Overview

Row

77.1%
GPS Average Endline
Baseline 59.2% across all six modules

48.1%
Control Average Endline
Baseline 45.3% across control schools

+15.1pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +17.9pp minus Control trend +2.8pp

Row

+46.4pp
Scaffolding for Struggling Learners
GPS +62.9pp vs. Control +16.5pp  ·  Strongest programme-attributable item gain

+44.7pp
Assessment Data Used for Planning
GPS +24.2pp vs. Control −20.5pp  ·  Weakest item overall but strongest programme contribution

Row

Key Findings

Strongest Performer
Lesson Planning & Classroom Management achieved the highest endline score (82.2%) and a DiD estimate of +14.4pp (GPS +23.8pp vs. Control +9.4pp). It is the standout model for replication across the programme.
Priority Area: Action Required
Assessment & Evaluation has a DiD estimate of +9.2pp (GPS +8.3pp vs. Control −0.9pp) and is the only module still below 70%. The core problem: teachers are assessing but assessment results are not feeding back into lesson planning (42.1%, the lowest individual item in the entire evaluation). Every assessment being conducted right now is failing its primary purpose.
Programme Impact
GPS schools outperformed control schools across all six modules at endline. The DiD estimate averaged +15.1pp across all six modules — the programme effect after accounting for the control group trend.
Progress Against Threshold
Five of six modules crossed the 70% performance threshold by endline. Child Development (68.9%) is the final module yet to reach this target and is close to achieving it.

Row

Cross-Cutting Training Gap: Present in All Six Modules
Interactive and group-based pedagogy failed to take root across every module in the programme. Group work, collaborative problem-solving, and varied approaches are the weakest-scoring item in M1 (45.7%), M2 (48.8%), M4 (53.6%), and M5 (45.3%), and remain below 70% in M3. This is not six separate module weaknesses: it is one systemic training gap. Teachers absorbed the content of each module; they have not internalised the pedagogy. Interactive methods must be the centrepiece of the next training cycle, not one item among many.

Row

Safeguarding Notice: Programme Team Action Required
Physical punishment and systematic threatening language were documented at endline in control schools (Lixle and Boqoljire), not in GPS-trained classrooms. These incidents are not reflected in the GPS M6 aggregate score of 93.1%. Within GPS schools, one school showed residual signs of a fear-inhibited classroom environment, flagged for coaching. The control school incidents are safeguarding matters regardless of programme status and require direct follow-up through programme safeguarding protocols. See the M6 tab for detail.

Row

Module Performance: Endline Score vs. DiD Estimate

Legend
Strongest
performer
Priority
area
All other
modules
Quadrant Lines
Vertical: 70% programme performance threshold. Horizontal: mean DiD across all six modules (+15.1pp).

Row

Statistical Summary: DiD Estimates, Effect Sizes and Significance

Module DiD SE Hedges g p-value Sig.
M1: Child Development +25.4pp (7.83) 0.86 0.003 p<0.05
M2: Curriculum Studies +6.8pp (9.20) 0.25 0.467 ns
M3: Teaching Methodology +17.4pp (12.86) 0.45 0.194 ns
M4: Lesson Planning +14.4pp (13.69) 0.44 0.311 ns
M5: Assessment +8.9pp (14.82) 0.22 0.557 ns
M6: Ethics & Ownership +17.5pp (11.04) 0.66 0.136 ns
Welch t-test on per-teacher gain scores (n=43 GPS, n=12 control). Hedges g: ≥ 0.8 large (green), ≥ 0.5 medium (amber), < 0.5 small (grey). Only 2 control schools — school-level clustering cannot be estimated; p-values treat teachers as independent observations.

Row

Module Summary

Module Endline DiD Est. GPS Lead Position
M6: Ethics, Principles & Ownership 93.1% +17.5 pp +35.3 pp Strong and Improving
M4: Lesson Planning & Classroom Mgmt 82.2% +14.4 pp +32.8 pp Strong but Stable
M2: Curriculum Studies 81.2% +6.8 pp +24.0 pp Strong but Stable
M3: Teaching Methodology 70.7% +17.4 pp +32.4 pp Strong and Improving
M1: Child Development & Psychology 68.9% +25.4 pp +25.9 pp Improving but Still Weak
M5: Assessment and Evaluation 66.6% +8.9 pp +24.0 pp Needs Attention

M1: Child Development

Row

68.9%
GPS Endline Score
Amber: just below the 70% threshold

+25.4pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +23.4pp vs. Control −1.9pp

+25.9pp
GPS Advantage at Endline
Control schools: 43.0%

Row

Enumerator Notes: What We Observed at Endline (n=55)
What Improved
Equal participation and encouragement rose sharply. Teachers consistently praised effort not just correct answers, and ensured all learners regardless of gender or background had equal opportunity to contribute.
Remaining Challenges
Local teaching materials (23.5%), group work and play-based activities (45.7%), and varied teaching approaches (53.7%) remain weakest. Most classrooms still relied on single-method verbal delivery.
Field Observation
“The teacher celebrated progress not just for perfection. He acknowledged the efforts publicly to support every child’s improvement.”

Row

Item Performance: Quadrant Analysis

Row

Item Scorecard

Item Endline GPS Gain DiD Est. Control Gain Position
Scaffolding / support for struggling learners * 100.0% +62.9 pp +46.4 pp +16.5 pp Strong & Improving
Equal participation (gender / background) 95.2% +3.5 pp +20.2 pp -16.7 pp Stable
Encouragement and motivation FDR 92.9% +28.9 pp +14.8 pp +14.1 pp Stable
Respectful classroom culture 90.7% +11.6 pp +40.7 pp -29.1 pp Strong & Improving
SEND adaptation 81.2% +67.6 pp +17.6 pp +50.0 pp Stable
Developmental appropriateness 77.9% +24.4 pp +3.5 pp +20.9 pp Stable
Empathy / conflict resolution 69.6% -8.2 pp +21.8 pp -30.0 pp Needs Attention
Responds to student emotions 62.0% +43.8 pp +43.8 pp Improving
Varied approaches (visuals, stories, songs) 53.7% +50.7 pp +42.4 pp +8.3 pp Improving
Seating promotes cooperation 52.3% +3.5 pp +24.3 pp -20.8 pp Needs Attention
Calming techniques (low-resource) 52.1% +39.6 pp +31.3 pp +8.3 pp Improving
Group work / play-based learning * 45.7% +43.1 pp +13.9 pp +29.2 pp Needs Attention
Local / low-cost teaching materials 23.5% +14.4 pp +39.4 pp -25.0 pp Improving

M2: Curriculum Studies

Row

81.2%
GPS Endline Score
Green tier above the 70% threshold

+6.8pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +19.3pp vs. Control +12.5pp

+24.0pp
GPS Advantage at Endline
Control schools: 57.2%

Row

Enumerator Notes: What We Observed at Endline (n=55)
What Improved
Subject knowledge and lesson sequencing were near-universal strengths. Teachers were confident, organised lessons with clear structure, connected new content to prior knowledge, and corrected student errors effectively.
Remaining Challenges
Interactive methods (group work, problem-solving) scored just 48.8%, the weakest item in the module. Most lessons relied on teacher-led Q&A; collaborative or practical activities were rarely observed.
Field Observation
“The lesson followed a clear and logical sequence. The teacher connected new content to previous knowledge or real-life experiences, making it easier for learners to understand and follow.”

Row

Item Performance: Quadrant Analysis

Row

Item Scorecard

Item Endline GPS Gain DiD Est. Control Gain Position
Content confidence and accuracy 100.0% +3.6 pp -0.6 pp +4.2 pp DiD Negative
Logical lesson sequencing * 98.8% +14.3 pp +35.1 pp -20.8 pp Strong & Improving
Student engagement and interest 84.9% +8.7 pp -7.9 pp +16.6 pp DiD Negative
Error correction / addressing confusion 81.2% +28.9 pp -3.2 pp +32.1 pp DiD Negative
Real-life / local relevance 75.6% +33.1 pp +12.3 pp +20.8 pp Strong & Improving
Interactive methods (group work, problem-solving) 48.8% +37.3 pp -0.2 pp +37.5 pp DiD Negative

M3: Teaching Methodology

Row

70.7%
GPS Endline Score
Green tier above the 70% threshold

+17.4pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +21.6pp vs. Control +4.1pp

+32.4pp
GPS Advantage at Endline
Control schools: 38.3%

Row

Enumerator Notes: What We Observed at Endline (n=55)
What Improved
Linking lessons to prior knowledge and active monitoring both improved substantially. Most teachers walked the classroom, marked exercises, and provided corrections to students in real time during activities.
Remaining Challenges
Teaching aids (30.3%) remain critically absent: visual, audio, or audio-visual resources were not observed in the majority of classrooms. Active student participation vs. passive listening remained inconsistent.
Field Observation
“The teacher monitors the student’s progress. He goes through the class, marks the exercise of the students, engages the students. He corrects and makes feedback of the students’ work.”

Row

Item Performance: Quadrant Analysis

Row

Item Scorecard

Item Endline GPS Gain DiD Est. Control Gain Position
Links to prior knowledge 87.2% +20.5 pp +33.0 pp -12.5 pp Strong & Improving
Active monitoring and timely feedback 80.2% +12.3 pp +41.4 pp -29.1 pp Strong & Improving
Method-objective alignment * 79.1% +34.9 pp +12.6 pp +22.3 pp Stable
Active participation vs lecture 68.6% +20.9 pp -12.4 pp +33.3 pp DiD Negative
Teaching aids used skillfully * 30.3% +24.4 pp +24.4 pp +0.0 pp Improving

M4: Lesson Planning & Mgmt

Row

82.2%
GPS Endline Score
Programme's strongest module green tier

+14.4pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +23.8pp vs. Control +9.4pp

+32.8pp
GPS Advantage at Endline
Control schools: 49.4%

Row

Enumerator Notes: What We Observed at Endline (n=55)
What Improved
Lesson structure (93.0%), non-punitive discipline (91.7%), and classroom routines (88.4%) were all high. Teachers arrived with structured plans, managed transitions smoothly, and corrected behaviour fairly.
Remaining Challenges
Interactive engagement scored 53.6%, the only weak item. Classrooms were well-managed but often passive; few lessons used group work or problem-solving to activate deeper learner participation.
Field Observation
“The lesson followed a logical sequence. The content was matched and aligned to the objectives of the lesson plan and scheme of work.”

Row

Item Performance: Quadrant Analysis

Row

Item Scorecard

Item Endline GPS Gain DiD Est. Control Gain Position
Clear lesson structure 93.0% +15.6 pp -16.4 pp +32.0 pp DiD Negative
Positive / non-punitive discipline 91.7% +1.2 pp +7.4 pp -6.2 pp Stable
Classroom rules and routines 88.4% +31.5 pp +35.7 pp -4.2 pp Strong & Improving
Formative assessment before close 86.0% +14.6 pp +1.3 pp +13.3 pp Stable
Interactive methods for engagement 53.6% +39.0 pp +5.7 pp +33.3 pp Needs Attention

M5: Assessment & Evaluation

Row

66.6%
GPS Endline Score
Amber below 70% threshold. Assessment loop broken. Action required.

+8.9pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +8.3pp vs. Control −0.9pp

+24.0pp
GPS Advantage at Endline
Control schools: 42.6%

Row

Enumerator Notes: What We Observed at Endline (n=55)
What Improved
Assessment alignment to content reached 100%: tasks consistently tested what was taught. Fair, calm assessment environments were maintained across schools and scoring was generally consistent.
Remaining Challenges
The assessment feedback loop is broken. ‘Assessment data used for planning’ scored 42.1%, the lowest individual item across the entire evaluation. Teachers are assessing, but results stop there: they do not feed back into future lesson design. Assessment without that loop is measurement without learning. Varied methods also scored 45.3%; oral questioning dominated throughout.
Field Observation
“The teacher assessed the students through short quizzes, oral questions and class work activities during the period. The teacher allowed students to demonstrate equal opportunity to show their knowledge.”

Row

Item Performance: Quadrant Analysis

Row

Item Scorecard

Item Endline GPS Gain DiD Est. Control Gain Position
Assessment aligned to content 100.0% +17.9 pp -3.9 pp +21.8 pp DiD Negative
Fair assessment environment 90.8% +16.4 pp -5.5 pp +21.9 pp DiD Negative
Consistent scoring method * 75.0% +10.0 pp -28.9 pp +38.9 pp DiD Negative
Constructive feedback 62.5% +8.4 pp +18.4 pp -10.0 pp Improving
Variety of assessment methods 45.3% +0.1 pp +0.1 pp +0.0 pp Needs Attention
Assessment data used for planning 42.1% +24.2 pp +44.7 pp -20.5 pp Improving

M6: Ethics & Ownership

Row

93.1%
GPS Endline Score
Highest endline score across all six modules

+17.5pp
DiD Estimate
GPS +11.1pp vs. Control −6.4pp

+35.3pp
GPS Advantage at Endline
Control schools: 57.8%  ·  Control declined from baseline

Row

Safeguarding Notice: Programme Team Action Required
Physical punishment was documented at Lixle (control) by three independent enumerators: a teacher was observed slapping a student and carrying a stick. Systematic threatening language was documented across multiple teachers at Boqoljire (control). These incidents do not appear in the GPS M6 aggregate of 93.1% and are not GPS programme failures. They are safeguarding incidents. They must be escalated through programme safeguarding protocols independently of this evaluation. R&E will make the raw observation records available to the programme team on request.

Row

Enumerator Notes: What We Observed at Endline (n=55)
What Improved
Respectful treatment (98.8%), punctuality (97.7%), and trust-building (91.9%) were near-universal. Teachers arrived prepared with plans and materials, treated all students fairly, and built warm classroom relationships.
Remaining Challenges
A small number of incidents involving physical punishment or threatening language were documented, undermining classroom safety in those settings. In some classrooms, students were not yet fully confident to ask questions or make mistakes freely.
Field Observation
“The teacher was punctual and visibly well prepared. He arrived early on time with a clear lesson plan, lesson note, scheme of work, and teaching materials.”

Row

Item Performance: Quadrant Analysis

Row

Item Scorecard

Item Endline GPS Gain DiD Est. Control Gain Position
Respectful / fair treatment of all students * 98.8% +6.9 pp +27.7 pp -20.8 pp Strong & Improving
Punctuality and preparedness 97.7% +11.1 pp +11.1 pp +0.0 pp Stable
Builds trust and respect with students 91.9% +2.4 pp +41.0 pp -38.6 pp Strong & Improving
Recognises student success and effort * 91.7% +24.3 pp -15.5 pp +39.8 pp DiD Negative
Teacher engagement and motivation 86.0% +10.4 pp +18.8 pp -8.4 pp Strong & Improving

School Breakdown

Row

GPS School Performance: Baseline, Endline and Improvement by Module

Each cell shows endline score (top) and change from baseline (bottom).  Green ≥70%  |  Amber 60–70%  |  Red <60%  |  Sorted by overall improvement. GPS schools only (n=43).
School Overall M1
Child Dev		M2
Curriculum		M3
Teaching		M4
Lesson Plan		M5
Assessment		M6
Ethics
Gadhyare★ Model school
Baseline: 46%
88%
+43pp
83%
+50pp
93%
+52pp
90%
+62pp
84%
+44pp
80%
+26pp
100%
+22pp
Faadumo Biixi★ Model school
Baseline: 44%
87%
+42pp
80%
+38pp
86%
+29pp
87%
+53pp
93%
+50pp
85%
+61pp
90%
+23pp
Sheikh Yousuf★ Model school
Baseline: 49%
90%
+42pp
85%
+51pp
94%
+47pp
87%
+50pp
97%
+42pp
81%
+33pp
100%
+27pp
31 May
Baseline: 53%
75%
+22pp
73%
+26pp
79%
+16pp
70%
+30pp
70%
+39pp
79%
+34pp
80%
-10pp
Mohamoud Xandulle
Baseline: 60%
79%
+19pp
72%
+29pp
88%
+29pp
70%
+22pp
82%
+23pp
62%
-4pp
100%
+15pp
Omar Tooray
Baseline: 51%
70%
+19pp
56%
+20pp
75%
+13pp
48%
+12pp
86%
+31pp
58%
+4pp
98%
+32pp
Omar Binu Khadab
Baseline: 63%
82%
+18pp
79%
+34pp
83%
+15pp
70%
+11pp
82%
+10pp
77%
+33pp
100%
+8pp
Ahmed Dhagax
Baseline: 60%
72%
+12pp
62%
+29pp
78%
+18pp
63%
+12pp
82%
+14pp
58%
-2pp
87%
+2pp
Gacmo Dheere
Baseline: 66%
77%
+11pp
66%
+11pp
81%
+12pp
79%
+19pp
78%
+21pp
73%
+6pp
87%
-1pp
Sheikh Ali IbrahimINVESTIGATE
Baseline: 77%
64%
-12pp
55%
-16pp
67%
-8pp
57%
-12pp
75%
+1pp
41%
-43pp
92%
+5pp

Teacher View

Row

Each row is one teacher. Cells show endline score (top) and change from baseline (bottom).  ·  Green ≥70%  ·  Amber 60–70%  ·  Red <60%  ·  Sorted within each school by overall improvement. GPS schools (n=43) + control schools (n=12).

Row

Individual Teacher Performance: Baseline to Endline by Module

Teacher Overall M1
Child Dev		M2
Curriculum		M3
Teaching		M4
Lesson Plan		M5
Assessment		M6
Ethics
GPS Programme Schools  (n=43)
31 May
T1 F
Somali · bachelor · Gr.1
76%
+25pp
71%
+26pp
92%
+25pp
70%
+20pp
70%
+58pp
83%
+43pp
70%
-20pp
T2 F
Mathematics · bachelor · Gr.1
74%
+19pp
75%
+25pp
67%
+7pp
70%
+40pp
70%
+20pp
75%
+25pp
90%
+0pp
Ahmed Dhagax
T54 F
Science · diploma · Gr.3
65%
+48pp
54%
+44pp
58%
+28pp
50%
+50pp
100%
+75pp
40%
+40pp
90%
+50pp
T5 M
Mathematics · bachelor · Gr.3
88%
+15pp
91%
+46pp
92%
+2pp
60%
+0pp
100%
+25pp
83%
+17pp
100%
+0pp
T4 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.2
70%
+13pp
50%
+17pp
83%
+33pp
80%
+50pp
80%
+10pp
58%
-25pp
70%
-10pp
T3 M
Social Studies · bachelor · Gr.2
78%
+6pp
83%
+38pp
92%
+12pp
70%
-10pp
70%
+8pp
60%
+0pp
90%
-10pp
T7 F
Social Studies · certificate · Gr.2
65%
+2pp
46%
+11pp
83%
+33pp
40%
-20pp
70%
-5pp
58%
-8pp
90%
+0pp
T6 M
English · bachelor · Gr.2
65%
-11pp
50%
+20pp
58%
-2pp
80%
+0pp
70%
-30pp
50%
-33pp
80%
-20pp
Faadumo Biixi★ Model school
T14 M
Social Studies · bachelor · Gr.4
88%
+50pp
85%
+39pp
75%
+33pp
90%
+70pp
90%
+50pp
88%
+79pp
100%
+30pp
T55 F
Science · bachelor · Gr.4
84%
+40pp
71%
+29pp
92%
+29pp
70%
+40pp
100%
+60pp
83%
+53pp
90%
+30pp
T52 M
Tarbiya · bachelor · Gr.3
88%
+37pp
85%
+45pp
92%
+25pp
100%
+50pp
90%
+40pp
83%
+50pp
80%
+10pp
Gacmo Dheere
T36 M
Arabic · bachelor · Gr.4
65%
+53pp
54%
+41pp
67%
+42pp
60%
+50pp
80%
+80pp
58%
+58pp
70%
+45pp
T17 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.3
94%
+17pp
100%
+38pp
92%
+8pp
100%
+30pp
75%
+0pp
100%
+25pp
100%
+0pp
T16 F
English · bachelor · Gr.2
99%
+16pp
96%
+25pp
100%
+20pp
100%
+30pp
100%
+20pp
100%
+0pp
100%
+0pp
T49 M
Mathematics · diploma · Gr.2
81%
+15pp
65%
+15pp
58%
-29pp
100%
+50pp
80%
+30pp
83%
+25pp
100%
+0pp
T18 M
Science · bachelor · Gr.4
70%
-2pp
45%
-14pp
83%
-7pp
70%
+0pp
80%
+18pp
58%
-2pp
80%
-10pp
T45 M
Tarbiya · certificate · Gr.3
66%
-8pp
42%
-21pp
83%
+33pp
60%
-20pp
80%
+18pp
58%
-25pp
70%
-30pp
T46 M
Social Studies · bachelor · Gr.3
65%
-11pp
58%
-5pp
83%
+13pp
60%
-10pp
50%
-17pp
50%
-40pp
90%
-10pp
Gadhyare★ Model school
T21 M
Social Studies · diploma · Gr.4
90%
+70pp
85%
+71pp
100%
+83pp
90%
+90pp
90%
+90pp
75%
100%
+30pp
T19 F
Mathematics · diploma · Gr.3
87%
+58pp
73%
+55pp
100%
+83pp
90%
+90pp
70%
+50pp
92%
+42pp
100%
+30pp
T22 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.2
88%
+44pp
92%
+67pp
80%
+38pp
80%
+50pp
90%
+30pp
83%
+50pp
100%
+30pp
T20 M
English · bachelor · Gr.4
88%
+4pp
81%
+6pp
92%
+2pp
100%
+20pp
88%
+8pp
70%
-10pp
100%
+0pp
Mohamoud Xandulle
T32 F
Mathematics · bachelor · Gr.1
88%
+54pp
94%
+81pp
100%
+60pp
70%
+60pp
80%
+30pp
83%
+33pp
100%
+60pp
T33 F
Social Studies · bachelor · Gr.4
92%
+20pp
89%
+22pp
92%
+22pp
100%
+40pp
90%
+28pp
83%
+8pp
100%
+0pp
T31 F
Arabic · certificate · Gr.4
71%
+4pp
56%
+26pp
80%
+20pp
70%
+10pp
80%
+5pp
40%
-40pp
100%
+0pp
T34 M
English · certificate · Gr.4
65%
-2pp
50%
-12pp
80%
+13pp
40%
-22pp
80%
+30pp
40%
-18pp
100%
+0pp
Omar Binu Khadab
T48 M
Science · diploma · Gr.2
88%
+29pp
94%
+59pp
92%
+12pp
90%
+50pp
70%
+8pp
83%
+33pp
100%
+10pp
T37 M
Social Studies · diploma · Gr.2
85%
+28pp
78%
+32pp
83%
+23pp
70%
+20pp
90%
+23pp
92%
+62pp
100%
+10pp
T35 M
Science · bachelor · Gr.4
91%
+24pp
94%
+44pp
92%
+25pp
80%
+20pp
90%
+10pp
92%
+32pp
100%
+10pp
T47 M
English · certificate · Gr.3
63%
-7pp
50%
+0pp
67%
+0pp
40%
-48pp
80%
+0pp
40%
+7pp
100%
+0pp
Omar Tooray
T50 M
English · bachelor · Gr.4
93%
+32pp
92%
+64pp
92%
+32pp
100%
+70pp
90%
+15pp
83%
+0pp
100%
+10pp
T38 M
Social Studies · certificate · Gr.4
56%
+29pp
38%
+15pp
60%
+20pp
30%
+10pp
75%
+38pp
33%
+33pp
100%
+60pp
T39 M
Mathematics · certificate · Gr.4
65%
+26pp
38%
+10pp
70%
+10pp
20%
-10pp
100%
+75pp
75%
+33pp
90%
+40pp
T51 M
Somali · diploma · Gr.3
66%
-12pp
56%
-7pp
80%
-10pp
40%
-20pp
80%
-3pp
40%
-52pp
100%
+20pp
Sheikh Ali Ibrahim⚠ Review grade 4 cohort
T15 M
Somali · certificate · Gr.4
28%
+7pp
29%
+21pp
40%
+15pp
10%
+10pp
25%
-5pp
0%
-33pp
62%
+32pp
T8 F
Social Studies · certificate · Gr.2
91%
+6pp
93%
+10pp
90%
+7pp
100%
+25pp
100%
+30pp
62%
-38pp
100%
+0pp
T13 F
Arabic · bachelor · Gr.4
78%
-16pp
79%
-5pp
90%
-2pp
80%
-20pp
80%
-10pp
38%
-62pp
100%
+0pp
T42 Mcoaching visit
Mathematics · certificate · Gr.4
60%
-19pp
38%
-62pp
50%
-17pp
50%
+12pp
75%
-5pp
58%
-42pp
90%
+0pp
T40 Mcoaching visit
Social Studies · bachelor · Gr.4
63%
-22pp
44%
-26pp
60%
-23pp
50%
-50pp
88%
+8pp
38%
-42pp
100%
+0pp
T41 Mcoaching visit
English · bachelor · Gr.4
67%
-28pp
50%
-36pp
70%
-30pp
50%
-50pp
80%
-10pp
50%
-40pp
100%
+0pp
Sheikh Yousuf★ Model school
T44 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.2
85%
+64pp
81%
+47pp
83%
+58pp
80%
+68pp
90%
+65pp
75%
+75pp
100%
+70pp
T43 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.2
96%
+60pp
92%
+76pp
100%
+83pp
100%
+90pp
100%
+60pp
83%
+42pp
100%
+10pp
T53 F
Somali · bachelor · Gr.1
91%
+1pp
81%
+31pp
100%
+0pp
80%
-8pp
100%
+0pp
83%
-17pp
100%
+0pp
Control Schools  (n=12)    comparison group, not GPS-trained
Boqoljire
T11 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.3
49%
+10pp
39%
+12pp
80%
+60pp
50%
+30pp
33%
+13pp
40%
-35pp
50%
-20pp
T12 F
Social Studies · bachelor · Gr.3
34%
-0pp
21%
-11pp
42%
+2pp
38%
+18pp
25%
-15pp
20%
-5pp
60%
+10pp
T9 M
Mathematics · bachelor · Gr.2
30%
-12pp
4%
-18pp
33%
-17pp
50%
+30pp
30%
-32pp
20%
-22pp
40%
-10pp
T10 M
English · bachelor · Gr.4
13%
-51pp
25%
-2pp
20%
-40pp
0%
-60pp
0%
-75pp
0%
-75pp
33%
-57pp
Lixle
T29 M
Arabic · bachelor · Gr.4
83%
+65pp
73%
+43pp
75%
+58pp
88%
+78pp
80%
+70pp
83%
+83pp
100%
+60pp
T25 F
Somali · bachelor · Gr.1
79%
+42pp
73%
+13pp
83%
+33pp
60%
+30pp
90%
+60pp
75%
+75pp
90%
+40pp
T30 M
Tarbiya · diploma · Gr.4
73%
+29pp
54%
+4pp
75%
+15pp
75%
+35pp
80%
+55pp
67%
+37pp
90%
+30pp
T28 F
Somali · bachelor · Gr.4
78%
+17pp
83%
+18pp
75%
+15pp
60%
+10pp
100%
+50pp
67%
+17pp
80%
-10pp
T27 M
Science · bachelor · Gr.3
43%
-5pp
44%
-6pp
50%
+10pp
10%
-20pp
62%
+25pp
40%
-10pp
50%
-30pp
T24 M
Somali · bachelor · Gr.2
48%
-11pp
38%
-38pp
70%
+12pp
30%
-30pp
50%
+10pp
50%
-12pp
50%
-10pp
T23 M
Mathematics · certificate · Gr.3
24%
-24pp
19%
-26pp
33%
-8pp
0%
-30pp
30%
-10pp
50%
-12pp
10%
-60pp
T26 F
Social Studies · certificate · Gr.2
24%
-25pp
44%
-12pp
50%
+10pp
0%
-40pp
12%
-38pp
0%
-50pp
40%
-20pp

Action Points

Row

Priority Actions for the Next Programme Phase

Immediate: Before Next School Term
1
Escalate safeguarding incidents from M6 endline observations
Physical punishment was documented at Lixle (control) by three enumerators; systematic threatening language was documented at Boqoljire (control). Both are control schools, not GPS classrooms. Initiate follow-up through programme safeguarding protocols. R&E will provide the raw observation records on request.
2
Review how assessment and lesson planning are taught as a connected cycle (M5)
Assessment data used for planning scored 42.1%, the single lowest item in the entire evaluation. The current training sequence does not appear to be building a feedback loop between assessment and future lesson design. Lead trainers should review how this connection is taught and whether it is practised, not just described, in training sessions.
Next Training Cycle: Structural Changes Required
3
Make interactive pedagogy the centrepiece of the next training cycle, not one item among many
Group work, collaborative problem-solving, and varied approaches are the weakest item in four of six modules (M1: 45.7%, M2: 48.8%, M4: 53.6%, M5: 45.3%). This is a programme-wide failure to translate content knowledge into classroom practice. Interactive methods training must run as a cross-cutting strand through all modules, with observed practice during training sessions, not just instruction about why it matters.
4
Build the assessment-to-planning feedback loop as a required classroom routine (M5)
Assessment variety (45.3%) and use of results for planning (42.1%) require targeted module redesign. Consider introducing a simple structured routine; for example, a weekly one-page template where teachers record what the assessment revealed and what they will adjust next lesson. The routine should be taught, practised, and observed in training.
5
Provide targeted support to bring M1 Child Development above the 70% threshold
At 68.9%, Child Development is the only module still below the programme performance threshold, and the gap is small. Two items are dragging the average: local and low-cost teaching materials (23.5%) and group work or play-based learning (45.7%). School-level coaching visits focused specifically on these two items are likely to close the gap without a full retraining cycle.
Ongoing Monitoring
6
Track interactive methods as a single cross-programme metric in quarterly reporting
Because the weakness appears across all modules, report it as one programme-level indicator rather than disaggregated module scores. A single headline figure makes the trend visible and actionable at SLT level.
7
Investigate the control group decline on M6 Ethics before the next data collection
Control schools declined from 64.2% to 57.8% on M6. With n=12 control schools this is a fragile figure, but a 6.4pp deterioration in teacher professional conduct in non-GPS schools is worth investigating. It may reflect broader systemic pressures or a sampling artefact either way, it should be understood before it becomes a question the programme cannot answer.