds important implications for Literacy Boost in its second year of implementation in Malawi.

- 5 -

Methodology The sampled schools come from an area of 55 schools in Traditional Authority (TA) Chikowi defined by Save the Children in 2008 to become sponsorship supported schools over a period of years. The 2008 sponsorship schools were selected in one of the seven zones in that TA, St Martins, to consolidate implementation of sponsorship across this rural area and to match decentralized governmental support structures based in each zone. In February 2009, data was collected in nine schools in St Martins Zone in which Save the Children implemented sponsorship interventions during half of 2008 and Literacy Boost in 2009. Data was also collected in 8 comparison schools drawn from among the remaining zones in that TA using a stratified random sampling based on enrolment and geographical location (rural, urban, or semi urban). The 2009 comparison group therefore consists of 8 schools from outside St. Martins Zone slated for sponsorship support later this decade.

Learner Data Twenty Standard 2 learners (10 boys and 10 girls) and sixteen Standard 4 learners (8 boys and 8 girls) were randomly selected from attendance registers at each of the schools. A total of 612 learners were assessed at baseline from Standards 2 and 4: 340 Standard 2 learners (178 boys and 162 girls) and 272 Standard 4 learners (136 boys and 136 girls). Curriculum-based assessments in English, Chichewa, and Mathematics developed in partnership with the Malawi Institute of Education and American Institutes for Research were administered. In addition, children answered questions about their lives and homes, and Standard 2 students were asked to demonstrate their mastery of concepts about print.

Comparability on Contextual Factors Among pupils assessed and interviewed, 324 attended the 9 schools where SC implemented the Literacy Boost intervention in 2009; an additional 288 students attended the 8 comparison schools nearby in which there was not such programming. To establish the viability of the comparison of these children’s progress during the school year, we use interview data to consider the context in which the children live and any differences between the intervention and comparison group. While there are some small differences between the average values by groups in Table 1, none are statistically significant. Table 1. Average values of contextual factors by intervention group Variable Comparison Literacy Boost % of guardians who earn a living by farming 82% 82% Number of meals eaten per day 2.2 2.2 % who had breakfast that morning 33% 33% % of children who do chores before school 93% 91% % of children who do chores after school 88% 90% % of homes that have books 23% 18% % have a guardian who reads 55% 51% % of homes that have a television 12% 8% % of homes that have electricity 5% 4% % homes made of bricks 69% 65% % homes with iron roof 43% 44% % homes with cement floors 23% 22%

- 6 -

The homes and children in the Literacy Boost and comparison schools reflect an overall low level of socio-economic status. The families are engaged predominantly in farming, children eat 2 meals a day, and very few have books, televisions, or electricity. These data support the notion that SC has begun its programming in Zomba by targeting those in great need. Further, there is not evidence that the two groups differ on these contextual factors and therefore offer a viable comparison in this study.

Comparability of learners by group on baseline scores To further investigate the comparability of these school groups, we consider the pretest status between them across all elements of the assessment. The assessment included Concepts about Print (CAP, Standard 2 only) in mother tongue of Chichewa, as well as reading single words, reading connected text, and comprehension in first Chichewa, and then in English. We find that students in Literacy Boost and comparison schools began the 2009 school year with statistically equal average scores on every measure in the assessment. Recall that these schools had one half year of SC sponsorship interventions in 2008. Thus, this groundwork prior to Literacy Boost probably did not have a significant impact on reading skills that was measureable at the start of the following school year. However, failing to find a significant difference may not always indicate that there is no difference at baseline. Throughout the paper, we revisit this assumption by sharing pretest scores to evaluate this question skill by skill. Given that the learners in these schools have over 1.5 years SC program supports, it will be especially important to consider not only the students’ posttest status, but also the gain in scores in each type of school. Why? Consider a situation in which Literacy Boost students in Standard 4 began the year reading 30 words per minute and ended it reading 35 words per minute, while their peers in the comparison schools began the year reading 15 words per minute and ended at 30 words per minute. The posttest status tells us that the Literacy Boost students are more fluent readers and we might conclude that these are schools more effective at supporting reading skills development. The gain score, however, shows us that the comparison group made greater gains, demonstrating that these schools were more effective at teaching reading fluency. While the posttest status controlled for initial achievement on the same skill would also offer this view, this strategy has been found to imperfectly control for initial status1 and has the potential to introduce bias via the correlation of reading skills pretest score with unobserved influences on reading skill achievement.2

We therefore present the raw posttest status only as an indicator of the level of skills in each type of school at the end of 2009. Then, to compare the learning progress that students in each school type made during the school year, we use multilevel modeling to account for clustering by school to estimate gain scores, controlling for math and age (as explained below).

1 Rogosa, D. R., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A Growth Curve Approach to the Measurement of Change. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 726-748. 2 Mullens, J. E., Murnane, R. M., & Willett , J. B. (1996). The Contribution of Training and Subject Matter to Teaching Effectiveness: A Multi-Level Analysis of Longitudinal Evidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40(2), 1141-77.

- 7 -

Sample Attrition In October 2009, follow-up data collection assessed the same learners’ scholastic gains for the year. The same protocol and assessment tools used during the February 2009 assessment were also used in the follow-up. Just under 27 percent of the learners assessed at baseline in February were not present during this second assessment. Table 2 details the children’s status by reason, intervention group and sex. Table 2. Children’s posttest status by standard, sex and reason for absence if not present Comparison Literacy Boost Standard 2 Boys Girls Total % Boys Girls Total % Absent 17 22 39 24% 15 18 33 18% Dropped Out 6 3 9 6% 10 7 17 9% Transferred out 2 2 4 3% 1 3 4 2% Present 63 45 108 68% 64 62 126 70%

Total 88 72 160 100% 90 90 180 100% Standard 4 Absent 9 9 18 14% 7 5 12 8% Dropped Out 5 3 8 6% 6 0 6 4% Transferred out 0 3 3 2% 1 2 3 2% Present 50 49 99 77% 58 65 123 85%

Total 64 64 128 100% 72 72 144 100% While the majority of students who were not in school appeared to be absent for just that day, it was known that 6.5 percent (40 students) had dropped out of school and 2.2 percent (14 students) had transferred. Both drop out and absenteeism were higher in Standard 2 than in Standard 4. Reasons for being absent cited during data collection included sickness, lack of interest, and lack of parental control. It is pleasing to note that no girl from the Literacy Boost schools dropped out from Standard 4.

Attrition bias While the percent of children absent from comparison schools at posttest is larger than the percent in Literacy Boost schools, the likelihood of absence is not different between the school types. However, it is significantly strongly related to initial achievement and age. Younger children and those with lower initial achievement are significantly more likely to be absent on the day of the posttest. In this dataset, math scores allow for a control of initial achievement unrelated to language. To ensure that our comparison between the school types is made using the soundest available estimates, we use multilevel modeling and control for initial achievement and age to estimate the significance of differences between the Literacy Boost and comparison school average gain scores. Results The results presented in this paper are for only those learners who have data from both baseline February and follow-up October, 2009 surveys. The term significant is used throughout to represent a statistical finding of significance at p < .05 or lower.

- 8 -

Concepts about Print The learners were asked to demonstrate mastery of ten basic skills related to print, such as how to open a book, which direction to read, naming a letter, etc. The Standard 2 students began the year at an average at or just below showing mastery of half of these concepts, and

not statistically different between the groups. At the end of the school year, while Literacy Boost scores were higher on average, the controlled gains show that comparison school students made significantly greater gains on this skill. Because these scores were not different at pretest, these findings suggest that Literacy Boost has not realized support for these children in developing these concepts at the level of that offered in comparison schools.

Chichewa

Reading Chichewa single words correctly Learners were shown a list of 20 Chichewa words that are literally those most used in their Standards 2 or Standard 4 Chichewa Learners’ textbook. The learners were asked to read each word in the list. At pretest, 70 percent of students in comparison schools and 58 percent of students in Literacy Boost schools did not read a single word from their textbooks. At posttest, this percentage is reduced to 22 percent in Literacy Boost schools, but still over half in comparison schools. As reported above, we failed to find a significant difference between these groups in the average most used words scores at pretest. The preponderance of zero scores in comparison schools, however, does suggest that these schools are different when it comes to Standard 2 vocabulary.

Figure 2. Percentage of Standard 2 students Scoring Zero at Pretest and Posttest on Chichewa Most Used Words by School Type

58%

22%

70%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

prestest posstest

Literacy Boost

Comparison

Figure 1. Standard 2 Concepts about Print Pretest, Posttest and Controlled Gain by School Type

5.07

7.04

1.91

4.53

6.42

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

pretest posttest gain

Literacy Boost

Comparison

- 9 -

While pretest scores in Figure 3 are similar, posttest scores vary greatly. Once we control for initial achievement and age, the gain score is significantly higher for comparison schools. Literacy Boost impact is not evident in these gains. Further, reading just above one quarter of textbook words correctly at year’s end is too low. In Literacy Boost schools, we need to make further

progress in helping more students decode familiar words, and assist those in these comparison schools when their schools are included in the intervention zone. Among Standard 4 students asked to read the 20 most used words in their Chichewa textbooks, no significant difference exists at pretest or posttest. Standard 4 students in Literacy Boost schools read an average of 87% of the words correctly, while Standard 4 students in comparison schools read an average of 74% of the words correctly, and after control for initial achievement and age, both groups gained nearly 13 percentage points in this skill during the 2009 school year.

Reading and comprehending Chichewa connected text

Next we turn to reading connected text in Chichewa and consider the number of words read correctly in a minute (fluency), the percentage of words read correctly overall (accuracy), and the percentage of comprehension questions answered correctly. In this assessment, the student reads a text out loud, and the recorder notes where he/she is at one minute, marks each word as correctly read or not, then calculates the percentage of total words read correctly. Finally, the student is asked comprehension questions related to the passage.

The posttest average scores for Chichewa reading fluency in Standard 2 are less than 1 word for comparison schools and 3 words for Literacy Boost schools. Similarly, average accuracy is 13 percent in Literacy Boost schools and 2 percent in comparison schools. On average, these students are struggling to read at all across the board. Because only 10 Standard 2 children (9 percent) in the comparison schools and 42 Standard 2 children (33 percent) in the Literacy Boost schools read any words in a minute, these averages tell us little about the reading skills in this group. The overwhelming majority of Standard 2 students have zero scores on this fluency measure and those for other reading skills. Among the 52 Standard 2 children who did read, their scores range from 1 to 50 words per minute with an average of 8.62 words per minute. This evidence defines a key objective for further intervention: to bring more Standard 2 children into this group of developing readers. Figure 4 presents the extent of this challenge across fluency, accuracy, and comprehension in both school types.

Figure 3. Standard 2 Chichewa Most Used Words Pretest, Posttest and Controlled Gain by School Type

8.42

26.91

13.94

6.5712.13 14.28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

pretest posttest % points gained

Literacy Boost

Comparison

- 10 -

As noted in the discussion of reading most used words, the vast majority of standard 2 students are not able to demonstrate reading skills such as fluency, accuracy, and comprehension at the end of the school year. In Figure 4, we see this was equally true at the start of the year across the school types. By the end of the year, there are significantly fewer Standard 2 students with zero scores in each skill in Figure 4 in Literacy Boost schools. Because these groups are the same at pretest, these findings suggest that Literacy Boost is supporting students to demonstrate some progress in reading and comprehending connected text. More broadly, this finding reveals the need for intensified intervention. Over the course of the Literacy Boost program in Zomba, SC should look to decrease the number of Standard 2 students unable to demonstrate these skills at year’s end, while simultaneously increasing the scores those who do read post.

Figure 4. Percentage of Standard 2 Students Scoring Zero at Pretest and Posttest by Chichewa Reading Skill and School Type.

95%

66%

95%

68%

99%

72%

95% 91% 95% 93% 96% 97%

0%10%20%

30%40%50%60%70%

80%90%

100%

pretest posttest pretest posttest pretest posttest

fluency accuracy comprehension

Literacy Boost

Comparison

- 11 -

Among Standard 4 students in Figure 5, Literacy Boost students began the year reading more fluently than their comparison school counterparts, but not significantly so. At the close of the school year, they were reading 38 words per minute on average and their peers in comparison schools were reading 34 words per minute. Once we control for initial achievement, we see that they also demonstrated significantly greater gains of 12.37 words per minute on average.

Because these two groups were not significantly different at pretest, these findings offer evidence that Literacy Boost supported greater progress in reading fluency for these children.

In Chichewa reading accuracy, Literacy Boost Standard 4 students began the year with greater reading accuracy compared to peers in non-supported schools in Figure 6, but not significantly so. At the close of the 2009 school year, Literacy Boost Standard 4 students read with an average accuracy of over 85 percent of words in connected Chichewa text correctly, while students in comparison schools do so with nearly 75 percent accuracy on average. Controlled gains show that the Literacy Boost students are, on average, making similar but significantly greater progress than their peers. Because these two groups were not significantly different at pretest, these findings offer evidence that Literacy Boost supported greater reading accuracy progress for these children. Figure 7 shows how this greater fluency and accuracy translates into a demonstration of greater comprehension.

Figure 5. Standard 4 Chichewa Fluency Pretest, Posttest Status and Controlled Gain by School Type.

Figure 6. Standard 4 Chichewa Accuracy Posttest Status and Controlled Gain by School Type.

23.93

38.08

12.37

20.51

34.08

10.57

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

pretes t pos ttes t ga in

wpm

Literacy Boos t

Comparis on

70.285.13

11.75

60.6474.69

11.390

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

pretes t pos ttes t g a in

perc

ent

Litera cy Boos t

Com pa ris on

- 12 -

After reading the passage, the Standard 4 learners answered comprehension questions about it. In Figure 7, we see that the increased fluency and accuracy demonstrated by Standard 4 students in Figures 5 and 6 above translated into significantly greater comprehension gains for Literacy Boost students as compared to peers in the comparison schools. They answer nearly three quarters of the questions correctly, at posttest whereas at pretest, this

average was below half. As with fluency and accuracy, the average comprehension gain scores, controlling for initial achievement and age are similar, but significantly greater for Literacy Boost students. As these two groups were not significantly different at pretest, these findings offer evidence that Literacy Boost supported greater reading comprehension for these children.

Similar to the case presented in Figure 4 above for Standard 2 students scoring zero, the averages in Figures 5-7 mask the fact that there are a number of Standard 4 students who did not demonstrate these Chichewa reading skills at the close of the 2009 school year. While substantially fewer than among Standard 2, Figure 8 presents the extent of the challenge by school type for Standard 4.

Figure 8. Percentage of Standard 4 Students Scoring Zero at Pretest and Posttest by Chichewa Reading Skill and School Type.

Figure 7. Standard 4 Chichewa Comprehension Pretest and Posttest Status and Controlled Gain by School Type.

22%

6%

22%

6%

33%

14%

26%

14%22%

13%

32%25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

pretest posttest pretest posttest pretest posttest

fluency accuracy comprehension

Literacy Boost

Comparison

41.72

72.7

20.49

44.24

62.63

19.06

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

pretes t posttes t g a in

perc

ent

Litera cy Boost

Compa rison

- 13 -

At pretest, none of the differences in the percentage of students scoring zero between school types is significant. At posttest, there is a significantly greater percentage of Standard 4 students in the comparison schools who do not demonstrate any fluency or comprehension in their native language at the end of the school year. The 7 percentage point difference in accuracy is not significant. The lack of Chichewa reading skills is of great concern because in Standard 5, Malawian students switch to a focus on developing these skills in English. Table 3 offers an overview combining all of the Chichewa posttest reading scores and controlled gain scores presented in the figures in this section for ease of summary.

- 14 -

Table 3. Summary of Chichewa Reading Scores by Skill and Standard

Literacy Outcome Description Standard

Assessed

Pretest Mean,

Comparison Schools

Pretest Mean,

Literacy Boost

Schools

Posttest Mean,

Comparison Schools

Posttest Mean,

Literacy Boost

Schools

Gain, Comparison

Schools

Gain, Literacy Boost

Schools

Vocabulary Percentage of high frequency textbook words read correctly

2 6.57 8.42 12.13 26.91* 14.28* 13.94

4 63.11 70.06 74.42 87.18* 12.7 12.8*

Fluency

Number of words in a connected text read correctly in a minute

2 0.12 0.14 0.67 3.01* 3.18 4.66*

4 20.52 23.93 34.08 38.08* 10.57 12.37*

Accuracy Percentage of words in a connected text read correctly

2 0.28 1.48 2.31 12.86* 9.38 9.76*

4 60.64 70.2 74.69 85.13* 11.39 11.75*

Comprehension

Percentage of comprehension questions answered correctly

2 0 0.32 1.67 14.24* 12.04 13.41*

4 44.24 41.72 62.63 72.7* 19.06 20.49*

*Statistically significant difference between comparison and Literacy Boost schools, p<.05

From this review of progress in mastering Chichewa reading skills during the 2009 school year, we see that overall, Literacy Boost is supporting the development of Chichewa reading skills among students in Standard 4 to a significantly greater extent than comparison schools that do not yet have Save the Children support. Among Standard 2 students, Literacy Boost is supporting more children to demonstrate some skills, but the very low level of skills among Standard 2 students makes bringing more children out of the “nonreader” category an appropriate focus for 2010 and beyond. In Standard 4, there is evidence as well that there remains great room for improvement at this level of basic education. We turn now to a comparison of English reading skills among these same groups of learners.

- 15 -

English

Standard 2 Learners were shown a list of 20 English most used words (MUW) from their Standard 2 English Learners’ textbook. The learners were then asked to read each word in the lists. Among Standard 2 students, children in Literacy Boost schools could only read 10 percent (or 2) of these words on average, and those in comparison schools could read less than 1 word on average. Figure 9 shows the extent of zero scores for English vocabulary and accuracy among Standard 2 students.

In comparison schools, 87 percent of Standard 2 students and 62 percent in Literacy Boost schools cannot read a single English word from their textbook. Figure 9 reveals the huge challenge ahead in supporting Standard 2 students in learning to decode single words and connected text accurately in this second language. As these two groups were not significantly different at

pretest, these data suggest that Literacy Boost is making strides in getting more children out of the “nonreader” category, but the challenges ahead are large. Since there is so little variation to analyze in Standard 2 English reading scores, we concentrate in the remainder of this section on Standard 4 English vocabulary, fluency, accuracy and comprehension.

Standard 4 This section presents reading pretest and posttest scores and gains, controlling for initial achievement and age, for reading of English words, as well as English connected text fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. These assessments mirrored those used in Chichewa and reported in the section above. Of note, 2009 Standard 4 students who continue to Standard 5 in 2010 are switching to English as a medium of instruction, with lessons and textbooks in English.

Figure 9. Percentage of Standard 2 Students Scoring Zero in by English Reading Skill and School Type

89%

62%

97%82%88% 87%

98% 95%

0%10%20%30%40%50%

60%70%80%90%

100%

pretes t posttes t pretes t posttes t

E ng lish MUW E ng lish a ccura cy

Litera cy Boost

Compa rison

- 16 -

Figure 10 shows that Standard 4 students in Literacy Boost schools read a higher percentage of single words on average at the beginning of the school year, but not significantly so. At the close of the school year, they read 53 percent of these words correctly, while their peers in comparison schools approach 40 percent correct.

Controlling for initial achievement and age, Literacy Boost supported significantly greater gains in vocabulary English with an average of over 16 percentage point gain. Because these two groups were not significantly different at pretest, these findings offer evidence that Literacy Boost supported greater vocabulary progress for these children. However, while Literacy Boost Standard 4 students outperform their peers in these skills, overall, they are

reading only half of these textbook words in this second language. This is particularly worrisome as they head into Standard 5 and have English as the language of instruction. The scores in Figure 11 also reveal greater English accuracy gained over the course of the 2009 school year in Literacy Boost schools as compared to peers in comparison schools. In reading connected text accurately, Literacy Boost students began the year reading just over a quarter of English words in connected text accurately. This was more accurate on average than their peers in comparison schools, but not significantly so. By year’s end, they read with 54 percent accuracy as compared to their peer’s 37 percent accuracy. Literacy Boost students made significantly greater gains on average than did students in the comparison schools, controlling for initial achievement and age. Because these two groups were not significantly different at pretest, these findings offer evidence that Literacy Boost supported greater English reading accuracy progress for these children. Note also that the accuracy gains for both groups are larger than the 11

Figure 11. Standard 4 English Accuracy Pretest, Posttest and Controlled Gain Scores by School Type

Figure 10. Standard 4 English Most Used Words Pretest, Posttest and Controlled Gain Scores by School Type

31.09

53.51

16.4623.55

39.80

14.89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

pretes t pos ttes t ga in

perc

ent

Literacy Boos t

Comparis on

26.24

54.02

18.2025.51

36.58

15.91

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

pretes t posttes t g a in

perc

ent

Litera cy Boost

Compa rison

- 17 -

percentage point gains made in Chichewa. These students demonstrate limited mastery of these English reading skills, but have made comparatively greater gains than those realized in their first language. Next we consider whether these students are reading English fluently and at a pace great enough to allow comprehension. Figure 12 shows that Literacy Boost students began the year reading English more fluently than their comparison school peers by 3 words per minute, a statistically non-significant difference. At the close of the 2009 school year, Literacy Boost Standard 4 read English at a fluency of nearly 28 words per minute on average. Their gain, controlling for initial achievement and age, is significantly greater than their peers in comparison schools, as they improved their fluency by 13 words per minute on average. Interestingly, this average gain is greater than the Literacy Boost students’ average gain in reading fluency in Chichewa (see Figure 4), their first language. In the comparison schools, the fluency gain over the year in the two languages was nearly exactly the same. Because these two groups were not significantly different at pretest, these findings offer evidence that Literacy Boost supported greater English reading fluency progress for these children. Literacy Boost has supported significantly higher accuracy and fluency scores for these children. These students are transferring their vocabulary skills to their second language and increasing both their fluency and accuracy in doing so. But is their comprehension keeping pace?

Figure 12. Standard 4 English Fluency Pretest and Posttest Status and Controlled Gain by School Type

10.78

27.95

13.20

7.31

19.40

10.94

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

pretes t pos ttes t ga in

wpm

Literacy Boos t

Comparis on

- 18 -

Literacy Boost students begin the school year answering fewer comprehension questions correctly than their comparison school peers, but not significantly so. They end answering nearly 15 percent correctly and make gains significantly greater than those in comparison schools. Because the groups were equal at pretest, this evidence suggests that Literacy Boost is supporting greater progress in English comprehension. However, the picture of English

comprehension in Figure 13 reveals the biggest sticking point for Standard 4 students in these rural Zomba schools. The jump from the skills of decoding fluently and with accuracy to the more challenging skill of comprehension in this second language is not yet being made with success. These children answer very few questions correctly on average at pretest or posttest. Overall, these students are making progress in reading English words, but this has not yet translated into comprehension. As we did with Chichewa, Table 4 presents the English posttest scores presented in this section to facilitate summary.

Figure 13. Standard 4 English Comprehension Pretest and Posttest Status and Controlled Gain by School Type.

4.67

14.61

6.475.25

10.20

5.46

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

pretes t pos ttes t g a in

per

cen

t

Litera cy Boos t

Com pa ris on

- 19 -

Table 4. Summary of English Reading Scores by Skill and Standard

Literacy Outcome Description Standard

Assessed

Pretest Mean,

Comparison Schools

Pretest Mean,

Literacy Boost

Schools

Posttest Mean,

Comparison Schools

Posttest Mean,

Literacy Boost

Schools

Gain, Comparison

Schools

Gain, Literacy Boost

Schools

Vocabulary Percentage of high frequency textbook words read correctly

2 2.78 2.32 3.42 9.98* 6.67 8.25*

4 23.55 31.08 39.8 53.51* 14.89 16.46*

Fluency

Number of words in a connected text read correctly in a minute

4 7.31 10.77 19.4 27.95* 10.94 13.2*

Accuracy Percentage of words in a connected text read correctly

4 21.5 26.42 36.58 54.02* 15.91 18.2*

Comprehension

Percentage of comprehension questions answered correctly

4 5.25 4.66 10.2 14.61* 5.46 6.47*

*Statistically significant difference between comparison and Literacy Boost schools, p<.05 From this review of progress in mastering English reading skills during the 2009 school year, we see that overall, Literacy Boost is supporting the development of these skills among students in Standard 4 to a significantly greater extent than comparison schools that do not yet have Save the Children support. Among Standard 2 students, while Literacy Boost is promoting progress, very few Standard 2 students demonstrate any of these skills in English reading. In both Standard 2 and Standard 4, there remains great room for improvement.

- 20 -

Household Literacy Environment Follow-Up Study The purpose of the Household Literacy Environment Follow-Up Study was to examine:

(1) whether there have been any changes over time in how reading is used in the home environment,

(2) what factors in the household environment are associated with participation in Literacy Boost,

(3) what factors in the household environment are associated with academic gains among Standard 2 children, and

(4) whether participation in Literacy Boost is associated with academic gains among Standard 2 children.

Research Design Site and Sample Data for the Household Literacy Environment Follow-Up Study were collected in November, 2009, from the eight Literacy Boost schools in St. Martin’s Zone. Of the 96 Standard 2 children who had been randomly selected for participation in the Home Environment Baseline Study, 91 were still in school at the time of follow-up. For those who left school, the reasons cited include: parental movement to a new village, lack of encouragement for school attendance, harassment by classmates, and absolute poverty. The homes of each study child were revisited, and the individual who had completed the questionnaire at baseline was interviewed again. If he or she was not present, the most senior and literate individual present was interviewed. Only 51 (or 56 percent) of respondents were the same individual interviewed at baseline, which will be referred to as the “matched sample”. Because so few respondents were the same, it limits the ability to compare the attitudes and behaviors of respondents between baseline and follow-up. Sixty-three percent of those interviewed were mothers, 20 percent were fathers, 12 percent were grandparents, and the remainder represented sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, and step-parents. Methods and Data Analysis At each child’s home, the research team reminded the family of their participation in the baseline study and asked for their assistance again. Once consent was given, respondents were asked questions regarding their reading and writing attitudes and habits, their interactions with the study child, and the household’s participation in Literacy Boost workshops and reading camps. Questions about their household and belongings and the family’s educational history were not asked again as there would have been little to no change. All questions were asked in Chichewa by the Save the Children Education Field Advisor who assisted at baseline. While most data analyses included the reporting of simple descriptive statistics, multiple and logistic regression analysis (with random effects to model that students were nested in schools) were also used to model the association between different household variables, Literacy Boost participation, and literacy growth. The child’s sex and age were significant predictors of Literacy Boost participation and learning, and thus were controlled for in all models. Socio-economic status was never a significant predictor and thus was not.

- 21 -

Two indicators were used to measure a child’s literacy abilities: percentage of most used Chichewa words for Standard 2 (as described above, but henceforth termed “reading”) and conceptions about print (CAP) scores, presented as number of questions correct out of ten. These indicators were chosen because they show the most variability among Standard 2 students, who, as noted above, tended to overwhelmingly score zero on many assessments. It should be noted that most ‘learning’ discussed in this report is discussed in terms of gains throughout the school year, without regard for how well the child performed at baseline. At baseline, children in this sample read an average of 9.8 percent of the word list correctly (approximately two words), and gained an average 18.92 percentage points throughout the year. For CAP, children scored an average of 5.22 at baseline, and gained an average of 2.03 by follow-up. Only 77 of the original 99 children participated in the follow-up assessments. Children who were not present for the posttest were significantly more likely to be female, older, have a lower socio-economic status, and, interestingly, score more highly on the pretest than those who did take the posttest (18.33 percent of words correct compared to 7.83). The small sample size of the Household Literacy Environment Follow-Up Study limits the generalizability of findings. 3. Attitudes and Perceptions of Literacy What are respondents’ attitudes toward and perceptions of reading and writing? During the baseline study, respondents were read a series of statements about literacy and asked to indicate if they agree or disagree. During the follow-up study, those statements for which there had been response variation at baseline were asked again. Two additional statements—about the quality at their child’s school—were added. The results are shown in Table 5.

- 22 -

Table 5.

What are family members’ attitudes toward literacy?

Percent who

agreed, Baseline

Percent who agreed,

Follow-up The teacher is the only person responsible for teaching children how to read. 48% 54%

I do not know how to help my child learn to read. 51% 34%

It is difficult for someone like me to help my child learn to read. 52% 42%*

It is not worth teaching some children to learn how to read. 10% 15%

I feel confident I can help my child learn to read. 73% 63%*

Children should learn to read from their older siblings or cousins. 96% 99%

(Study child) likes to read. 84% 73%

I am happy with how much my child is learning to read at school. -- 95%

The teachers need to do a better job teaching my child. -- 80%

*Statistically significant change, matched sample, p<.01

There were many changes in attitudes between baseline and follow-up samples. However, some of these changes were not in a desirable direction, and only a few were statistically significant. Respondents were less likely to report that they did not know how to help their child learn to read and that it was difficult for them to help their child learn to read. In contrast, however, fewer reported that they felt confident in helping their child learn to read. Is there a relationship between parental attitudes and participation in Literacy Boost? Overall, respondents’ participation in Literacy Boost workshops and their children’s participation in the reading camps bear little relationship to the attitudes of respondents. Parents who said that their child likes to read, at baseline, were more likely to send their children to the reading camps (OR=3.43, p=.097), a finding that was still only moderately significant at follow-up (OR=2.85, p=.066). In addition, at follow-up, those who were happy with how much their child was learning at school were also more likely to send their children to the camps (OR=5.29, p=.088). Is there a relationship between parental attitudes and gains in children’s literacy? There are several significant relationships found between parental attitudes at follow-up (but none at baseline) and a children’s literacy growth throughout the 2009 school year, the findings of which are presented in Table 6.

- 23 -

Table 6.

Predictor When Impact Magnitude Level of Significance

I do not know how to help my child learn to read.

Follow-up Reading -12.96 p<.05

It is difficult for someone like me to help my child learn to read.

Follow-up Reading -11.41 p=.059

I feel confident I can help my child learn to read.

Follow-up Reading +15.27 p<.05

The teachers need to do a better job teaching my child.

Follow-up Reading +13.76 p<.05

It is not worth teaching some children to learn how to read.

Follow-up CAP 2.03 p=.064

The first four findings may collectively illustrate the importance of parental involvement for learning how to read. Those parents who felt unable to help their children learn had children with lower gains, and it is likely that these sentiments translated into less parental involvement in the home. Being aware and critical of the amount of learning occurring in school is another form of parental involvement. The final finding—greater gains in CAP for those whose parents felt it was not worth teaching children to learn how to read—may be the result of an intermediary variable not measured. The findings about parental attitudes have important implications for Literacy Boost as it moves forward. Parents that do not know how to assist their children in learning how to read and write, as would be expected, have children who perform more poorly. Save the Children can provide an important service to these families by continuing to provide literacy assistance to help children whose parents are unable to do so themselves. Pointing out to parents that encouraging reading camp attendance is one way they can help their child learn to read should be a continued focus of the Literacy Boost workshops. Another is to work with parents on the myriad ways in daily life that they can support the important facets of their children’s oral language development–from phonemic awareness to vocabulary and confidence in self expression–regardless of their own ability to read. 4. Levels of Literacy in the Home and Reading Habits What levels of literacy and occurrences of reading are children surrounded by? In the matched sample, 63 percent of interviewees reported that they could read and write a simple sentence at follow-up, whereas for the same group as baseline, 61 percent could read and 54 percent could write. The lack of consistency across time in the interviewees’ responses is a concern about the validity of the information they provided.

- 24 -

Respondents were again asked questions about what, why, and the frequency of their reading activities, which are reported below. Respondents could report more than one answer for what and why they read. Table 7.

There were no significant differences between baseline and follow-up. The other items that respondents reported reading include song books for church, dictionaries, and biscuit wrappers.

Table 8.

There were significant changes in the number who reported reading to learn and those who said they read for spiritual growth. In the last week, respondents reported reading on an average of 2.1 days, with over a quarter not reading any day in the previous week. Is there a relationship between the literacy levels and habits of household members and participation in Literacy Boost? Only two relationships were found between respondents’ education and literacy levels, as shown in Table 5. However, the odds ratios are slight and were only approaching significance. Of greater importance is that parents who could read or write were no more likely to participate than those who could not. This may illustrate that even those who were not literate felt that participation in Literacy Boost was important for them and their child, an encouraging finding. There were also only a few significant relationships between what and why respondents read and Literacy Boost participation, also shown in Table 9.

What do respondents read?

Feb Nov

Religious books 60% 64%

Learners’ books 32% 33%

Newspapers 31% 9%

Non-religious Books 9% 9% Do not read anything although know how to 7% 7%

Pamphlets 1% 7%

Why do respondents read?

Feb Nov To learn/keep up to date on current affairs 52% 33%*

For religious education/spiritual growth 34% 44%*~

To relax/for fun 18% 20%

So as not to forget 8% 1%

To help child with school 2% 15% *Statistically significant, matched sample, p<.01 ~Approaching significance, matched sample, p=.096

- 25 -

Table 9.

Predictor When Impact Odds Ratio

Level of Significance

Highest level of education completed by father --- Workshops 1.20 p=.098

Highest level of education completed by mother --- Reading

Camps 1.19 p=.077

Respondent reads non-religious books Baseline Workshops 8.45 p<.05

Respondent reads to help child Follow-up Workshops 70.76 p<.05

Respondent reads to not forget Baseline Workshops 6.42 p=.078 Is there a relationship between the literacy levels and habits of respondents and gains in children’s literacy? There was no relationship between literacy levels of parents and gains in literacy. There were, however, several significant relationships between what and why respondents read and gains in children’s readings grains, presented below. Table 10.

Predictor When Impact Magnitude Level of Significance

Reads religious books Baseline Reading -11.65 p=.073 Reads learner’s books Baseline Reading +22.7 p<.001 Reads learner’s books Follow-up Reading +24.83 p<.001 Reads to help child Follow-up Reading +34.42 p<.001 Reads so as not to forget Baseline Reading +32.81 p<.01 Most of the findings are intuitive, such as the fact that those who read learner’s books, presumably to help their child, had children with higher literacy gains. Reading “so as not to forget” was a response self-generated by many respondents, and may reveal the importance they place on education in general. The finding that reading religious books is related to lower gains was echoed in the findings during baseline. Religious books are often given freely to families by religious organizations, and thus may not reflect parents’ actual interest in reading and writing or even their ability to do so. The implications of these findings for Literacy Boost are again that parental involvement with education may lead to greater literacy gains (although the findings are not causal). Also of interest is that respondents who could not read and write were as likely to participate in Literacy Boost. Again, Save the Children should make sure that the Literacy Boost workshops are also beneficial to those who cannot read or write themselves, and that camp activities—such as bringing home books to read from the book bank—are also beneficial to those children with no one who is literate at home to help them.

- 26 -

5. Interactions with Literacy in the Home What interactions do children have with the literate individuals in their homes? Of those respondents who could read, 66.7 percent reported that they read to their child, compared to 81.2 percent at baseline, a significant difference (p<.01). On average, those parents at follow-up who said they read to their child, reported that they do so for an average of 1.7 days per weeks, with over half reading between 11 and 30 minutes with their child in each sitting. Thirty percent of those who said they read to their child did not read to him or her in the last week. A variety of other activities and interactions were investigated during baseline and follow-up. Table 11 illustrates those findings and some of the changes recorded over time. Table 11.

While fewer respondents reported telling oral stories during follow-up, more reported having an extra learner’s book at home. The change in helping the study child with his or her homework was marginally significant in the matched

sample (p=.084). Literate respondents were also asked again about what they do to assist their child in learning how to read (Table 12). Again, respondents could provide more than one answer. Twenty-seven percent of respondents reported doing some other activity to assist their child. The majority of the “other” responses included encouraging the child regarding school. Table 12.

How do respondents assist children in learning how to read?

Feb Nov

Help with school work 29% 29%

Does nothing to help child 16% 27%*

Make flash cards 0% 2%

Make alphabet charts 0% 4%

Create learning materials 13% 0%

*Statistically significant, matched sample, p<.05

Respondent Activities and Interactions Feb Nov Tell oral stories 63% 54%* Told oral story last week 40% 58% Help with homework 53% 31% Know what is going on in child’s class 51% 32% Have an extra learner’s book 2% 15%* *Statistically significant, matched sample, p<.05

- 27 -

Is there a relationship between interactions with literacy in the home and participation in Literacy Boost activities? Those parents who reported telling oral stories to their child were more likely to have children who attended the reading camps, both at baseline (OR=2.95, p=.064) and follow-up (OR=2.41, p=.095). Curiously, those who reported that their child brought home their learner’s book (at follow-up) were less likely to have children who attended the camps (OR=0.31, p<.05). Is there a relationship between interactions with literacy in the home and a child’s gain in literacy? Table 13 displays the significant findings. Respondents who reported reading to their child (at follow-up only) tended to have children with greater reading gains. Yet the opposite trend was found using CAP scores (at baseline only). Having additional reading materials also appears to be related to improved reading. This highlights the importance of allowing children to bring home their learner’s books, something that only some schools and/or teachers currently allow in Malawi, often due to concern that they will be lost or damaged. It also suggests that the book banks used as part of Literacy Boost have a lot of potential for helping children improving their ability to read. It is worth reinvestigating if, after the logistical bumps have been smoothed, these additional materials prove to be a mechanism for the increased learning seen with Literacy Boost. Table 13.

Predictor When Impact Magnitude Level of Significance

Reads to child Baseline CAP -2.13 p<.05 Reads to child Follow-up Reading +14.63 p<.05 Child brings home learner’s book

Baseline Reading +13.34 p<.05

Child brings home learner’s book

Follow-up Reading +11.39 p=.059

Has extra learner’s book at home

Follow-up Reading +22.53 p<.001

Tells oral stories Baseline CAP -1.60 p<.05 Number of oral stories told last week

Follow-up Reading +4.15 p<.05

Helps with homework Follow-up CAP -1.89 p=.078 The role of oral stories in the home is contradictory. Telling more oral stories might suggest greater involvement of parents in their child’s learning, and thus the occurrence of greater reading gains. It might seem logical that there is no relationship between CAP scores and the telling of oral stories (since by definition, oral stories are ones that are not printed, without covers or pages to turn), but the negative relationship is perplexing. It even holds when controlling for respondent’s ability to read. The negative relationship between helping with homework and CAP gains is equally puzzling.

- 28 -

6. Parent Workshops: A Closer Look Seventy-three percent of respondents attended a workshop for literacy boost, 50 percent of whom were unable to read and write. Of those who attended them, the majority attended only one workshop. There were two workshops, one for sensitization about the reading camps, and the other for generating learning materials (for personal use and to assist teachers). Although not specifically asked, it appears that most parents attended the former. Of those who attended, all but one thought they were useful, primarily because they learned about the reading camps. A few commented that they learned how to make paint and pencils for writing words, and one commented that “the workshops gave me the idea to hunt for old books in order to boost my child’s literacy.” The one respondent who did not find them useful noted that “what transpired there was meant for the literate.” Of workshop attendees, 35 percent report reading more to their child because of the workshops. For those who do not read more, 80 percent said it was because they are unable to read themselves. Only 28 percent reported creating reading materials for their child because of the workshops, although this was mostly because the respondents had attended the reading camp sensitization workshop and not the one on material creation. Those 7 respondents who did create materials reporting making items like pictures with labels, alphabet charts, and short stories. Respondents were asked how they would like to see the workshops changed. While some said there was no need to change, other frequent responses included: (1) parents need to be taught how to read and write as well so they can better help their child, (2) workshops should be more frequent, and (3) parents want to learn how to make reading materials (likely these respondents had attended the first workshop only). But based on their open-ended responses, it appears some parents seemed to be unaware of the workshops and said they had not been invited (one even commenting that perhaps only the educated were asked to attend). Although not directly asked, 25 percent of respondents referenced not knowing about the workshops in their other survey responses. The children of those who attended the workshops were not significantly different in terms of reading abilities at baseline compared to those children of parents who did not attend. Of note, children whose parents attended the workshops showed larger learning gains. On average, these children had gains that were 18.99 percentage points higher for reading than those children whose parents did not attend (p<.01). There was no relationship between CAP scores and workshop attendance.

- 29 -

Figure 14.

13.83

41.05

32.43

8.65

21.11

13.44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% correct

pretest

% correct

posttest

% points

gained

Attended WS

Did notattend WS

While it is possible that this gain is because workshop attendance is a proxy for overall parental involvement, the reading gain persists when controlling for the vast majority of baseline factors such as literacy attitudes, reading to the child, helping with homework, telling oral stories, or owning an extra learner’s book. The workshop effect only completely loses significance (above α=.10) when controlling for parents who reported that: 1) they read so as not to forget and 2) one of the materials they read are learners’ books. As noted, half of those who attended the workshop were unable to read. Looking at literacy subgroups, the workshop effect for children was greater (although non-significantly) for those whose parents were illiterate, as shown in Figure 15. This suggests that the workshops may have indeed played an important role for improving literacy in children.

Figure 15.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Illiterate Parents Literate Parents

Read

ing

gain

s, %

poin

ts

- 30 -

It is crucial to remember that for this and all other analyses in this report, sample sizes were quite small and findings cannot be generalized. Furthermore, workshop attendance was self-selected and obviously prone to bias. Yet the findings are encouraging, and suggest the need for a more full-scale examination of the impact of Literacy Boost workshops, as well as the need to look at the mechanism for how the workshops translated into reading gains for children whose parents could not read themselves. 7. Reading Camps: A Closer Look A total of 76 percent of children attended the camps. Although exact figures were difficult to obtain, their frequency of attendance varied widely from only a couple of instances ever to 3 times a week; 55 percent attended once a week. Nearly three-quarters of children told their guardians about what went on at the camps. Eighty-five percent of guardians felt that the camps were useful, making observations such as:

• the camps helped to improve their child’s performance • the camps helped to improve interest in reading, • the camps supplemented what was learned in school and at the home • the camps incorporated learning with playing.

For those who did not find the camps useful, there were concerns that the camps were beyond the reading abilities of their children or that they were dysfunctional in some way (such as teacher tardiness). Respondents were also asked what they would like to see changed in the camps. The most frequent responses included: (1) there are not enough materials or camp facilitators, (2) camps need to meet more frequently, (3) children should be allowed to bring materials home, and (4) camp leaders are often absent and the schedule is inconsistent. Reading materials from the book banks were brought home by 45 percent of the children who attended the camps. Within the subsample of those who attended the reading camps, those who brought home books had reading gains that were, on average, 16.98 percentage points larger than those who did not (p<.01, see Figure 3). This finding persists even when controlling for baseline literacy attitudes, habits, and interactions. While it may suggest that the book banks are a valuable way to produce learning gains, it might also be a proxy for functional reading camp attendance and is worth further examination.

- 31 -

50

8377

010203040

5060708090

use with parent use alone use with

another child

Perc

enta

ge o

f Chi

ldre

n

Figure 16.

12.33

38.4

31.8

8.38

15.39 14.82

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% correct pretest % correct

posttest

% points gained

Used Book

Banks

Did not use

Book Banks

Respondents were asked about a variety of ways in which the materials might be used in the home. The fact that many children were not bringing home reading materials from the camps suggests that there are still logistical concerns that must be sorted out. Figure 17.

Half of respondents used these materials with their children, usually 2-4 times per week. Sixty-three percent of parents felt the materials brought home were at an appropriate level, whereas the rest did not or were unable to tell. Those respondents who did not use the materials with their child usually did not because he/she was unable to read. Of those children who brought home materials, 83 percent used them alone, usually 2-4 times a week. Those who did not use them alone did not do so

because they could not read the materials by him- or herself. Finally, about three-quarters of children used the reading materials with another child, one of the aims of the reading camps. In half of these cases, the child used these materials with a child

- 32 -

also in Standard 2, while the rest typically used them with a child in an older standard (as high as Standard 7). Of those children who did not attend the camp, failure to attend was due to the following reasons (Table 14). Table 14.

The other reasons cited most often included that the camps were not functioning properly or that the parent did not encourage the child to attend. In one case, the child did not attend because of being reportedly asked to pay mk100 (~$0.69) to attend the camp. There was no difference in the baseline literacy abilities of children of those who attended the camps and those who did not.

Furthermore, there was no association between camp participation and gains for reading or conceptions about print. 8. Implications and Conclusions Those respondents who felt unable to help their child learn to read—and indeed those who reported that they did not (or could not) in practice—tended to have children with lower literacy gains. These findings are not unexpected, as the importance of parental involvement for learning is well known. Yet the follow-up analyses also revealed that participation in Literacy Boost is not limited to only those parents who are literate or already helping their child; in fact, those who do less with their children in the home might be more likely to use these services. This means that the Literacy Boost workshops and reading camps can help to bridge the gap in learning between those children with adequate parental support and those without. It is evident that all parents are keen to see improvement in their children’s ability to read, yet some feel unable to do so. Literacy Boost can tap this desire and provide an initial step toward helping those parents. Further iterations of the program should ensure that they are equally targeting those who are less literate, and providing concrete ways that all parents can help in the home. One such concrete step is encouraging parents to send their children to the reading camps, an approach Literacy Boost already employs. However, this is only fruitful if the reading camps are producing learning gains, and while participation in Literacy Boost workshops is associated with greater reading gains, reading camp participation is not. Further exploration of why these camps are not effective is necessary, although initial reports suggest that some camps may have struggled with organization and consistency.

Why did children not attend the Literacy Boost reading camps?

Child had no time/too busy 10.5%

Camp was too far away 21.1%

Child has no interest 36.8%

Did not know about the camps 21.1%

Other 57.9%

- 33 -

Discussion In this first year of Literacy Boost intervention, children have made demonstrable significant gains during a single school year, whether moving out of the group of children unable to read at all, or beginning to read with enough fluency and accuracy for comprehension. Troublesome, however, is the relative lack of Chichewa word-level skills among Standard 2 children and the low English skills – the text-level skill of comprehension in particular – for Standard 4 children who are facing this language of instruction in 2010. These data offer evidence that Literacy Boost, built upon a half-year Save the Children sponsorship programming base, has achieved a significant impact on children’s reading skills at the junior primary level. However, we have much work ahead and two main questions arise from these findings: How can we make these demonstrated learning gains greater? How can we ensure that such gains are feasible at scale and sustainable? To address the first important question, at the close of 2009, Save the Children staff and partners held a two-day workshop to consider the implementation successes and challenges of Literacy Boost’s first year. The workshop was attended by 25 participants, including 4 Save the Children staff, 10 community mentors (community mentors, who oversee the reading camp leaders, reading camp leaders and community leaders), and 11 Government MOE staff (primary education advisors, head teachers, deputy head teachers, trainer heads, and mentor teachers). Through careful discussion of their experience and feedback from stakeholders with whom they worked, there emerged clear indication of how the group envisions improvement in 2010. In groups they identified the following action areas: • Collaborate with MOE staff to ensure that teachers are consistently implementing and

adequately supported/supervised in their day to day teaching of the 5 key reading skills; • Provide reading camp leaders with additional training in working with groups of children,

and devise a support structure for them to share/solve problems as they arise; • Extend reading camp schedule and quality of camp activity curriculum; • Enhance community sensitization meetings and Literacy Boost workshops; • Enhance reading and writing materials provision and creation efforts; • Continue data collection, especially on home literacy survey The second important question involving Literacy Boost scale and sustainability was also addressed by SC Malawi and Global staff after the workshop noted above. Of relevance here is that SC data collectors conducting the home literacy survey on which the next section reports shared anecdotal evidence that just because we visited them at baseline to ask questions, families realized they should start helping their child to read more, and were doing so! While the community action component of Literacy Boost has many activities aimed at raising this awareness, is it scalable or sustainable? If we take such an effect as part of the intervention, we need to work to ensure that the raised awareness translates into action beyond the families visited in a study to achieve more learning for more children. We also need to think through how this awareness and action can be sustained. The Literacy Boost Team and partners in Malawi has determined that they will continue to implement Literacy Boost in these initial target zones for two additional years. They have agreed that Year 2 (2010) will focus on consolidating these activities, improving their

- 34 -

quality, and consistent implementation. Then, Year 3 (2011) will look to transfer more fully the support given to teachers and community members to local systems of support – both governmental and community-based. This includes zone-based resources such as Primary Education Advisors and Teacher Development Centers, cluster-based resources such as mentor teachers, and more locally-focused groups like School Management Committees and PTAs. This agreement and plan of action will be revisited during periodic technical assistance visits, informed by additional data collection, and in dialogue with MOE and SC global staff to incorporate learning from other country sponsorship programs implementing Literacy Boost. We turn now to the findings of the home literacy environment survey implemented in a subsample of the standard 2 students in Literacy Boost schools.