A Comparative Study of Core Academic Skills in Community and Government Schools in Rural Upper-Egypt

• In Event: Empowering perspectives on community education, literature, and special education in Egypt

Proposal

UNICEF began the community school program in Egypt in 1992 with four one-classroom schools in upper-Egyptian hamlets (Zaalouk 2004). Throughout the 1990s, culminating in a “rigorous, systematic, and comprehensive evaluation performed in 1999-2000” (Zaalouk 2004:108), assessments of the UNICEF community schools, found that community school students had higher scores in Arabic and mathematics than did the students in regular government schools (Zaalouk 2004). Subsequent reports of the academic success of Egypt’s community schools have been rooted in Malak Zaalouk’s (2004) book (DeStefano et al. 2007; ENID 2015; Farrell and Hartwell 2008). Some argue that children in the poorest, most underserved, areas learn best in complementary education programs such as community schools (Hartwell 2007). USAID and the EU are currently funding projects in Egypt focused on community schools, asserting they provide high quality education for children otherwise unable to access schooling (USAID 2016; WFP 2016).

Based on the early success of the UNICEF program, in 1993 the Ministry of Education (MoE) established the one-classroom schools initiative (Zaalouk 1995). With support from international agencies, bilateral donors, and NGOs, community schools spread throughout the country. There are now more than 4600 classrooms / schools using the community school model of alternative education (MoE 2014). As the number of community schools has increased, they have changed. Since 2008 all community schools are under MoE administration; they largely follow the standard MoE curriculum.

After the assessment of the UNICEF community schools in 1999-2000, no published study has compared core academic skills of community school versus regular government school students. We have undertaken such a study in the schools of two upper-Egyptian villages.

We selected students in the 3rd and 6th years of primary school, and the 3rd year of preparatory (middle) school. Because of the small number of community school students, we included all girls in 3rd through 6th primary in both villages. Therefore, 3rd primary results for the community schools include girls in 3rd and 4th primary (71 total). Scores for 6th primary in community schools include girls in 5th and 6th primary (76 total). For the regular government schools, in each village we selected 50 girls in 3rd and 50 more in 6th primary for a total of 100 girls in each grade. There are no community schools at the preparatory stage. For 3rd preparatory, we tested 101 girls from the two villages – 72 had attended a regular government primary school, 29 had attended a community primary school.

Many primary school girls have difficulty reading Modern Standard Arabic (fusˤħa). Therefore, 3rd and 6th primary students were given two exams – short and long. Girls did the short exam (lasting 15-20 minutes) on their own. Those unable to read could not answer questions that required reading. The long exam took about 30-45 minutes. For the long exam, students were assisted in understanding the questions, including translation into colloquial Arabic, if needed. Students in 3rd preparatory were expected to be able to read, and received no assistance.

Exam questions were extracted from standard government textbooks. Each exam included questions from the current year of study, and from the 2-3 previous years. For example, for 6th primary, questions came from the texts for 3rd through 6th primary.

We computerized as much of each answer as possible, including exact answers when feasible. If exact responses could not be computerized, we coded: correct; incorrect; “blank”; and “out-of-scope”. “Blank”, or non-response, generally implies the student was unable to read the question, or had no idea about the answer. “Out-of-scope” is used for responses so inaccurate as to not fit the coding format; e.g. a 5 digit response to a math problem where the correct answer was 2 digits.

We divided math questions into four types depending on the amount of reading required: none (just numbers and mathematical symbols), to substantial (the question cannot be answered without good reading skills), with two levels in between. For the Arabic exam, we grouped questions into types such as grammar, vocabulary, read a text and answer questions related to the text, critical thinking required, etc. We focused our preliminary analysis on percent correct and percent non-response. This approach is particularly revealing when comparing responses to the short and long exams of primary school students.

Students in both government and community schools did poorly. This is consistent with Egypt’s poor standing on recent TIMSS (2015) and PIRLS (2016) exams. MoE reports acknowledge the poor quality of education (MoE 2014). (An MoE initiative to improve pre-tertiary education is just beginning.)

Our goal, however, is to verify or refute earlier assessments claiming superior learning in community schools. Contrary to previous results, community school students consistently score worse than those in regular government schools. Considering questions grouped by type, both Arabic and math, in 41 of 47 comparisons government school students answered significantly more questions correctly than community school students. In 35 or 47 type-specific groups, community school students were significantly more likely to skip questions. Community school students never did significantly better. Students in 3rd preparatory had studied together in the same school, with the same teachers, for two years. Still students who went to community primary schools did significantly worse on almost all types of questions. This suggests that community school girls came to preparatory school with educational deficiencies; preparatory school failed to mitigate the deficiencies.

In further analysis, we will go beyond documenting how poorly students do, to examine specific gaps in learning. We hypothesize that children don’t learn basics – not in Arabic, nor math. We will also assess the effects of student background, and other educational factors such as tutoring, on exam results.

This small study presents a warning about the quality of education, especially in the community schools. It should be replicated in more schools.

Authors

• Ray Langsten, Social Research Center / American Univ in Cairo

• Fatma Said Abdelkhalek, Budapest University of Economics and Technology

• Tahra Hassan, Social Research Center / American Univ in Cairo