In 2009 the Philippines Department of Education issued Order No. 74, “Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE),” calling for the use of the learners’ mother tongues (MTs) in the early primary grades for improving learning outcomes. In 2012, the MTB-MLE policy was rolled out nationally in all Grade 1 (G1) classrooms. By the 2014– 2015 school year, all public schools were expected to be using one of 19 mother tongues as the medium of teaching and learning (MoTL) from Kindergarten (KG) through G3. The objective of this study was to provide insight into the relationships between the teachers’ and students’ language usage, the MTB-MLE policy implementation, and student reading outcomes, especially in areas with linguistically heterogeneous populations. It sought to examine how language usage in the classroom conforms to or diverges from the MTB-MLE policy after six years of implementation, which factors are associated with higher policy implementation, and how language usage by teachers and students relates to student learning outcomes.

Over 91% of the total student population worldwide has been affected due to school closures caused by COVID-19, according to UNESCO. How can the system ensure education of the country that every student has equal access to quality education during the crisis? Important role of teachers. Help students cope with and understand the uncertainty caused by the pandemic. Encourage students to continue learning despite the closure of schools. This guide is for teachers. Support to students needs to continue while physical attendance at schools is completely or partially prohibited. Able to engage their students in various distance learning methods.

This reference document is a companion to the Language Complexity Study conducted by RTI International under the All Children Reading–Philippines project in 2020. The study was a secondary analysis of Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) data at multiple time points, looking specifically at the effect of language complexity on reading acquisition of second and third languages (L2 and L3, respectively). The study used the 2013 and 2019 National EGRA data sets to analyze performance according to categories of language complexity based on syllabic complexity, orthographic depth, and other related items. The study was guided by the methodology described by Brunette et al. (2019), who studied the effects of language complexity on reading outcomes in Uganda. The languages selected for analysis were those among the officially supported mother tongue (MT) languages of instruction in the Philippines. Analysts assessed whether the level of complexity was in any way predictive of the average increase or decrease in L2 and L3 scores across schools as measured in 2019 (provided there were schools that reported using MT in 2019, which was not the case for three of the languages: Chavacano, Ivatan, and Sambal.

This study looks at the impact of first language (L1, or “mother tongue”) complexity on reading achievement in the Philippines using Grade 3 Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) data collected in 2013 and 2019. EGRA data were collected from 232 schools in 2013, when students learned to read in the national languages of Filipino and English. These data on English and Filipino performance were collected again in the same schools in 2019, when students would have, according to policy, learned to read first in their mother tongue.

This study uses national Grade (G) 3 Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) data from 2013, when G3 students learned to read in Filipino and English rather than a mother tongue, and comparable data from 2019, when G3 students would have, according to policy, first learned to read in their mother tongue. The data were used to better understand the role of L1 complexity in L2 and L3 reading acquisition. Sample: 241 schools; 232 schools were the same in 2013 and 2019. Final sample used for analysis: 2,264 G3 students in 2019 and 2,267 G3 students in 2013. Children were assessed in Filipino (L2) and English (L3). Secondary analysis of the data set looked at reading performance and changes in reading performance according to language complexity.

The purpose of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Asia All Children Reading (ACR) Inclusive Education Review is to examine disability-inclusive basic education programming,1 specifically focused on early grade reading, implemented and coordinated by USAID Missions in the Asia region to identify any gaps or potential incentives to improve the education sector’s response to disability inclusion. Specifically, this review looks at USAID Asia early grade education activities that are either ongoing or recently completed (since 2015). This report presents findings from both a desk review (consisting of a review of activity documentation and surveys of USAID Missions and ongoing activities) of 26 basic education activities across 11 countries in Asia and three case studies conducted in Tajikistan, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. The primary objective of the case studies was to gain a better understanding of the collaboration on disability-inclusive education between USAID Missions, host governments, implementing partners, and other educational stakeholders within each country. Furthermore, the case studies provided an opportunity to explore how past basic education activities and education systems within each country have influenced the development and implementation of new basic education activities as they relate to disability inclusion.

Taken together, the case studies in this Report highlight the core components of an effective performance and accountability framework – a comprehensive system to optimize individual and system-wide performance through establishing outcome goals, tracking, and incentivizing progress against them The case studies show that effectiveness is not determined by implementing a set of individual policies, tools, and structures, but rather how they are collectively used to drive a culture that empowers its people to achieve a system’s ambitious agenda. The components of a performance and accountability framework that are featured in these case studies include: • System leadership that prioritizes a culture of high-performance around targets. • Outcome focused targets and supporting indicators that are well understood and communicated throughout the system, to define and quantify a system’s aspiration. • Quantitative data which is available and regularly shared across a system to gauge system performance, and to identify areas for additional focus or support. • Targeted and tailored support for system actors to help them improve performance, including a focus on specialized support for underperformers, driven by an understanding of data and evidence. • Performance routines and reporting with key system actors focused on reviewing progress, problem solving, and decision making to unlock barriers to improvement. • System engagement and site-visits/fieldwork that surfaces key challenges and opportunities to drive improvement. • Public engagement that keeps the public up to date on progress. Some of these components may require adaptation to different parts of the system. For example, targets may feature in performance agreements for senior leadership roles, but not for frontline staff who may be engaged in a more indirect way around targets (for example, communication of the reform with a focus on enhancing practice and improved outcomes). Similarly, formal performance routines that focus on a broader strategic reform are effective at driving a performance culture at senior levels, but not so for frontline staff who are rightly focused on teaching practice in their classroom. To be effective, embedding a performance and accountability culture across a system requires a nuanced and tailored application of these components to frontline staff, middle management, and senior levels.

The United States Agency for International Development's (USAID's) Bureau for Asia conducted a strategic review to examine the depth and breadth of USAID higher education (HE) programming in Asia over the five-year period from 2016 through 2021. The review highlights ways in which USAID's HE programming has been a vehicle for all sectors, not only education, to achieve USAID development objectives. The review's findings and recommendations should inform continued USAID HE investment in Asia. USAID investments in HE support the 2022 lndo-Pacific Strategy (IPS). Within USAID and the interagency, there is a growing interest in HE programming opportunities. This recognition of the role of HE in driving economic development is reflected in its inclusion in the lndo-Pacific Strategy of the United States (White House, 2022), which highlights education as key to regional economic prosperity and security, as well as regional resilience to transnational threats. Unlike in previous strategies, HE is now explicitly noted in the 2022 version of the strategy as a vehicle to advance the United States Government's (USG's) vision for a "free and open lndo-Pacific" (p. 6). This review details examples of how USAID HE investments could support the IPS by countering malign influence, strengthening democratic systems, conducting cutting-edge research to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, and building diverse and equitable partnerships between U.S. and Asian partners. USAID is forging lasting transpacific partnerships through HE investments. In 2021, this engagement included partnerships among 270 higher education institutions (HEls) from across the region and with more than 20 HEls from across the U.S. Programs are aligned with USAID's Education Policy and achieving outcomes in all USAID sectors by "advancing knowledge and research; providing quality and relevant education and workforce training; and engaging and strengthening networks and communities" (Dockser et al., 2020, p. 5) in food security and agriculture; democracy, governance, and human rights; peace and security; economic growth and workforce development; and global health. These investments are advancing locally led development, producing the next generation of leaders, laying the groundwork for more resilient economies and future trade partners, and sustainably advancing American values in a region wary of malign influence.

With USAID support, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the U.S. and throughout Asia are helping to advance the U.S. Government’s (USG) most critical priorities for the region. USAID’s Office of Technical Services within the Asia Bureau conducted a Strategic Review to examine the depth and breadth of USAID HE projects in Asia over the last five years (2016-2021).The purpose was to help inform future programming and provide recommendations for policy makers on how to enhance the potential of HEIs as development partners. The review found that USAID’s significant investments in HE in Asia have proven crucial to fostering innovation across sectors, supporting economic and social opportunities for individuals at national and local levels and creating systemic change. Across the region, there are numerous examples of U.S. and local HEIs aligning research priorities and resources around the most pressing development challenges — from countering malign influence and strengthening democratic systems, to conducting cutting-edge research to fight COVID-19 and other public health threats, to improving natural resource management and fostering resilience to climate change. In 2021, USAID partnered with 270 HEIs from across the Asia region and with more than 20 U.S. HEIs, and engaged thousands of individuals as well as the private sector.

One-page fact sheet describing the Improving Learning Outcomes for Asia (ILOA) Activity.