I Intervention name
Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas (BEUPA)
II Region & Country
III Scope and Type of the Intervention
A – What services are provided by this Intervention?
1. Skills Training Services
1.1. Services provided in a non-formal context
- In-classroom technical and vocational education and training
- Non-formal apprenticeship schemes
- Life/ soft skills training (in classroom and at the workplace)
- Second chance education programs (e.g. basic literacy and numeracy programs; accelerated learning and equivalency programs)
1.2. Services provided in a formal context
1.3. Other services and incentives for skills training
2. Entrepreneurship Promotion
3. Employment Services and other Cross-cutting Services
- Job counseling
4. Services in the context of subsidized employment
5. Reforms of Labour Market Regulations and (anti-discrimination) Legislation
B – Based on the services you identified above, what would you say are the main categories of the Intervention?
Main categories of the Intervention
- Skills training
- Employment services
Secondary categories of the Intervention
IV Description of the Intervention
A – Nature/Objective of the Intervention
BEUPA aims to improve the life perspectives of out-of-school children and adolescents between 9-18 years. Learners attend a flexible training program for literacy, numeracy with integrated production and life skills.
B – Labor market barriers/failures to be addressed by the Intervention
- Inappropriate general education
- Inadequate technical skills
- Inadequate soft/life skills
- Lack of labor demand
- Other: poverty
C – Description of the Intervention
BEUPA is one branch of several Ugandan initiatives comprising at the complementary basic education.
The essential features of BEUPA include:
• Mother-tongue education; • Integrated approach to learning; • Similarity between the primary school curriculum and the BEUPA curriculum. The core curriculum of BEUPA is a condensed version of the primary school curriculum(Mathematics, Integrated Science, Social Studies and English). There is also instruction in psycho-social life skills, and living values education. • The close relation between BEUPA and formal primary school facilitates interaction between the two. If they drop out from one sub-sector they can drop in the other. • The delivery of the curriculum is shortened to 3 years from 5 years. The curriculum contents are organized into learning areas; a learning area is equivalent to one term’s instruction. • Utilization of expertise from the community in skills training provides a vital link between the school and the community, and makes the school a part of the community. - Learning takes place three hours a day leaving the rest of the day for the learners to engage in other survival activities.
Designed a basic education curriculum for 3 years in a thematic approach using local language for instruction, 15 modules for pre-vocational skills training; Mobilised communities and trained instructors
V Status of the Intervention
Year when the Intervention started
Year when the Intervention finished
B – Average duration of the Intervention per cohort / round / batch
A – Age group targeted by the Intervention
B – Age bracket of beneficiaries
C – Total number of beneficiaries of the Intervention
D – Average number of beneficiaries per round or batch
E – Primary location of the Intervention
F – Gender considerations
G – Disability considerations
H – Ethnic considerations
I – Targeting of the Intervention towards low income individuals
J – Targeting of the Intervention towards individuals with low education or out of school
K – Targeting of the Intervention towards individuals at risk
A – Implementing agency, name/s
A 1. Implementing agency Type/s:
- Government agency (e.g. Ministry, Employment Office, Presidency, etc)
- Non-governmental organization (including civil society organization) or Non-profit organization (including charitable organizations)
B – Main source/s of financing of the Intervention
- Donor country agency (e.g. BMZ, DFID, Sida)
IX Evaluation information
A – Type of evaluation available on the Intervention
B – Period covered by this evaluation
C – Results of the evaluation in terms of process
A preliminary evaluation noted its successes in collaborating with artisans from the community, the attempts to organize apprenticeships for learners seeking practical experience, and the general advantage of this type of program over conventional literacy classes. Yet, it has been argued that full impact on occupational trends cannot be attained without a more holistic approach in literacy education.
2002: It is expanding rapidly having begun with seven centers in 1999, expanding to 54 in 2002 with 3440 students enrolled and 126 trainers. The pupil-teacher ratios were 27 pupils per teachers.
- land was a growing constraint for program expansion (BEUPA)
As of 2009: 72 learning centres established;176 para-professional community selected volunteer instructors trained; teaching on-going in 70 of 97 parishes of Kampala; 5,884 learners, 25 % of whom returned to formal school and 20% in employment using pre-vocational skills attained to date.
The Germany Technical Cooperation [GTZ] that bankrolled the program in collaboration with Kampala City Council pulled out after the five years program implementation period elapsed.
a) Facilitation of learning through child-centred and flexible approaches. b) Focus of the curriculum on life after school. Transition from school to work is organized through career guidance. c) Collection of relevant data for planning. NFE has been included in the Education Management Information System (EMIS). This ensures that planning is informed by relevant and accurate data. d) Involvement of the community in the implementation of BEUPA with regard to: - community mobilization - identification and registration of children for the learning centers - Pre-selection of instructors from the community - Monitoring of the processes of learning - Provision of Community Own Resource Persons (CORPs) - Facilitation of pre-vocational skills by members of the community.
a) Learner-friendly pedagogical processes and learning environments contribute a great deal to facilitating learning acquisition. b) Utilization of the services of community facilitators harmonizes the relationship between the school and the community. Instead of being apart from the community the school becomes a part of the community thus enhancing school community. relations. c) The integrated nature of the curriculum enhances the holistic development of the learner in terms of intellectual, physical, emotional and social development. d) Provision for entry into formal education through the organization of the curriculum promotes interaction between the formal and non-formal sub-sectors, and accords the latter parity of esteem.
D – Evaluation design
E – Does the evaluation have a baseline survey?
E – Baseline survey sample size
F – As of today, does the evaluation have a follow-up survey?
G – Period between the end of the intervention AND the follow-up survey
H – Outcome indicators:
I – Results of the evaluation in terms of net impact
A – Total and Unit costs
B – General information on costs of the Intervention
Specific information on costs to society
Specific information on costs to government
Specific information on costs to beneficiaries
B – General information on net benefit
Specific information on the cost-benefit to society
Specific information on the cost-benefit to government
Specific information on the cost-benefit to beneficiaries
D – Cost-benefit analysis, net result?
XI Quality of the Intervention
XII Sources of Information
2)ASHOKA changemakers website: http://www.changemakers.com/educationafrica/entries/basic-education-urban-poverty-areas-beupa
3)Huntington, Eleanor (2008): Educating the Forgotten: Non-Formal Education on Urban Kampala, School for Interantional Training, Uganda: Development Studies, http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=isp_collection
5)Garcia, Marito & Jean Fares (eds.) (2008): Youth in Africa’s Labor Market, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1208379365576/DID_Youth_African_Labor_Market.pdf
6)Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) (2006): More and Better Education. What Males Effective Learning in SChools, in Literacy and Early Childhood DEvelopment Programs? Proceedings of the Biennale on Education in Africa, Libreville, Gabon, March 27-31, 2006, http://www.adeanet.org/adeaPortal/action/telechargerDocument?method=telechargerDocument&urlDoc=%2Fusr%2Fapache-tomcat%2Fwebapps%2FadeaPortal%2Fpublications%2FBiennale2006%2Fbien_06_rap_en.pdf
7)Ilon, Lynn & Robinah Kyeyune (2002): Cost Evaluation of Complementary Basic Education Programs in Uganda, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACX607.pdf