l3 plus project endline evaluation a final report ...idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/usaid l3...

L3 PLUS PROJECT ENDLINE EVALUATION

A FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO VSO

Jean Pierre Mugiraneza

Consultant

December 2016

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES: The source for all Tables is the 2016 Endline Evaluation ............................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES: The source for all Figures is the 2016 Endline Evaluation ........................... v

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... vii

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 1

2. FINDINGS OF THE DESK REVIEW ....................................................................................... 3

3. EVALUATION DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Evaluation questions .......................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................................. 5

3.2.1 Quantitative Survey of teachers, parents, CHWs and HPs ................................................ 5

3.2.2 In-depth individual interviews with head teachers, NCPD representatives and SEOs ...... 5

3.2.3 Focus Group discussions with parents and children with and without disabilities ............ 5

3.2.4 Quantitative Survey of community members .................................................................... 5

3.4 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.9 Demographic information of respondents ......................................................................... 6

4. MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 8

Objective 1 – Improved quality of teaching for children with special education needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools. ........................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Teachers’ experiences working with children with disabilities before and after the L3 Plus Project ......................................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Views of teachers on the causes of students with disabilities dropping out of school ....... 10

4.3 Views of CHW/HP on the causes of students with disabilities dropping out of school ..... 10

4.4 Teachers’ ability to include children with disabilities in the classroom ............................. 11

4.5 Difficulties teaching children with disabilities ................................................................... 12

4.6 Teaching strategies for CWDs ............................................................................................ 12

4.7 Teachers inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom before and after the L3 Plus Project ............................................................................................................................... 13 4.8 Teachers’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities .............. 14

4.9 Summary of progress towards Objective One .................................................................... 16

iii

Objective 2: Improved care and support for children with special needs through enhanced skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs and NCPD representatives in care and support for children with special needs .................................................................................. 16

4.10 Improved care and support for children with disabilities provided by their parents ........ 17

4.11 Improved care and support for CWD by CHWs ............................................................... 20

4.12 Summary of progress towards Objective Two .................................................................. 23

Objective 3: Improved knowledge, attitude and behaviour amongst community members towards children with special needs. .......................................................................................................... 23

4.13 Community members’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities before and after the L3 Plus project ........................................................................ 24 4.14 Summary of progress towards Objective Three ................................................................ 24

5. THE L3 PLUS PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom ...................................................... 24

5.2 Awareness of the Resource Centres created for L3 Plus .................................................... 26

5.3 Frequency of use of Resource Centre by teachers, parents and CHWs .............................. 27

5.4 Usefulness of the Resource Centre ..................................................................................... 28

5.5 L3 Plus Project Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 28

5.6 Plus Project Relevance ........................................................................................................ 30

5.7 L3 Plus Processes ................................................................................................................ 32 5.8 Sustainability of L3 Plus Project ......................................................................................... 33

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 34

6.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 34

6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 35

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 36

APPENDIX 1: L3+ END-LINE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS ..... 36

APPENDIX 2: L3+ END-LINE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS ....... 44

APPENDIX 3: L3 Plus ENDLINE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ................................................ 52 APPENDIX 4: L3 Plus ENDLINE EVALUATION FGD FOR CHILDREN ......................... 58

APPENDIX 5: L3 Plus ENDLINE EVALUATION FGD FOR PARENTS ........................... 59

APPENDIX 6: L3 Plus Project ENDLINE EVALUATION KII FOR SEOs, HTs, NCPD ..... 62

iv

LIST OF TABLES: The source for all Tables is the 2016 Endline Evaluation

Table 1: Objectives and Indicators of L3 Plus Project from the Project Log Frame ...................... 3

Table 1: Planned Sample Size ......................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Actual Sample Size ........................................................................................................... 6

Table 3: Work experience of teachers and community workers ..................................................... 8

Table 4: Teaching subjects for teachers .......................................................................................... 8

Table 5: Before and after the L3 Plus Project, did you have CWDs in your class? ....................... 8

Table 9: Which of the following is true for your child/children? ................................................. 17

Table 10: Do you know about ways you can care for and support your child with disabilities? . 18

Table 12: Community members’ knowledge, attitude and behaviuor towards children with

disabilities ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 13 Are you aware of the Resource Centres created for the L3 Plus Project? ..................... 26

v

LIST OF FIGURES: The source for all Figures is the 2016 Endline Evaluation

Figure 1: Demographic information of respondents per their gender ............................................. 7

Figure 2: Education level of respondents ........................................................................................ 7

Figure 3: Why do you think children with disabilities drop out of school or never attend school?

....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Causes for students with disabilities dropping out of school ........................................ 11

Figure 5: Is it hard to teach children with disabilities? ................................................................. 12

Figure 6: How would you rate your inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom before

and after your participation in the L3 Plus Project? ..................................................................... 14

Figure 7: How would you rate the education of your child prior to and after the L3 Plus Project?

....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 8: Sources of information about the care and education of their child/children with

disabilities. .................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 9: How would you rate the support your child received from a Health Care Provider? ... 21

Figure 10: How would you rate the support your child received from a Community Health Worker?

....................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 11: How would you rate the support your child received from an NCPD representative? 22

Figure 13: The L3 Plus project helped me to include children with disabilities in my work or to

care and support children with disabilities. .................................................................................. 25

Figure 16: How many times have you used the Resource Centre (Nyamagabe district)? ............ 27

Figure 18: How far do you feel the first objective for the L3 Plus Project was met? ................... 29

Figure 21: How much was the first objective needed in your community? ................................. 30

Figure 22: How much was the second objective needed in your community? ............................. 31

Figure 23: How much was the third objective needed in your community? ................................ 31

Figure 24: Implementation of the L3 Plus project – Teachers’ views .......................................... 32

Figure 25: Implementation of the L3 Plus project – Parents’ views ............................................. 32

Figure 27: The likelihood that the new knowledge and approaches learned through the L3 Plus

Project would continue after the project ended. ............................................................................ 34

vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS CHW : Community Health Worker(s)

CWD : Child/Children With Disability(ies)

EDC : Education Development Centre

FGD : Focus Group Discussion

HP : Healthcare Provider(s)

IEC : Information, Education and Communication

NCPD : National Council of Persons with Disability

PWD : People/Person(s) With Disability(ies)

REB : Rwanda Education Board

SEO : Sector Education Officer(s)

UN : United Nations

UNESCO : United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture

URCE : University of Rwanda College of Education

VSO : Voluntary Service Overseas

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The L3 Plus Endline evaluation was conducted in October 2016. Its primary purpose was to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, process, exit strategy, and sustainability of the project. This evaluation investigated the achievement of the three L3 Plus project objectives: 1. To improve the quality of teaching for children with special education needs at the P1 to P4

levels in mainstream schools. 2. To improve the care and support of children with special education needs through enhanced

skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers (HPs), Community Health Workers (CHWs), and local representatives from the National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD).

3. To improve community members’ knowledge about, and attitudes and behaviours towards children with special needs.

The Endline evaluation used an exploratory evaluation design to collect both qualitative and quantitative data that either directly reported against an indicator of the relevant objective, or provided complementary information to further demonstrate progress. There were 297 respondents including: teachers; parents; children with and without disabilities; Sector Education Offices (SEOs); head-teachers; representatives of the National Council of Persons with Disabilities (NCPD); Community Health Workers (CHW); and, Healthcare Providers (HP). Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS; a thematic approach technique was used to analyze qualitative data. Results of the Endline evaluation reveal that subsequent to stakeholders’ participation in the L3 Plus Project, the following improvements were noted: 1. Quality of teaching of children with disabilities (CWD) as compared to 2015, as reported by teachers and confirmed by other key stakeholders, including parents and children; 2. Care and support for CWD provided by parents, CHWs, HPs and NCPD representatives; 3. Community members’ knowledge about and attitudes towards children with disabilities has improved. Project stakeholders recommended that L3 Plus Project activities be extended to other Sectors and Districts, especially by providing materials and trainings to all categories of community members. Stakeholders also recommended that strategies be adopted to motivate parents to use the Resource Centres established for the L3 Plus project.

1

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Context As stated by UNESCO (2006), nations have a quest to provide learning environments that are economically, socially, culturally and physically accessible for all children. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2008), and the Universal Declaration for Education for All (UN, 1990) state that all children, including those with special educational needs, have a right to formal education. In Rwanda, various policies and laws have been put into place in order to ensure that persons with disabilities (PWDs) are included in the country’s long-term plans. Noticeable efforts have been made to ensure the well being of PWDs. Despite the political will and these initiatives in Rwanda, the demand is still too high and intervention is needed in different sectors including, education.1 The L3 Initiative The Language, Literacy and Learning Initiative (L3) is a five-year program financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by the Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), with technical assistance from Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), International Education Exchange (IEE), Never Again Rwanda (NAR), and Concern Worldwide (CW). The goal of the L3 Initiative, which is scheduled for completion in January 2017, is to collaborate with the Rwandan Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) to strengthen teaching and learning so that children leave primary school with solid literacy and numeracy skills.

The L3 Plus Project The L3 Plus Project was introduced in mid-2015, as a project within the larger L3 Initiative, focusing specifically on children with special education needs. VSO was selected by EDC’s L3 Initiative to undertake a special project within the L3 Initiative focusing on Rwanda Special Needs Education. L3 Plus was delivered by VSO for 18 months, from May 2015 to October 2016 (18 months). The L3 Plus Project had the following three objectives:

1. To improve the quality of teaching for children with special education needs at the P1 to P4 levels in mainstream schools.

2. To improve the care and support of children with special education needs through enhanced skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers (HPs), Community Health Workers (CHWs), and local representatives from the National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD).

3. To improve community members’ knowledge about, and attitudes and behaviours towards children with special needs.

The catchment area for the L3 Plus Project included; three administrative sectors in the District of Nyamagabe: Gasaka; Tare; and, Uwinkingi; and, three administrative sectors in the District of Nyaruguru: Kibeho; Rusenge; and, Mata. Project stakeholders included: teachers; head teachers; children with disabilities; parents and caregivers; Healthcare Providers (HPs); Community Health Workers (CHWs); and, representatives of the National Council of Persons with Disabilities (NCPD).

1 Secretariat of the African Decade of Persons With Disabilities. (2008). Baseline survey on the status of disability mainstreaming in Rwanda. Available on www.africandecade.org.

2

The L3 Plus approach was threefold: 1. Working with 30 target schools to strengthen their capacity to educate children with

disabilities (CWD) by providing basic training and resources to 120 teachers, more advanced training to a cohort of 24 Champion Teachers, and by adapting the L3 teaching strategies so that they would be accessible to children with disabilities in mainstream schools.

2. Creating two Resource Centres, one per district, to disseminate information, for signposting, and to serve as a venue for training sessions for schools and community members.

3. Sensitising community members through seven community theatre performances and five inclusive sports demonstrations delivered by VSO civil society partners.

Monitoring and evaluation practices were carried out throughout the Project, beginning with a rapid assessment conducted in July 2015 to serve as a baseline evaluation for the project. The rapid assessment provided baseline data on: 1) the incidence of special educational needs; and, 2) knowledge about, attitudes towards, and practices with children with disabilities (CWD) among educators within mainstream schools and among parents and caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs and NCPD representatives within wider communities in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. Thereafter, monthly reports were produced to document the progress of the project. The purpose of the final L3 Plus Endline Evaluation was: 1) to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, processes, and sustainability of the project; 2) to identify lessons learned and best practices; and, 3) to provide recommendations for VSO and national stakeholders with regard to providing similar support to the education of CWD. This Endline Evaluation had seven objectives: 1. To assess the relevance of the project’s intended results 2. To assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the project implementation, to date 3. To assess the effectiveness of the project in reaching its intended results 4. To assess the appropriateness of the project design, management and arrangements for

achieving its stated objectives 5. To assess the prospects for sustainability 6. To identify lessons learned and best practices 7. To make recommendations for improvement. To assess progress against project objectives and the related questions about the delivery of the L3 Plus project, the Endline Evaluation used different methodologies to document information about the project and to collect information from project beneficiaries. Quantitative survey questionnaires were developed to collect information from teachers, parents, HPs and CHWs. In-depth interviews were used to collect qualitative information from Head Teachers, NCPD representatives and Sector Education Officers (SEOs). Parents and children with and without disabilities were consulted through focus group discussions (FGD). The Endline Evaluation process began with a desk review of documents related to the L3 Plus Project.

3

2. FINDINGS OF THE DESK REVIEW This Endline Evaluation began with a review of documents including L3 Plus Project progress reports and the baseline report, herein referred to as the Rapid Assessment report. Findings of the desk review were clustered according to the Project’s objectives and their related indicators, as summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Objectives and Indicators of L3 Plus Project from the Project Log Frame L3 Plus Objectives Objectively Verifiable Indicators

3. Improved quality of teaching for children with special education needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools.

• %age of teachers (P1 to P4) demonstrating proficiency in use of L3 Plus materials for children with special education needs.

• %age of target mainstream schools integrating use of L3 Plus teaching strategies.

4. Improved care and support for children with special needs through enhanced skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs and NCPD representatives in care and support for children with special needs.

• Number of parents, healthcare providers, CHWs and community leaders demonstrating knowledge in the care and support of children with special needs.

• Number of parents demonstrating enhanced knowledge and skills in the care and support for children with special needs at home.

• Number of healthcare providers and CHWs demonstrating enhanced knowledge and skills in the care and support of children with special needs within the health sector.

• Number of NCPD representatives demonstrating enhanced knowledge and skills in the care and support of children with special needs in the community in general.

5. Improved knowledge, attitude and behaviour amongst community members towards children with special needs

• Number of community members sampled demonstrating improved knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with special needs.

Rapid Assessment Results from the rapid assessment report produced in July 2015, revealed that teachers had some interaction with students with special needs and wanted to be trained in special teaching methodologies appropriate to CWDs and given appropriate teaching resources to meet educational needs for CWDs. In the same report, it was established by 73% of teachers and Community Health Workers (CHWs) in Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe Districts that the lack of parental support caused a numbers of CWDs to dropout. Furthermore, distance from home to schools and hospital, limited skills and training, and lack of skilled people to take care of CWDs were noted as main challenges to integrating CWDs in the society. The rapid assessment also revealed that: • 6.6% of teachers in each of the two districts had been trained in the appropriate

methodology applicable to children with special needs • 41.4% and 30.4% of teachers from the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, respectively,

needed the necessary materials to support CWDs • 55.3% and 40.4% of parents of CWDs from the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts,

respectfully, were taking care of their CWDs by providing them with basic needs (medical, food, education)

4

• 17.6% and 36% of parents of CWDs from the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, respectfully, were encouraging CWDs to play with other children

• 78.8% and 86.2% of parents of CWDs from the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, respectfully, confirmed not having information about prevention of children’s disability

• 40% and 39% of families from the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, respectfully, had demonstrated negative attitudes towards CWDs as the main cause of CWDs’ failure to attend school.

Monthly Reports According to the combined monthly reports for the L3 Plus Project:

1. 120 teachers and 93 Champion teachers were trained 2. 668 parents and caregivers (against a target of 720), 18 HPs (against a target of 24), 60

CHWs (as per target), and 66 NCPD representatives (as per target) in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts were trained in the care and support CWDs.

3. Two Resource Centres were established and equipped with IEC (Information, Education and Communication) materials. The Resource Centres provided information and materials for educators, parents and caregivers, healthcare workers, CHWs, NCPD representatives, and the wider community. Open days were organized to facilitate the project’s beneficiaries to access the established Resource Centres.

4. Experts from civil society and special needs centres (RNUD, RUB, Tubakunde, HVP Gatagara) delivered residential camps for Champion parents. The residential camps provided advanced training in the care and support of CWDs.

5. In partnership with EDC, REB and URCE, five modules on inclusive education were developed. These modules focused on intellectual, hearing, visual, and physical impairments.

3. EVALUATION DESIGN An explanatory evaluation design was adopted for this Endline evaluation using both quantitative and qualitative measures. 3.1 Evaluation questions The following questions were addressed by the data gathered from projects beneficiaries:

1. How appropriate are the project’s intended results for the context within which it operates?

2. What is the theory of change underlying the project? 3. To what extent were the needs of beneficiaries and stakeholders taken into account in

project design? 4. To what extent did the project contribute to increased equitable access to education

for students with special needs within mainstream schools in Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe Districts?

5. To what extent did the project improve the quality of teaching for children with special needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts

6. To what extent did the project improve care and support for children with special needs?

7. To what extent did the project improve knowledge, attitudes and behaviours amongst community members towards children with special needs?

8. How efficiently did project implementers utilize the project’s inputs to conduct activities and achieve the project’s intended results?

9. How cost-effective was the project?

5

10. How efficient was the overall management? 11. Was the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? 12. How appropriate was the project design to achieve its objectives in the context in

which it operated? 13. What external factors affected the implementation of the project and how were they

managed? 14. How effectively were the project performance and results monitored? 15. How and when did the project intend to withdraw its resources? 16. What plans were in place to ensure that the achievements of the project were not

jeopardized by withdrawal? 17. To what extent were the project results likely to be sustained in the long-term?

3.2 Data Collection Instruments In order to answer these primary Endline evaluation questions, the study employed the methods listed in 3.2.1 – 3.2.4, below: 3.2.1 Quantitative Survey of teachers, parents, CHWs and HPs Teachers, parents, CHWs, and HPs responded to a quantitative survey that focused on the respondents’ perceptions about the care and support of children with disabilities both in and around school settings. The survey questionnaire included close- and open-ended questions arranged with reference to the targeted evaluation questions and the L3 Plus Project indicators. 3.2.2 In-depth individual interviews with head teachers, NCPD representatives and

SEOs In-depth interviews were conducted with head teachers, NCPD representatives and SEOs. The content of the interviews focused on their perceptions about children with disabilities, specifically the care and support provided to them, interactions with teachers, peers, and school officials, as well as their academic performance and overall well-being. 3.2.3 Focus Group discussions with parents and children with and without disabilities Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with parents of children with and without disabilities, and with children with and without disabilities in order to collect qualitative information about their perspectives about the L3 Plus Project overall. 3.2.4 Quantitative Survey of community members A short survey of community members was undertaken at the same sites where community sensitization activities (e.g., community theatre; sports demonstrations) had been held. 3.4 Data analysis Qualitative data analysis - Transcripts from all qualitative activities (interviews and FGDs) were analysed using a grounded theory approach.2 A combination of inductive and deductive coding was used based on both pre-determined categories, as well as those that emerged from the data. The qualitative data analysis focused on identifying themes and patterns between respondents’ feedback and larger structural or systemic issues. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyse qualitative data collected from interviews and FGDs. Quantitative data analysis – Quantitative data was collected from the survey administered to teachers and educational administrators. These data were analysed using a variety of

2 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.

6

statistical methods, such as descriptive statistics. Excel spread sheet and SPSS software were used to create tables and figures representing the quantitative data. 3.5 Sampling A list of L3 Plus Project stakeholders was obtained for each District. The sampling technique ensured that a representative sample of all stakeholders was obtained. The following table describes the planned sample size of respondents used in the Endline evaluation. Table 1: Planned Sample Size

District Quantitative Survey Qualitative data Teachers Parents HP CHW HT NCPD SEO Children Community

Members Nyamagabe 30 35 3 7 3 3 3 12 49

Nyaruguru 30 45 3 7 3 3 3 12 51

Total 60 75 6 14 6 6 6 24 100

Table 2: Actual Sample Size District Quantitative Survey Qualitative data

Teachers Parents HP CHW HT NCPD SEO Children Community Members

Nyamagabe 30 35 0 4 3 3 3 12 49 Nyaruguru 30 45 0 11 3 3 3 12 51

Total 60 75 0 14 6 6 6 24 100

Tables 1 and 2 show the sample size of respondents in the Endline evaluation. Quantitative data were collected from teachers, parents, HPs and CHWs. Qualitative data were collected from head-teachers, NCPDs representatives, SEOs and children with/without disabilities. A total of 297 respondents were used to collect qualitative and quantitative data for the Endline evaluation. 3.9 Demographic information of respondents The Endline evaluation was conducted in Districts of Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru in the Southern Province of Rwanda where the project was implemented. Different categories of respondents were used to collect quantitative data. The demographics of the respondent sample follow: Gender: Figure 1 shows demographic information related to respondents by gender. The number of female-respondents was greater (64%) than that of male respondents (36%).

7

Figure 1: Demographic information of respondents per their gender

Education: Respondents to the quantitative survey had different levels of education. Figure 2 represents the demographic information of respondents as per their level of education. Teacher respondents had attained secondary school level; 20% of them have attained university level. The majority of parent respondents (62%) had attained primary education level; 21% of parents had not attained any level of education; 4% of parents had attained TVET education. The majority of CHWs (67%) had attained primary education; 20% had attained secondary education; 13% had attained university education. Figure 2: Education level of respondents

Working Experience: Teachers and CHWs were asked about their working experience. Table 3 presents demographic information related to the work experience of teachers and CHWs

Male 36%

Female64%

Male Female

0%

18%

0%

67%62%

0%

20%14%

80%

0% 4% 0%

13.30%

0%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

CHWs Parents Teachers

Not attended Primary Secondary TVET University

8

who responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (53% of teachers and 38% of CHWs) had between 5 to 10 years of experience in work. Among the teachers, 27% had more than 15 years of experience, and 18% had 1-5 years of experience. Among the CHWs, 7% who had more than 15 years of experience and 27% of CHWs had 1-5 years of experience. Table 3: Work experience of teachers and community workers

Teachers CHWs Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1-5yrs 11 18% 4 27% 5-10yrs 23 38% 8 53% 10-15yrs 10 17% 2 13% More than15yrs 16 27% 1 7% Total 60 100.0% 15 100.0%

Teaching Subject: Table 4 presents the P1 to P4 subjects taught by teachers included in the data sample. Table 4: Teaching subjects for teachers Teaching Subject No Yes Kinyarwanda 62% 38% English 68% 32% French 93% 7% Mathematics 53% 47% Science and Technology 75% 25% Social Studies 78% 22% Physical Education 70% 30% Religion 90% 10%

4. MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS The results of the Endline Evaluation are organized according to the three objectives for the L3 Plus Project. Findings are reported relative to an indicator of that objective, or as complementary information. Objective 1 – Improved quality of teaching for children with special education needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools. This section presents findings that demonstrate progress towards this objective based on responses from 60 teachers from the two Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe Districts. 4.1 Teachers’ experiences working with children with disabilities before and after the

L3 Plus Project Table 5: Before and after the L3 Plus Project, did you have CWDs in your class?

Before L3 Plus After L3 Plus Districts Yes No Yes No Nyamagabe (32 teachers) 94 % 6% 100% 0% Nyaruguru (24 teachers) 79 % 21% 75% 25%

9

Table 5 shows a small percentage increase in CWDs in Nyamagabe District, and a small percentage decrease in Nyaruguru District. (Note: At the time of the writing of this Endline Evaluation Report, the actual numbers of students in the target schools was being collected by VSO). Teachers in the Nyamagabe District said that the increase in CWDs was due to new children who joined the school as a result of the L3 Plus Project. Teachers in the Nyaruguru District said that the decrease of CWDs occurred because those children either had moved to other districts with their families or had been promoted to higher grade levels. Two Head Teachers shared that the decrease in CWDs reflected two girls with disabilities who had left the school because of the gravity of their disabilities. Table 6: Have the numbers of children with disabilities whom you teach changed in general? Frequency Percent Yes – More children with disabilities

30 50

Yes – Fewer children with disabilities

6 10

No – Same number of children with disabilities

15 25

Don’t know 9 15 Total 60 100

Table 6 shows that 50% of teachers confirmed having more CWD in their classrooms as compared to 10% of teachers who say the number had decreased; 15% said that the numbers have stayed the same. Teachers offered a few reasons for the increase:

1. Parents of children with disabilities returned their child to school; 2. Children without disabilities had been sensitised about children with disabilities and

more inclined to socialize with them; 3. Teachers were better able to welcome children with disabilities subsequent to the L3

Plus Project.

10

4.2 Views of teachers on the causes of students with disabilities dropping out of school

Figure 3: Why do you think children with disabilities drop out of school or never attend school?

The initial rapid assessment at the launch of the L3 Plus Project revealed that 62% of teachers in the Nyaruguru District and 79% of teachers in Nyamagabe District identified the gravity of a child’s disability as the primary cause of their dropping out of school. As we can see from Figure 3, after the L3 Plus Project, 30 or 100% of teachers from the Nyamagabe District and 21 or 70% of teachers from Nyaruguru District identified poverty as the primary cause for CWDs not attending school. Only12 teachers (40%) and 22 teachers (73%) of teachers in Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe Districts, respectively, identified the gravity of disabilities as the primary reason that CWDs dropped out of school. 4.3 Views of CHW/HP on the causes of students with disabilities dropping out of school The initial rapid assessment revealed that 73% and 75% of CHWs in Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe Districts, respectively, specified the gravity of a disability as the main reason that children with disabilities drop out of school. CHWs identified poverty as the second greatest cause of school dropout among children with disabilities.

0

2

11

23

18

22

26

30

0

0

16

5

15

12

8

21

0

2

27

28

33

34

34

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other reasons (please specify)

The child is excluded/rejected by …

Parents think there is no need to …

Parents are afraid that their child …

The school is too far away

Gravity of child’s disability

Parents are ashamed or …

Poverty

Number of teachers

Cau

ses o

f dro

pout

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru Total

11

Figure 4: Causes for students with disabilities dropping out of school

As part of the Endline Evaluation, CHWs were asked to identify the reasons that children with disabilities dropped out of school. Figure 4, above, summarizes the responses of CHW’s from Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. Consistent with the findings of the initial rapid assessment, four CHWs from Nyamagabe District identified the main cause of dropout as the gravity of a child’s disability. Among the 11 CHWs sampled from Nyaruguru District, 10 CHWs (91%) identified the gravity of a child’s disability as the main cause for them to drop out of school. In contrast, only 1 of 4 CHWs from Nyamagabe (25%) identified “excluded by the school” as a reason for CHDs dropping out of school. In Nyaruguru District, none of the 11 CHWs sampled identified “excluded by the school” as a reason for CHDs dropping out of school. 4.4 Teachers’ ability to include children with disabilities in the classroom According to the L3 Plus Project’s detailed log frame, 120 teachers from 30 schools in two Districts—four teachers per school; five schools per Sector—were trained in inclusive education for children with disabilities. As evidenced from interviews with head teachers, trained teachers had started preparing lesson plans to accommodate children with disabilities. Teachers, had developed different posters, displayed on classroom walls, to assist children with disabilities, and had changed seating plans to meet the needs of all children. Teachers and head-teachers had stopped referring to children with disabilities using dehumanizing names.

100%

100%

75%

75%

75%

75%

25%

25%

91%

73%

73%

55%

55%

46%

36%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Gravity of child disability

The school around does not have the capacity to meet the child needs

Poverty

Parents are ashamed or embarrassed by their child's disability

Parents are afraid that their child will be teased at school

The school is too far

Parent think that there is no need to send their child to school because they …

The child is excluded by the school

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

12

4.5 Difficulties teaching children with disabilities Teaching children with disabilities requires skilled teachers. As one Head Teacher said, “…you may give the tasks to a child; in a few moments, you see that he is doing other tasks different to what you have told to him. This is more observed with children with mental disabilities…” Figure 5 compares data from the rapid assessment with data collected after the L3 Plus Project with respect to teachers perceptions about the difficulties in teaching children with disabilities. Figure 5: Is it hard to teach children with disabilities?

As shown in Figure 5, teachers from the Nyaruguru District reported that it was more difficult teaching children with disabilities after participating in the L3 Plus Project. In comparison, teachers from the Nyamagabe District reported that it was less difficult teaching children with disabilities after participating in the L3 Plus Project. One could speculate that the teachers from the Nyaruguru District became more aware of what good teaching would include following the L3 Plus Project, and therefore rated their ability to teach CWDs as lower. However, the reasons for the difference were not explored in the current Endline Evaluation. 4.6 Teaching strategies for CWDs One of the targets of L3 Plus project was to have 120 educators from 30 schools in the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts trained in the L3 Plus Project’s teaching strategies and resources. One Head Teacher in the Nyaruguru District reported that the L3 Plus Project had helped teachers to include CWD in their classrooms. Teachers were asked whether they knew about strategies and educational resources needed for special needs education. Their responses are summarized in Table 7.

62%75%

50%

88%

39%25%

50%

13%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

At the baseline At the endline

Perc

ent o

f tea

cher

s

Yes No

13

Table 7 Do you know about teaching strategies and educational resources needed for special needs education?

Gender of Teachers

Total Male Female Do you know about teaching strategies and educational resources needed for special needs education?

Yes 33% 54% 87% No

8% 5% 13%

Total 40% 60% 100% As shown in Table 7, 87% of teachers were knowledgeable about strategies and resources needed for special needs education. In comparison, as revealed in the initial rapid assessment, only 10% of the teachers from Nyamagabe District and 4% of the teachers from Nyaruguru District were aware of materials needed for special needs education. The most frequently cited strategies included: tactile teaching aids for children with visual disabilities; a variety of graphics; providing objects for children to touch, especially when learning to count; speaking loudly; encouraging students to help each other; using verbal and body language while teaching; setting varied activities so that all children could be included; and, allocating appropriate seating for CWDs as appropriate for to their particular type of disabilities. In comparison, 13% of the teachers sampled reported that they did not know of teaching strategies and educational resources needed for special needs education, citing the trainings as being insufficient. Some noted, as well, that teaching children with mental disabilities was still challenging for them. Children without disabilities, during focus group discussions, shared that CWDs were seated appropriately in the classroom, they are heard, they are assisted in going to toilets, and they are given teaching aids appropriate to their type of disability. 4.7 Teachers inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom before and after the

L3 Plus Project Using a rating scale from “very poor” to “very good,” teachers were asked to rate their inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom before and after participation in the L3 Plus Project. As summarised in Figure 6, with the exception of 14 teachers from the Nyaruguru District, teachers in both districts rated their inclusion practices as being either “good” or “very good” after participation in the L3 Plus Project.

14

Figure 6: How would you rate your inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom before and after your participation in the L3 Plus Project?

Parents were asked to rate the education of their children with disabilities prior to and after implementation of the L3 Plus Project. Their responses are summarised in Figure 7. Prior to the L3 Plus Project, 84% of sampled parents of CWDs rated their child’s education as “very poor,” “poor” or “fair.” After the L3 Plus Project, 72% of sampled parents of CWDs rated their child’s education as “very good” or “good.” Figure 7: How would you rate the education of your child prior to and after the L3 Plus Project?

4.8 Teachers’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities The rapid assessment prior to the L3 Plus Project revealed that many teachers in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts had a negative view towards CWDs. In comparison, after

0 0 9 025

0

18

0

25

0

55

14

25

33

18

71

25

67

140 0

0102030405060708090

100

Before After Before After

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Don't know

9% 25%

50%

6%0%

10%

0% 0%

24%

40%32%

4%

VERYPOOR POOR FAIR GOOD VERYGOOD DON'TKNOW

Percen

t

Before After

15

participating in the L3 Plus Project, some changes in their knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards CWDs shifted to more positive outlooks, as revealed in Table 8. Table 8: Teachers’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities at the endline as compared to the baseline

At the Baseline At the Endline Nyamagabe Nyaruguru Nyamagabe Nyaruguru A* D^ A D A D A D

Children with disabilities are a burden to their parents

48% 48% 33% 58% 31% 69% 29% 71%

I feel that children with disabilities are valuable members of the community

98% 2% 98% 2% 94% 6% 100% 0%

I feel that children with disabilities can be a burden on society

39% 58% 17% 80% 11% 89% 8% 92%

Having a disability is a curse and a punishment from God.

7% 90% 2% 93% 33% 67% 13% 88%

I encourage children with disabilities to participate in play and games like other children.

100% 0% 97% 3% 92% 8% 100% 0%

I feel children with disabilities should receive special and extra support at my working place and in the community

100% 0% 98% 2% 94% 6% 96% 4%

I feel children with disabilities should go to the same schools as children without disabilities

88% 12% 81% 17% 97% 3% 100% 0%

I feel children with disability should go to same Hospital as children without disabilities

12% 88% 15% 83% 83% 17% 84% 17%

I feel that children with disabilities can learn in school.

98% 2% 97% 3% 8% 92% 8% 92%

I feel that having children with disabilities in school takes the teacher’s attention away from the children who do not have a disability.

72% 27% 83% 14% 97% 3% 100% 0%

*A (Stongly Agree / Agree), ^ D (Stongly Disagree / Disagree

From Table 9, it appears that there were small to larger changes in teachers’ knowledge about, and attitudes and behaviours towards, children with disabilities after participation in the L3 Plus Project.. While there seem to be nominal changes in response to some statements (e.g., “I feel that children with disabilities are valuable members of the community,” where

16

teachers believed that CWDs were valuable members of the community prior to as well as after the L3 Plus Project), there were larger gains in others. For example, in response to the statement, “I feel that children with disabilities can learn in school,” prior to participation in the L3 Plus Project, 2% of the teachers from the Nyamagabe District and 3% of the teachers from the Nyaruguru District disagreed with the statement. After participation in the L3 Plus Project, 92% of the teachers in each District agreed with the statement. Relevant qualitative information available from teachers suggested that:

1. The availability of appropriate teaching materials has facilitated their ability to include CWDs; and,

2. Their training in inclusive education has contributed to the changes in their knowledge about, and attitudes and behaviours toward children with disabilities.

During an interview, one Head Teacher at a Primary School in the Nyaruguru District shared the following comment: “…before the implementation of this project, a teacher of 40 students could treat them equally no matter types of disabilities they might have. Most of teachers could not identify children with disabilities. So, teachers’ knowledge was very limited. Ever since this project came, my teachers were trained and when I asked them about these training, I got excited about their improved knowledge and changed attitudes towards students with disabilities. I have asked them to help other teachers in their spare time to improve their knowledge and behaviour towards children with disabilities…”

Another Head Teacher from the Nyaruguru District stated: “teachers have improved positive attitude towards children with disabilities at 70%, and we are still training the remaining so that it becomes 100%.” One child without a disability from the Nyaruguru District shared the following: “... In our class with have one child with one eye and another without legs. Our teacher has decided to give these children chairs at the front to help them learning. Because of this, that child without legs occupies the second position in terms of performance. In addition to that, our teachers encourages children without disabilities to integrate these students in whatever activities including playing activities…” 4.9 Summary of progress towards Objective One The results of the surveys and interviews reviewed in this section suggest that overall, participation in the L3 Plus Project resulted in an improvement in the quality of teaching children with disabilities at the P1 to P4 levels in mainstream schools. Parents’ perception of their child’s education improved. Teachers’ perception of their ability to include CWDs in their classrooms improved, as did their perceived knowledge of teaching strategies. Teachers noted a lack of appropriate materials for the different types of disability, as well as the lack of additional trainings, particularly in reference to children with mental disabilities, as some of the continued challenges relative to this objective. Objective 2: Improved care and support for children with special needs through enhanced skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs and NCPD representatives in care and support for children with special needs

This section presents findings and discussions relevant to the four indicators of Objective 2.

17

4.10 Improved care and support for children with disabilities provided by their parents Seventy-five parents were interviewed individually about their child with disabilities. Among them, 83.3% had more than one child with a disability; 43.8% had at least two children with disability. Most of the children (28) were between 11 and 15 years of age; 26 children were between 6 and 10 years of age. Table 9: Which of the following is true for your child/children?

Difficulties Child one Child two Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 26% 14% Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them.

7% 4%

Difficulty walking or climbing steps as compared to people the same age

34% 14%

Difficulty with self-care for their age such as washing all over or dressing compared to people the same age

26% 14%

Difficulty remembering or concentrating compared to people the same age

37% 12%

Difficulty understanding or being understood using your usual (customary) language

30% 7%

Others 3% 4%

As shown in Table 9, the difficulties for the first child were fairly evenly distributed within a range of 26% - 37% for the first child, with the exception of “difficulty hearing” and the “other” category. For the second child, the distribution was within a range of 4% - 14%. Project beneficiaries identified a change in attitudes, which resulted in some children returning to school. At focus group discussions, parents confirmed that the L3 Plus Project had contributed to increased equitable access to education for their children with disabilities. Parents in the Nyaruguru District shared that the L3 Plus Project training removed all disgraces from beneficiaries’ families, exemplified through the following stories: ...I am among those parents of children with disabilities. I have one child with disability who had refused to go to school. Ever since this project started and we received trainings, I motivated him to go back to school and now he is attending like other children do. He feels same as his colleagues without disabilities and he is doing well in class… …my child was born with mental disability. He started going to school before I discouraged him to attend because of being ashamed in the community. In addition, I was afraid that she will be teased by other children. It was after attending a training organized by this project in Huye District that I decided to take back my child at school. I sometimes accompany her to school and she feels my love than never before. Now she can take care of herself…

18

Table 10: Do you know about ways you can care for and support your child with disabilities? Districts Yes No

Frequency % Frequency % Nyamagabe 38 100% 0 0% Nyaruguru 31 97% 1 3%

As shown in Table 10, 39 parents from the Nyamagabe District and 31 parents from the Nyaruguru District were asked whether they know about ways that they can care for and support their child with disabilities. In the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, 100% and 97% of the parents said that they knew ways to support their children with disabilities. Their responses were summarized around three themes: (1) educating CWDs about their rights; (2) giving CWDs basic health care; and, (3) facilitating their CWDs to attend school. In comparison to the data collected during the initial rapid assessment, parents’ knowledge about, and attitude and behaviour towards their child with disabilities had improved. For example, prior to the L3 Plus Project, 84% and 67% of parents from the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, respectively, said that they believed that children with disabilities are a burden to their parents. Following the L3 Plus Project, only 20% of the parents from the Nyamagabe District and 23% of the parents from the Nyaruguru District said that children with disabilities are a burden to their parents.

19

Table 11: Parents’ knowledge, attitude and behavior towards children with disabilities At the baseline At the endline

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru Nyamagabe Nyaruguru A D A D A D A D

Children with disabilities are a burden to their parents 84% 13% 67% 32% 20% 80% 23% 72%


88% 11% 89% 9% 98% 3% 94% 5%

I feel that children with disabilities can be a burden on society 70% 28% 55% 40% 25% 75% 19% 75%

Having a disability is a curse and a punishment from God. 14% 73% 11% 76% 65% 35% 33% 67%


99% 1% 91% 8% 97% 3% 93% 7%

I feel children with disabilities should receive special and extra support at school and in their community, if they need it.

99% 1% 92% 7% 95% 0% 87% 13%


96% 5% 99% 0% 93% 5% 93% 7%

I feel children with disability should go to special schools for special education.

96% 4% 76% 21% 95% 5% 81% 16%

I feel that children with disabilities can learn in school. 77% 22% 76% 21% 33% 68% 36% 64%


89% 11% 84% 7% 98% 3% 97% 3%

When a child with a disability goes to schools, is that child treated like other children

52% 43% 61% 31% 98% 3% 94% 6%

I wish I understood more about disability. 93% 7% 97% 3%

A (Agree), D (Disagree)

The changes in knowledge, attitude and behaviours towards their child with a disability may have occurred because of the training they received from the L3 Plus Project and/or from support they received from others.

20

Seventy-one parents were surveyed about their sources of information about the care and education of their child/children with disabilities. The results are displayed in Figure 8, below. Figure 8: Sources of information about the care and education of their child/children with disabilities.

4.11 Improved care and support for CWD by CHWs Parents: As shown in Figure 9, parents noted an improvement in the care and support of their CWDs from HPs following their participation in the L3 Plus Project. Sixty-six percent of parents rated the HP’s support as “”good or “very good” after the L3 Plus Project, whereas only 7% rated it “good” or “very good” before the L3 Plus Project.

0 20 40 60 80 100

From T-Shirt

From Community sports demonstration

From a newspaper or magazine

From local leaders

From community theatre

From TV

From Posters or banners

From school members

From Resource Rooms

From Health care providers

From NCPD representatives

From Radio

3

4

11

11

13

13

16

18

37

39

43

58

Percentageofparents

Sour

ce o

f Inf

orm

atio

n

21

Figure 9: How would you rate the support your child received from a Health Care Provider?

Parents also were asked to rate the support their child received from a Community Health Worker prior to and following the L3 Plus Project. The results are summarized in Figure 10.

Figure 10: How would you rate the support your child received from a Community Health Worker?

As shown in Figure 10, whereas only 30% of parents rated the support from CHWs as “good” prior to the L3 Plus Project, 64% rated that support either “good” or “very good” after the L3 Plus Project. Parents were asked to rate the support their child received from an NCPD representative prior to and following the L3 Plus Project. The results are summarized in Figure 11.

10% 0%

33%

2%

35%

19%

5%

29%

2%

37%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Before After

Support from HP

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

11% 0%

18%

2%

35%

23%

30%

32%

0%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Before After

Support from CHW


22

Figure 11: How would you rate the support your child received from an NCPD representative?

Figure 11 shows that, similar to the ratings for HPs and CHWs, 7% of the parents rated the care and support from an NCPD representative, prior to the L3 Plus Project, as “good” or “very good,” whereas 70% of the parents rated the care and support from an NCPD representative, after to the L3 Plus Project, as “good” or “very good.” Community Health Workers: The CHWs shared that they are involved in the following activities: teaching parents about their children’ rights; visiting children with disabilities and their families; teaching CHDs to change their mindsets; teaching the community how to integrate CWDs into the community; and, teaching community members about inclusive education. Fifteen CHWs sampled (4 from the Nyamagabe District and 11 from the Nyaruguru District), were asked, “Do you find it difficult to provide health care for children with disabilities?” Three CHWs from the Nyamagabe District said that they still faced challenges when providing health care for CWDs. Six of the CHWs from the Nyaruguru District reported that they continued to face difficulties providing health care to CHWs. CHWs reported that their difficulties providing health care to CHDs was a result of inappropriate medical care facilities, lack of enough training, and the distance to the dispensaries. CHWs’ knowledge about, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities has improved. For example, prior to and again, subsequent to the L3 Plus Project, CHWs from Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts were asked whether they believe that children with disabilities are a burden to their parents. Seventy-eight percent of CHWs from Nyamagabe District responded “yes” prior to the beginning of the L3 Plus Project, whereas 50% responded “yes” at the end of the L3 Plus Project. Among the CHWs from Nyaruguru Districts, 60% responded “yes” prior to the beginning of the L3 Plus Project and 57% responded “yes” at the end of the L3 Plus Project.

4% 0%

24%

3%

50%

14%

6%

41%

1%

29%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Before After

Support from NCPD


23

Sector Education Officers: All SEOs interviewed reported that the L3 Plus Project trainings helped them to enhance care and support for children with disabilities. SEOs encourage parents to send their children to school and they teach the community about the rights of children with disabilities. NCPD Representatives: Parents of CWD reported that the care and support their children received from NCPD representatives had improved subsequent to the L3 Plus Project. Prior to the Project, 78% of the parents reported that the care from the NCPD representatives was generally “fair” to “very poor.” Subsequent to the L3 Plus Project, 70% of the parents rated the care and support from the NCPD representatives as “good” or “very good.” When interviewed, one NCPD representative shared he following: ‘… yes I have improved the support I give to CWDs. There are things I ignored before but now I can say, I know how to care and support CWDs. For example, I can use appropriate terms in different meetings I attend, I do approach parents of CWDs and discuss matters related to their children. Generally, my support is related to advocating for CWDs in different organizations; for example, I make sure VUP makes parents of CWDs the first beneficiaries…’ 4.12 Summary of progress towards Objective Two When comparisons are made to the data collected from the initial rapid assessment prior to the beginning of the L3 Plus Project, it appears that parents/caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs, and NCPD representatives reported improved ability to care and support children with disabilities. In addition, parents reported more confidence in the ability of HPs, CHWs and NCPD representatives to care and support their children. From interviews, it appeared that HPs, CHWs, NCPD representatives, and SEOs rated positively the L3 Plus Project trainings, sharing that the trainings helped them to know more about types of disabilities. Some have adopted a culture to sensitise different people in the community about children with disabilities. For example they encourage community members to use terms and names that are not offensive. Objective 3: Improved knowledge, attitude and behaviour amongst community members towards children with special needs. The following section presents findings relevant to the third objective.

24

4.13 Community members’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities before and after the L3 Plus project

Table 12: Community members’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with disabilities

Before L3 Plus After L3 Plus Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

I know about the rights of people with disabilities 15% 81% 84% 0% I know people with disabilities have ability 28% 68% 92% 1% I feel that children with disabilities are valuable members of the community 25% 65% 99% 1% Having a disability is a curse and a punishment from God 59% 39% 48% 52% I feel children with disabilities should go to same school as children without disabilities 19% 80% 89% 11% I always treat children with disabilities with respect 46% 54% 100% 0%

Table 11, above, suggests that among the community members sampled prior to and following the L3 Plus Project, there was an increase in their knowledge about CWDs, and a shift towards more positive behaviours and attitudes, as well.

4.14 Summary of progress towards Objective Three Community members were sampled prior to and following the L3 Plus Project. Responses to a six-question survey suggest an increase in their knowledge about CWDs, and a shift towards more positive behaviours and attitudes, as well. 5. THE L3 PLUS PROJECT This section presents findings relevant to the L3 Plus Project, in general, specifically: the inclusion of children with disabilities in classrooms; stakeholders’ awareness of the Resource Centres; and, the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, processes, and sustainability of the L3 Plus Project. 5.1 Inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom The initial rapid assessment prior to the L3 Plus Project provided some information about children with disabilities and inclusion. First, CWDs had dropped out of school because of their disabilities. Second, some teachers had not included CWDs in their classrooms because of their lack of necessary qualifications. Third, some CHWs had reported that they lacked the necessary trainings to take care of CWDs. As part of the Endline Evaluation, teachers, parents and community health workers were asked how the L3 Plus Project helped them to include CWDs in their classes or their work (teachers and CHWs) or to care and support CWDs in their families (parents).

25

Figure 12: The L3 Plus project helped me to include children with disabilities in my work or to care and support children with disabilities.


52.80%37.50%

47.20%62.50%

0%0%

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

Teachers

Strongy Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

0.00%

45.50%

100.00%

54.50%

0% 0%0% 0%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

CHWs


26


Figures 12 and 13 show that in both Districts, all teachers (Figure 12) and all CHWs (Figure 13) either agreed or strongly agreed that the L3 Plus Project helped them in their work with, or care and support of, children with disabilities.. Likewise, with the exception of 3% of the parents in the Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts, parents reported that the L3 Plus Project helped them in the care and support of their child/children with disabilities. 5.2 Awareness of the Resource Centres created for L3 Plus The two Resource Centers established through the L3 Plus Project in Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe were hubs of information, materials and resources, signposting, and a venue for training sessions for schools and community members. The Centres were intended to serve teachers, parents, HPs, CHWs, NCPD representatives, and other community members. They also were intended to be a central database for children with disabilities. The Resource Centre in the Nyamagabe District was located in a Heath Centre; the Resource Centre in the Nyaruguru District was located opposite a Groupe Scolaire. Table 13 summarizes teachers’, parents’ and CHWs awareness that the Resource Centres were in their respective District.

Table 13 Are you aware of the Resource Centres created for the L3 Plus Project?

Nyaruguru Nyamagabe

Yes No Yes No

Teachers 100% 0% 94% 6%

Parents 87% 13% 32% 68%

CHWs 100% 0% 100% 0%

Average 96% 4% 75% 25%

12.80%35.50%

84.60%58.10%

3% 0%0%

3%

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

Parents


27

As shown by Table 13, with the exception of parents from the Nyamagabe District, teachers, parents and CHWs were, in general, aware of the Resource Centre in their respective district. 5.3 Frequency of use of Resource Centre by teachers, parents and CHWs Figures 15 and 16 summarise the overall use of the Resource Centres in both Districts by parents, teachers and CHWs.

Figure 15: How many times have you used the Resource Centre (Nyaruguru district)?

Figure 16: How many times have you used the Resource Centre (Nyamagabe district)?

8%21% 18%

42%41%

9%

21%

35%

73%

29%

3% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Teachers Parents CHWs

percen

tage

Nyaruguru

Never Once 2 to 5 times More than 5 times

11%

69%

0%

56%

13%

0%

22%13%

100%

11% 5% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Nyamagabe

Never Once 2 to 5 times More than 5 times

28

5.4 Usefulness of the Resource Centre Teachers, parents and CHWs were asked whether the Resource Centre was useful to them. Figure 17 summarizes their responses. Figure 17: The Resource Centre is useful to me

Among the CHWs, 93.3% agreed or strongly agreed that the Resource Centre was useful for them. Among the teachers, 90% agreed or strongly agreed that the Resource Centre was useful for them. More than half of the parents agreed or strongly agreed that the Resource Centre was useful for them. 5.5 L3 Plus Project Effectiveness Teachers, parents and CHWs were asked whether they believed each of the three objectives of the L3 Plus Project had been met. The objectives were as follows: 1. Objective 1: To improve the quality of teaching for children with special education needs

at the P1 to P4 levels in mainstream schools. 2. Objective 2: To improve the care and support of children with special education needs

through enhanced skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers (HPs), Community Health Workers (CHWs), and local representatives from the National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD).

3. Objective 3: To improve community members’ knowledge about, and attitudes and behaviours towards children with special needs.

Figures 18, 19 and 20, below, summarise the opinions of teachers, parents and CHWs regarding the success of each of the three objectives. Overall, there was a wide range of responses among the three groups.

33.30%15%

36.70%

60.00%

38.40%

53.30%

0%

1.40%

0%6.70%

1.40%

0%

43.90%

10%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

CHWS Parents Teachers

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know

29

Figure 18: How far do you feel the first objective for the L3 Plus Project was met?

Figure 19: How far do you feel the second objective for the L3 Plus Project was met?

2% 3% 0%17% 18% 20%

57% 41%60%

23%31%

20%2%

1%0%6% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Objective 1

Not at all A little A fair amount A lot Fully Don’t know

0% 3% 0%13% 18%

0%

48%48%

47%

30% 27%53%

3% 3% 0%5% 1% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Objective2


30

Figure 20: How far do you feel the third objective for the L3 Plus Project was met?

5.6 Plus Project Relevance Figures 21, 22 and 23, below, summarise the opinions of teachers, parents and CHWs regarding the relevance of each of the three objectives. Figure 21: How much was the first objective needed in your community?

0%20%

7%10%

34%

21%

47%

34%

43%

37%21%

7% 7%0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Objective3


0% 5% 0% 4% 0% 9%6%

20%

0%17%

40%36%

70%55%

50%

54%33% 27%

21% 15%

25%

21%13%

0%

0% 3%

25%

4%3%

25%

0% 3% 0% 10% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Teachers Parents CHWs Teachers Parents CHWs

Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

Objective 1


31

Figure 22: How much was the second objective needed in your community?

Figure 23: How much was the third objective needed in your community?

Among the teachers, parents and CHWs in each of the two districts, there appeared to be wide distributions in opinions about the relevance of each of the three objectives. Notable is the difference, in some instances, between the same groups in the two different districts. For example, 100% of the CHWs in Nyamagabe found objective two to be relevant “a lot,” while only 27% of the CHWs in the Nyaruguru District found the same objective to be relevant “a lot.”

0% 5% 0% 4% 0% 0%12%

13%0%

13%

50%

18%

42%53%

0%

54%

30%

55%

42%28%

100%

17%13% 27%

0% 3% 0%13% 3%

0%0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

Objective 2


0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%9% 18% 25%13%

53%

27%

61%25%

50%

46%

30%64%

30%

55%

21%

29%

10%9%3% 7%

13% 7%

0%0% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Nyamagabe Nyaruguru

Objective3


32

5.7 L3 Plus Processes Teachers, parents and CHWs were asked to rate the implementation of the L3 Plus Project. Their responses are summarized, below, in Figures 24, 25 and 26. Figure 24: Implementation of the L3 Plus project – Teachers’ views

Figure 25: Implementation of the L3 Plus project – Parents’ views

2%

3%

2%

13%

2%

10%

12%

8%

15%

17%

23%

15%

22%

37%

17%

43%

42%

40%

25%

28%

27%

15%

20%

8%

28%

13%

9%

2%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Communication by VSO

Planning

Derivery of activities

Abilities of staff

Use of resources

Teachers

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Don't know

6%

0%

1%

0%

6%

15%

15%

18%

7%

14%

25%

30%

23%

19%

26%

27%

27%

29%

38%

25%

15%

6%

10%

15%

11%

12%

22%

19%

21%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Planning


Abilities of staff

Use of resources

Parents


33

Figure 26: Implementation of the L3 Plus project – CHWs’ views

As with the previously reported responses to questions about project relevance, among teachers, parents and CHWs in each of the two districts, there appear to be a wide distributions in opinions about the implementation of the L3 Plus Project based upon the five criteria: use of resources; abilities of staff; delivery of activities; planning; and, communication by VSO. In general, ratings fell within the “fair to very good” range overall. 5.8 Sustainability of L3 Plus Project In order to assess the opinions about the sustainability of the L3 Plus Project, teachers and parents were asked to rate the likelihood that the new knowledge and approaches learned through the L3 Plus Project could continue after the Project ended.

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

27%

7%

20%

0%

27%

13%

33%

27%

13%

13%

40%

20%

13%

27%

40%

13%

7%

27%

27%

7%

0%

33%

13%

33%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Planning


Abilities of staff

Use of resources

CHWs


34

Figure 27: The likelihood that the new knowledge and approaches learned through the L3 Plus Project would continue after the project ended.

As summarised in Figure 27, 68.3% of the teachers and 60.2% of the parents rated the likelihood that the new knowledge and approaches learned through the L3 Plus Program as either “very likely” or “completely likely.” 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions in this section are drawn from the findings of the Endline Evaluation with respect to the L3 Plus Project indicators outlined at the beginning of this report. 6.1 Conclusions Overall, participation in the L3 Plus Project by a variety of stakeholders seems to have improved the quality of teaching for children with disabilities at the P1 to P4 levels. Teachers reported an increase in the number of children with disabilities in their classrooms. Comparing data from the rapid assessment with that collected during the Endline Evaluation, there seemed to be an increase in the number of teachers who reported that they could identify children with disabilities. Further, teachers reported some improvement in the support and care they gave students with disabilities in their classrooms. Teachers from the Nyaruguru District reported that it was more difficult teaching children with disabilities after participating in the L3 Plus Project. In comparison, teachers from the Nyamagabe District reported that it was less difficult teaching children with disabilities after participating in the L3 Plus Project. Teachers did report that they continued to face difficulties teaching children with mental disabilities, and that they did not have sufficient teaching materials to meet the needs of all children with disabilities. As evidenced from interviews with head teachers, trained teachers had started preparing lesson plans to accommodate children with disabilities.

0 4.1%13.3%

16.4%16.7% 8.2%

65%47.9%

3.3%

12.3%

1.7%10.9%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Teachers Parents

Perc

ent

Not at all likely A little likely Fairly likely

Very likely Completely likely Don't know

35

Awareness and use of the Resource Centres varied among parents, teachers and CHWs, as well as between Districts. Following their participation in the L3 Plus Project, parents/caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs, and NCPD representatives reported improved ability to care and support children with disabilities. In addition, parents reported more confidence in the ability of HPs, CHWs and NCPD representatives to care and support their children. From interviews, it appeared that HPs, CHWs, NCPD representatives, and SEOs rated positively the L3 Plus Project trainings, having shared that the trainings helped them to know more about types of disabilities. Some had adopted a culture to sensitise different people in the community about children with disabilities. For example, they encourage community members to use terms and names that are not offensive. Following participation in the L3 Plus project, selected community members had changed their attitude and behavior towards children with disabilities. CHWs and teachers generally agreed that the Resource Centre was useful for them. More than half of the parents sampled found the Resource Centre to be useful. Teachers and Head Teachers expressed a commitment to embed the new approaches into their teaching. Among the teachers, parents and CHWs in each of the two districts, there appeared to be wide distributions in opinions about the relevance of each of the three objectives. Notable is the difference, in some instances, between the same groups in the two different districts. Similarly, there appeared to be wide distributions in opinions about the implementation of the L3 Plus Project based upon the five criteria: use of resources; abilities of staff; delivery of activities; planning; and, communication by VSO. In general, ratings fell within the “fair to very good” range overall. 6.2 Recommendations

1. Length of Intervention: Overall, there was modest to substantial improvements in knowledge, care and support of children with disabilities. However, a longer-term investment, as well as more resources for monitoring and evaluation, will be required for those improvements to be fully embedded in practice. (See the Sustainability section of the VSO L3 Plus Final Report)

2. Severe Disabilities: Severe cases of disability that fell outside of the L3 Plus Project, especially those among very poor families, were seen frequently during the L3 Plus Project. More investment in specialist support for children with severe disabilities is vitally needed.

3. Resource Centres: Resource Centres were useful to those in the immediate area; however, those living further away did not access the Resource Centres. A “traveling resource centre” that can visit different communities within a district on a rotating basis might increase the number of persons who have access to the Resource Centres.

4. The Resource Centre located at a Health Centre appears to have been more successful in terms of the number of visitors. This should be factored into deliberations about the location of future Resource Centres.

36

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: L3+ END-LINE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

Enumerator name

Date

Time Started

Time Ended

Introduction Hi, my name is __________. I am a researcher here on behalf of VSO Rwanda, an international development charity with a vision for a “World without poverty” and mission to “bring people together to fight poverty”. VSO is currently conducting an end-line evaluation of its L3 plus which has been contributing to equitable access to education for students with special educational needs. This project was implemented in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru districts. I am happy to talk to you today as part of this evaluation. You have been selected today to participate in this end-line evaluation because you are a participant in the L3 plus project. As you may remember from the informed consent form that you signed, I wanted to remind you that there are no right or wrong answers as we talk, and you can respond in whatever way you would like. Also, your participation in this discussion is voluntary, which means that you have the option not to answer any questions for any reason, or to leave the discussion at any point. Also, anything you say will be kept confidential, which means that your name will not be used, and only those involved in this research project will see the information you give us. An end-line evaluation report will be prepared, but your names and any personal information about you will not be included. This interview will take a maximum of one hour.

37

SECTION 1: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

No. Questions Response options and codes Q1.1 Teacher ID Q1.2 District Q1.3 Sector Q1.4 School Q1.5 How old are you? (Age in number of years) Q1.6 Sex of the Respondent Male

Female 1 2

Q1.7 What is the highest level of education you have attained?

Primary Secondary University

1 2 3

Q1.8 For how many years have you been teaching? 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-15years More than 15 years

1 2 3 4

Q1.9 What level of school do you teach? P1 P2 P3 P4

1 2 3 4

Q1.10 What subject do you teach? Kinyarwanda English French Mathematics Science and Technology Social Studies Physical Education Religion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q1.11 Which of the following are true for you? Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses Yes 1 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or people shouting very loudly for you

Yes 1

Difficulty walking or climbing steps compared to people the same age

Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1

Other: Please specify

Yes 1

None of the above Yes 1

38

Q2.1 Before L3+ (before May 2015) did you have children with disabilities in your classroom?

Yes No

1 2 (Go to Q2.3)

Q2.2 If yes, what type of disability/disabilities and were they boys or girls or both?

Boy(s) Girl(s)

Both None

Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 1 2 3 4 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them.

1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1

Disability not known 1 Q2.3 After L3+ (now) do you have children with

disabilities in your classroom? Yes No

1 2

Q2.4 If yes, what type of disability/disabilities and were they boys or girls or both?

Boy(s) Girl(s)

Both None

Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 1 2 3 4 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them.

1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4


1

Disability not known 1 Q2.5

Has the number of children with disabilities you teach changed in general?

Yes – more children in general Yes – less children in general No – the same number in general Don’t know

1 2 3 4

Please explain why (Prompt – repetition; transition; more children with disabilities enrolled)

39

SECTION 2: CONTRIBUTION OF L3 PLUS PROJECT TO EQUITABLE ACCESS TO EDUCATION FOR CWDs

SECTION 3: DEMONSTRATED CARE AND SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES Q3.1 How would you rate the way you included children with disabilities in the

classroom before and after the L3+ project? Very

poor Poor Fair Good Very

good Don’t know

Before 1 2 3 4 5 6 After 1 2 3 4 5 6 Please explain your answer. How did it help you?

Q3.2 Is it hard to teach children with special needs? Please explain your answer

Yes No

1 2

Q3.3 Do you know about teaching strategies and educational resources needed for special need education?

Yes No

1 2

Q3.4 What are some teaching materials and instructional strategies that you use to integrate children with disabilities into your class and help them to follow the courses that the other pupils in your class are following?

Q2.6

Why do you think children with disabilities drop out of school or never attend school? Poverty Gravity of child’s disability Parents think there is no need to send him/her to school. The school is too far away. Parents are ashamed or embarrassed by the disability of the child/children. Parents are afraid that their child will be teased at school. The child is excluded/rejected by the school Other reasons (please specify)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

41

SECTION 4: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Q4.1 For each of the following questions, how far do you agree or disagree?

Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Don’t know


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

I feel children with disabilities should receive special and extra support at my working place and in the community

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

I feel confident that members of this community have positive attitude and behaviour toward children with disabilities.

1 2 3 4 5

42

SECTION 5. ABOUT L3 PLUS PROJECT Q5.1 How far do you agree/disagree with the following statement?

The L3+ project helped me to include children with disability in the classroom. Please explain your answer. How did it help you?

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don’t know

1 2 3 4 5

Q5.2 Are you aware of the Resource Centres created for L3 Plus?

Yes No

1 2

Q5.3 How many times have you used the Resource Centre? Never Once 2 to 5 times More than 5 times

1 2 3 4

Q5.4 If you used the Resource Centre, how far do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Resource Centre is useful to me. Please explain your answer


1 2 3 4 5

Q5.5 I will read to you the three main objectives of the project. How far do you feel these objectives were met? Objective Not at

all A little A fair

amount A lot Fully Don’t

know Improved quality of teaching for children with special education needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools

1 2 3 4 5 6

Improved care and support for children with special needs (through enhanced skills and capacity of parents/caregivers, healthcare providers, CHWs and NCPD representatives in care and support for children with special needs)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Improved knowledge, attitude and behaviour amongst community members towards children with special needs

1 2 3 4 5 6

Please explain your answer

43

Q5.6 How much were these objectives needed in your community? Objective Not at

all A little A fair



1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


Q5.7 How would your rate the way the project was implemented in terms of the following? Objective Very


good Don’t know

Communication by VSO 1 2 3 4 5 6 Planning Delivery of activities Abilities of staff Use of resources Please explain your answer

Q5.8 How likely is it that the new knowledge and approaches promoted in the project will continue after the project ends? Please explain your answer:

Not at all likely A little likely Fairly likely Very likely Completely likely Don’t know

2 3 4 5 6

Q5.9 Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Do you have any questions for us, or is there anything else you would like to add about the way the project was designed, delivered and its impact that we haven’t already talked about? Take notes of questions/comments:

Thank you and close the interview

44

APPENDIX 2: L3+ END-LINE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS

Enumerator name

Date

Time Started

Time Ended

Introduction Hi, my name is __________. I am a researcher here on behalf of VSO Rwanda, an international development charity with a vision for a “World without poverty” and mission to “bring people together to fight poverty”. VSO is currently conducting an end-line evaluation of its L3 plus which has been contributing to equitable access to education for students with special educational needs. This project was implemented in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru districts. I am happy to talk to you today as part of this evaluation. You have been selected today to participate in this end-line evaluation because you are a participant in the L3 plus project. As you may remember from the informed consent form that you signed, I wanted to remind you that there are no right or wrong answers as we talk, and you can respond in whatever way you would like. Also, your participation in this discussion is voluntary, which means that you have the option not to answer any questions for any reason, or to leave the discussion at any point. Also, anything you say will be kept confidential, which means that your name will not be used, and only those involved in this research project will see the information you give us. An end-line evaluation report will be prepared, but your names and any personal information about you will not be included. This interview will take a maximum of one hour.

45


No. Questions Response options and codes Q1.1 ID Q1.2 District Q1.3 Sector Q1.4 How old are you? (Age in number of years) Q1.5 Sex of the Respondent Male

Female 1 2



1 2 3

Q1.7 Which of the following are true for you? Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses Yes 1 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them.

Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1

None of the above Yes 1 Q1.8 How many children with disabilities do you have? Q1.9 Which of the following is true for your

child/children? 1st CHILD 2nd CHILD

Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 1 1 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them.

1 1


1 1


1 1


1 1


1 1


1 1

Q1.10

What age is the child? 1st CHILD 2nd CHILD

Q1.11

Does your child/children attend school now? 1 Yes 2 No

1 Yes 2 No

Q1.14

If they are not in school now, why not?

1st CHILD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2nd CHILD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

46

SECTION 2: DEMONSTRATED CARE AND SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES Q3.1 How would you rate the way you were able to care for and support your child with

disabilities before and after the L3+ project? Very


good Don’t know

Before 1 2 3 4 5 6 After 1 2 3 4 5 6 Please explain your answer

Q3.2 Do you know about ways you can care for and support your child with disabilities?

Yes No

1 2

Q3.3 What are some of the most important ways you can care for and support your child with disabilities?

Q1.12

Did your child/children attend school last year? 1st CHILD 2nd CHILD

1 Yes 2 No

1 Yes 2 No

Q1.13

What year are they in now or what year were they in when they left?

1st CHILD 2nd CHILD

1 2 3 4 5 6 Don’t know

1 2 3 4 5 6 Don’t know

47

SECTION 3: SERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Q4.1 How would you rate the education your child received before L3+ (May 2015) and after? Very


good Don’t know


Q4.2 How would you rate the support your child received from a Community Health Worker before L3+ (May 2015) and after? Very


good Don’t know


Q4.3 How would you rate the support your child received from a Health Care Provider before L3+ (May 2015) and after? Very


good Don’t know


Q4.3 How would you rate the support your child received from an NCPD representative before L3+ (May 2015) and after? Very


good Don’t know


Q4.4 Where do you get information that can help you with the care and education of your child?

From community health workers From health care providers From NCPD representatives From Resource Rooms Community sports demonstrations Community theatre From radio From TV From local leaders

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

48

From schools members From a newspaper or magazine Posters or banners T-Shirt Other (please specify)

10 11 12 13 14

49



Strongly Agree


Don’t know


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

I feel children with disabilities should receive special and extra support at school and in their community, if they need it.

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

When a child with a disability goes to schools, is that child treated like other children

1 2 3 4 5

I wish I understood more about disability. 1 2 3 4 5

50

SECTION 5. ABOUT L3 PLUS PROJECT Q5.1 How far do you agree/disagree with the following statement?

The L3+ project helped me to care and support my child with disability. Please explain your answer. How did it help you?


1 2 3 4 5


Yes No

1 2


1 2 3 4

Q5.4 If you used the Resource Centre, how far do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Resource Centre is useful to me. Please explain your answer


1 2 3 4 5


all A little A fair


know

Improved quality of teaching for children with special education needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools

1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


51

Q5.6 How much were these objectives needed in your community? Objective Not at

all A little A fair


know

Improved quality of teaching for children with special education needs at P1 to P4 level in mainstream schools

1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6




good Don’t know




2 3 4 5 6


Thank you and close the interview

52

APPENDIX 3: L3 Plus ENDLINE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

Enumerator name

Date

Time Started

Time Ended

Introduction Hi, my name is __________. I am a researcher here on behalf of VSO Rwanda, an international development charity with a vision for a “World without poverty” and mission to “bring people together to fight poverty”. VSO is currently conducting an Endline evaluation of its L3 plus which has been contributing to equitable access to education for students with special educational needs. This project was implemented in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. I am happy to talk to you today as part of this evaluation. You have been selected today to participate in this Endline evaluation because you are a participant in the L3 plus project. As you may remember from the informed consent form that you signed, I wanted to remind you that there are no right or wrong answers as we talk, and you can respond in whatever way you would like. Also, your participation in this discussion is voluntary, which means that you have the option not to answer any questions for any reason, or to leave the discussion at any point. Also, anything you say will be kept confidential, which means that your name will not be used, and only those involved in this research project will see the information you give us. An Endline evaluation report will be prepared, but your names and any personal information about you will not be included. This interview will take a maximum of one hour.

53


No. Questions Response options and codes Q1.1 ID Q1.2 District Q1.3 Sector Q1.4 How old are you? (Age in number of years) Q1.5 Sex of the Respondent Male

Female 1 2



1 2 3

Q1.7 What is your position? Community Health Worker Health Care Provider

1 2

Q1.8 For how many years have you been in this position? 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-15years More than 15 years

1 2 3 4

Q1.9 Which of the following are true for you? Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses Yes 1

Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them.

Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1


Yes 1

None of the above Yes 1

54

SECTION 2: DEMONSTRATED CARE AND SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES SECTION 3: DEMONSTRATED CARE AND SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES Q3.1 How would you rate the way you supported with children with disabilities in

your work before and after the L3 Plus project? Very


good Don’t know


Q3.2 Do you find it difficult to provide health care for children with disabilities? Explain your answer:

Yes No

1 2

Q3.3 What do you do in order to help children with disabilities in their daily life so that they can be integrated in your community?

Q3.4 How do you approach and help families of children with disabilities?

55



Strongly Agree


Don’t know






I feel children with disabilities should receive special and extra support at school and in the community if they need it

I always treat children with disabilities with respect

I feel children with disabilities should go to the same hospitals and clinics as children without disabilities

There is a no need for special courses to qualify individuals to care for children with disabilities. Having personal experience is more preferable.

I wish that I had a better understanding of children with disabilities and the different types of disabilities that they may have.

56

SECTION 5. ABOUT L3 PLUS PROJECT

Q5.1 How far do you agree/disagree with the following statement?

The L3 Plus project helped me to include children with disability in my work. Please explain your answer. How did it help you?


1 2 3 4 5


Yes No

1 2


1 2 3 4

Q5.4 If you used the Resource Centre, how far do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Resource Centre is useful to me.



1 2 3 4 5


all A little A fair



1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


57

Q5.6 How much were these objectives needed in your community? Objective Not

at all A little A fair



1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6


1 2 3 4 5 6




good Don’t know




2 3 4 5 6


Thank you and close

58

APPENDIX 4: L3 Plus ENDLINE EVALUATION FGD FOR CHILDREN

Introduction

Hi, my name is __________ and this is ____________. We are researchers here on behalf of VSO Rwanda, an international development charity with a vision for a “World without poverty” and mission to “bring people together to fight poverty”. VSO has been running a project called L3 plus and now we want to know if it has gone well. The project aimed to increase access to education for students with special educational needs. This project was run in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. I am happy to talk to you today as part of this evaluation.

You have been selected today to participate in this Endline evaluation because you are studying at a mainstream school where L3 Plus project was conducted. As you may remember from the informed consent form that were signed, I wanted to remind you that there are no right or wrong answers as we talk, and you can respond in whatever way you would like. Also, your participation in this discussion is voluntary, which means that you have the option not to answer any questions for any reason, or to leave the discussion at any point. Also, anything you say will be kept confidential, which means that your name will not be used, and only those involved in this research project will see the information you give us. An Endline evaluation report will be prepared, but your names and any personal information about you will not be included. This interview will take between 1 – 1.5 hours.

Ice Breaker: Let us introduce ourselves (name and favourite thing about school)

Questions:

Q1 Have you heard about L3 Plus? If not, describe its main objectives in child-friendly terms. Q2. We’re going to draw a picture of your classroom. Can you help me? Start to draw as instructed by the children and ask:

• Where are the desks, chairs and blackboard, windows, doors, books? • Where are the pupils and what are they doing/what do they do? • Where is the teacher and what are they doing/what do they do?

Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 1 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them. 2 Difficulty walking or climbing steps compared to people the same age 3 Difficulty with self-care for their age such as washing all over or dressing compared to people the same age

4

Difficulty remembering or concentrating compared to people the same age 5 Difficulty understanding or being understood using your usual (customary) language 6 Other: Please specify

7

59

Q3. In your class there are children with all different types of abilities. And some have special needs.

• Where are you / the children with special needs in the classroom and what are

you/they doing/what do you/they do? Are they all there? Or are some at home? Why? What do you think about that?

• What special needs do they have? What do you think about that? • Is the teacher talking to that child/you? Do they help that child? How? What do you

think about that? • Are you talking to the child? Do you help them? / Are pupils talking to you? Do they

help you? What do you think about that? Q4. What about the playground?

• Where is the child with special needs? • What are they doing? What do you think about that? • Are they playing with other children? What do you think about that?

Q5. Has it always been like this at your school or has something changed?

• Are there more or less children with special needs at school? Why? • Have teachers changes how they teach? How? Do you know why? • Have you changed some of your ideas about yourself (as a child with special needs) /

about children with special needs? How? What made you change your idea? Q6. What about outside school? What is it like for children with special needs at home and when they are moving about their village? Q7. Do you think we need to do something else to help children with special needs? What? Who should do it? Q8. What will school be like for these children in the future? Q9. Do you have any questions for me? Thank you!

APPENDIX 5: L3 Plus ENDLINE EVALUATION FGD FOR PARENTS

60

Introduction

Hi, my name is __________ and this is ____________. We are researchers here on behalf of VSO Rwanda, an international development charity with a vision for a “World without poverty” and mission to “bring people together to fight poverty”. VSO is currently conducting an Endline evaluation of its L3 plus project, which has been contributing to equitable access to education for students with special educational needs. This project was implemented in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. I am happy to talk to you today as part of this evaluation. You have been selected today to participate in this Endline evaluation because you are a beneficiary of L3 plus project and you have children with disabilities. As you may remember from the informed consent form that you signed, I wanted to remind you that there are no right or wrong answers as we talk, and you can respond in whatever way you would like. Also, your participation in this discussion is voluntary, which means that you have the option not to answer any questions for any reason, or to leave the discussion at any point. Also, anything you say will be kept confidential, which means that your name will not be used, and only those involved in this research project will see the information you give us. An Endline evaluation report will be prepared, but your names and any personal information about you will not be included. This interview will take between 1 – 1.5 hours. Ice Breaker: Let us introduce ourselves Questions Q1. Tell us about your family and how you have been involved in the L3 Plus project. Probe:

• What children with disabilities do you have? • What L3 Plus activities were you involved in? What activities have you seen? (e.g., parent training and residential camps, Resource Rooms)

Q2. What does “special needs” and “disability” mean to you? Probe:

• What do you know about disability, its causes and effects? • What are children with disabilities capable of? • Would you have answered this question differently before the L3 Plus project?

What would you have said before? Q3. Here are the objectives of the project (show on flash card). Do you think these were achieved? Probe:

Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 1 Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them. 2 Difficulty walking or climbing steps compared to people the same age 3 Difficulty with self-care for their age such as washing all over or dressing compared to people the same age

4

Difficulty remembering or concentrating compared to people the same age 5 Difficulty understanding or being understood using your usual (customary) language 6 Other: Please specify

7

61

• Explain with reference to the impact the project has had on your and your child and on the community in general? Specifically parents, schools, CHW, Health care providers, NCPD representatives

• What has changed and why? • What activities were carried out to make progress in these areas? E.g Training,

Resource Rooms, community theatre etc. Q4. Do you think these things were needed in your community? Probe:

• What was the need before? • Particularly in relation to parents, schools, CHW, Health care providers, NCPD

representatives and the general community. • Where there other objectives that could have been set?

Q5. Do you think L3 Plus project has helped you as a parent? How? Probe:

• Has it improved your knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with special needs?

• What are your attitudes towards children with disabilities? (In other words, what do you think/say/do?)

Q6. How far do you think the L3 project has had an impact on the way in which different people work together for the care and education of CWD? Probe:

• Specifically Parents, teachers, CHW, HCPs, community members, NCPD Q7. What do you think about the way the project was implemented? Probe:

• Communication by VSO • Planning • Delivery of activities • Abilities of staff • Use of resources

Q8. How likely do you think it is that the new knowledge and approaches promoted in the project will continue after the project ends?

• In terms of your role as a parent • In terms of how decisions are made and resources are allocated • In terms of the roles of other people • In terms of how people work together? • What further support might be needed to help continue/embed this knowledge and

approaches? • Please explain your answer/ why do you say that?

Q9. Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Do you have any questions for us, or is there anything else you would like to add that we haven’t already talked about? Thank and close

62

APPENDIX 6: L3 Plus Project ENDLINE EVALUATION KII FOR SEOs, HTs, NCPD Introduction

Hi, my name is __________. I am a researcher here on behalf of VSO Rwanda, an international development charity with a vision for a “World without poverty” and mission to “bring people together to fight poverty”. VSO is currently conducting an Endline evaluation of its L3 plus which has been contributing to equitable access to education for students with special educational needs. This project was implemented in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. I am happy to talk to you today as part of this evaluation.

You have been selected today to participate in this Endline evaluation because schools in your sector have benefited from L3 Plus project. As you may remember from the informed consent form that you signed, I wanted to remind you that there are no right or wrong answers as we talk, and you can respond in whatever way you would like. Also, your participation in this discussion is voluntary, which means that you have the option not to answer any questions for any reason, or to leave the discussion at any point. Also, anything you say will be kept confidential, which means that your name will not be used, and only those involved in this research project will see the information you give us. An Endline evaluation report will be prepared, but your names and any personal information about you will not be included. This interview will take between 1 – 1.5 hours.

Questions Q1. Tell us about your role and how this relates to children with disabilities and their families. Probe:

• Your role as an SEO/HT/NCPD Q2. What does “special needs” and “disability” mean to you? Probe:

• What do you know about disability, its causes and effects? • What are children with disabilities capable of? • Would you have answered this question differently before the L3 Plus project? What

would you have said before?

Difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses 1

Difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid or shouting very loudly at them. 2

Difficulty walking or climbing steps compared to people the same age 3


4

Difficulty remembering or concentrating compared to people the same age 5

Difficulty understanding or being understood using your usual (customary) language 6


7

63

Q2. Tell us how you have been involved in the L3 Plus project. Probe:

• What L3 Plus activities were you involved in? What activities have you seen? (e.g., data collection, received/observed training, parent training and residential camps, Resource Rooms

Q5. Do you think L3 Plus project has helped you in your role? How? Probe:

• Has it improved your knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards children with special needs?

• Has it improved how you work with others? • What are your attitudes towards children with disabilities? (In other words, what do

you think/say/do?) Q3. Here are the objectives of the project (show on flash card). Do you think these were achieved? Probe:

• Explain with reference to the impact the project has had on your and your child and on the community in general? Specifically community member, parents, schools, CHW, Health care providers, NCPD representatives

• What has changed and why? • What activities were carried out to make progress in these areas? E.g Training,

Resource Rooms, community theatre, sports demonstrations etc.

Q4. Do you think these things were needed in your community? Probe:

• What was the need before? Were the objectives relevant? • Particularly in relation to parents, schools, CHW, Health care providers, NCPD

representatives and the general community. • Where there other objectives that could have been set?

Q6. How far do you think the L3 project has had an impact on the way in which different people work together for the care and education of CWD? Probe:

• Specifically parents, teachers, CHW, HCPs, community members, NCPD Q7. What do you think about the way the project was implemented? Probe:

• Communication by VSO • Planning • Delivery of activities • Abilities of staff • Use of resources

Q8. How likely do you think it is that the new knowledge and approaches promoted in the project will continue after the project ends?

• In terms of your role as a parent • In terms of how decisions are made and resources are allocated • In terms of the roles of other people • In terms of how people work together?

64

• What further support might be needed to help continue/embed this knowledge and approaches?

Q9. Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Do you have any questions for us, or is there anything else you would like to add that we haven’t already talked about? Thanks and close

l3 plus project endline evaluation a final report ...idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/usaid l3...

Documents