Reflecting on an impact evaluation of the Grade R programme: Method, results and policy responses

Abstract

This paper describes the expansion since 2001 of a public pre-school programme in South Africa known as ‘Grade R’, summarises the findings from an impact evaluation of the introduction of Grade R, discusses the policy recommendations flowing from the evaluation and reflects on the process of implementing the recommendations. The Grade R programme has expanded dramatically, to the point where participation is nearly universal. Although a substantial literature points to large potential benefits from pre-school educational opportunities, the impact evaluation reported on in this article demonstrated that the Grade R programme, as implemented until 2011, had a limited impact on later educational outcomes. Improving the quality of Grade R, especially in schools serving low socio-economic status communities, thus emerges as a key policy imperative. Recommended responses include professionalising Grade R teachers, providing practical in-service support, increasing access to appropriate storybooks, empowering teachers to assess the development of their learners, and improving financial record-keeping of Grade R expenditure by provincial education departments. The impact evaluation was initiated by the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) and the Department of Basic Education (DBE), and was conducted by independent researchers. The move towards increased evaluation of key government programmes is important for shifting the focus of programme managers and policymakers towards programme outcomes rather than only programme inputs. Yet the process is not without its challenges: following a clear process to ensure the implementation of the lessons learned from such an evaluation is not necessarily straightforward.

A micro-level outcomes evaluation of a skills capacity intervention within the South African public service: Towards an impact evaluation

“…As far as could be established, similar findings have not previously been reported. Samuels et al (2015) did an impact evaluation of a Grade R programme. Mashalaba et al (2015) did an implementation evaluation of the business process services (BPS) incentive programme undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry.…”

“…The evaluation of outcome, under the ambit of an impact assessment, could entail a knowledge increase, and a behavioural and/or an attitudinal change (Babbie & Mouton, 2011). Because of the fact that this study controlled for the influence of previous training, the view of Samuels et al (2015), who found that an educational intervention had limited impact on later educational outcomes, is pertinent.…”

Are there long-term benefits from early childhood education in low- and middle-income countries?

“…The upper-middle-income countries (defined as having per capita incomes from $4,126 to $12,735) include Colombia ($6,990), Macedonia ($4,870), and the Chinese province of Yunnan ($4,435). These countries represent several world regions: Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Armenia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine), Latin America (Bolivia and Colombia), Sub-Saharan 3 As Samuels et al (2015) acknowledges, the Grade R evaluation was not a randomized control trial. Since the program was already in place, researchers matched participant and nonparticipant students with similar characteristics.…”

Grade R educators voluntarily share their mathematics practices: Authentic realities in South Africa showcased

“…Evaluations and research have pointed to the generally poor mathematics early learning experiences of South African learners (Feza 2013). In addition, studies have revealed that Grade R (the reception year) is subjected to disturbing, multifaceted challenges that are a cause for concern among stakeholders, who view current practices as being out of step with policy guidelines (Artmore, Van Niekerk & Ashley-Cooper 2012;Excell & Linington 2011;Hoadley 2013;Samuels et al 2015). Among the challenges facing this sector are poorly trained educators who have a minimum of content knowledge of mathematics (Spaull 2013), have poor classroom practices (Feza 2013) and are inept at the use of technology (Mdlongwa 2012).…”