SCHOOLS,
STUDENTS,
AND TEACHERS
IN LEBANON
RESEARCH FOR RESULTS PROGRAM 2021
SCHOOLS,
STUDENTS,
AND TEACHERS
IN LEBANON
RESEARCH FOR RESULTS PROGRAM 2021
© 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW
Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000
Internet: www.worldbank.org
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings,
interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of
The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.
This report was prepared by the World Bank Education Global Practice Middle East & North
Africa Unit and included, in alphabetical order, Hana Addam El-Ghali, Mary Bend, Sheena Fazili,
Nadine Franji, Nathalie Lahire, Anahita Matin, and Elisabeth Sedmik. This report is based
on background reports prepared by each of the RAND Corporation, Management Systems
International, the World Bank and the American University of Beirut.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included
in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies
in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information,
methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and
other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of
The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance
of such boundaries.
Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver
of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.
Rights and Permissions
The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages
dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for
noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.
Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World
Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax:
202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.
Cover design: Sarah Alameddine
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7 الملخص التنفيذي
10 Abbreviations and Acronyms
11 Introduction
11 Sector Context
13 Purpose and Objectives of Research for Results
15 1. Overview of R4R Studies and Methodology
15 Overview of Studies
25 2. Key Findings of the R4R Studies
25 Findings from the School Study
32 Findings from the Student Assessment Study
40 Findings from the Teacher Study
49 Findings from the Vulnerability Study
53 3. Policy Recommendations
53 System Reform Recommendations
54 Recommendations for Teacher Professional Development Reform
55 Recommendations for Reform of the School Environment
56 Recommendations for Student-Centered Support
57 References
List of Figures
19 Figure 1.1. Teacher Content Evaluation (sections 1 and 2 examples)
20 Figure 1.2. CLASS Domains
22 Figure 1.3: Post Observation Instrument Construct
32 Figure 2.1. Grade 4 Score Difference by School Type
33 Figure 2.2. Grade 7 Score Difference by School Type
34 Figure 2.3. Upward Learning Mobility as a Challenge
35 Figure 2.4: Grade 7 Rounds Average Score Distribution
36 Figure 2.5: Grade 4 Rounds Average Score Distribution
37 Figure 2.6. Grade 4 Total Score by School Type
37 Figure 2.7: Grade 7 Total Score by School Type
38 Figure 2.8. Grade 4 Total Score by Gender and School Type
38 Figure 2.9. Grade 7 Total Score by Gender and School Type
39 Figure 2.10. Grade 4 Scores by Governorate
39 Figure 2.11. Grade 7 Scores by Governorate
40 Figure 2.12. Average Score Statistics for Teacher Content Knowledge
Evaluation—Section 1
41 Figure 2.13. Average Score Statistics for Teacher Content Knowledge
Evaluation—Section 2
42 Figure 2.14. Teacher Evaluation Score in Grade 7 French Language—By Shift
43 Figure 2.15. CLASS Domain Analysis Score, Lebanon
44 Figure 2.16. CLASS Score—Subject Domain Analysis, Lebanon
45 Figure 2.17. CLASS Score Distribution in Lebanon by Shift
45 Figure 2.18. Instructional Support Distribution in Lebanon by Shift
46 Figure 2.19. CLASS Score Distribution in Lebanon by School Type
4
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Lebanon’s education sector consists of a public school system, and a larger,
diverse private school system. Substantial effort and progress have been
made towards universal basic education; however, Lebanon’s performance
remains far below most countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
region and the rest of the World on international student assessments
(across both public and private schools). Student migration to public schools
started in 2019 and is expected to continue in 2021-2022 and beyond as the
financial situation in Lebanon persists and the economic status of families
continues to deteriorate. In 2021, it is estimated that more than 82 percent of
the population live in poverty, 1 an increase from 55 percent in 2020.2
This report presents the findings from the second phase of the Research
for Results (R4R) program. The R4R program is a partnership between the
Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE), the World Bank, the
UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the United States
Agency for International Aid (USAID). The R4R’s primary objective is to
generate quantitative evidence on student and teacher performance, school
environment and management, and qualitative evidence related to vulnerable
youth at risk of dropping out. This evidence-based analysis is supported by
policy recommendations and are featured in the new Government five-year
general education strategy (2021-2025).
The R4R program was conducted in two phases, first analyzing Lebanon’s
education sector from a political economy perspective, and second, analyzing
key school-level factors that affect learning, teaching and retentions.
1. The first phase of the R4R (R4R Volume 1) focuses on the political economy
of education in Lebanon and includes an assessment of the performance
of Lebanon’s bifurcated system in terms of learning outcomes, equity,
and efficiency, while explaining its foundations and underlying dynamics
( Abdul-Hamid and Yassine 2020).
2. The second phase of the R4R (Volume 2, this report) builds on R4R Volume
I by deep diving into the various school-level factors that affect learning,
teaching and retention. The analysis included in this Volume 2 also
addresses the education of vulnerable communities and refugee children
who constitute a large proportion of school-age youth in Lebanon.
1 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099102
2 ESCWA 2020
5
The second phase R4R program generates quantitative evidence on student
and teacher performance, school environment and management, and
qualitative evidence related to vulnerable youth at risk of dropping out.
This R4R program Volume 2 encompasses four studies that were conducted
between 2016 and 2018 and comprise a nationally representative sample of
145 schools including public schools operating the first and second shifts of
the day respectively, free private schools, and fee-based private schools. This
sample is featured in all the studies described below except for the vulnerability
study, for which the target group was different as it focused on children and
youth who were at risk of dropping out or had dropped out of school.
1. The School Study aimed to provide an understanding of the enabling
context of schools in Lebanon including school finances, management,
teachers, school environment, and facilities. This study took place during
the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 academic years and focused on examining
the contexts and processes of public and private schools in four key
dimensions: (1) school-based management; (2) teachers; (3) school finance;
and (4) school environment and facilities.
2. The Student Assessment Study aimed to provide a better understanding of
student learning outcomes and perceptions in Lebanese classrooms. The
assessment was administered at the beginning and end of the academic
year 2016–2017, focusing on Grades 4 and 7 in mathematics (taught
in Arabic, English, or French, depending on a given school’s language of
instruction), Arabic (reading and writing) and foreign languages (French
or English reading and writing). The study included 5,806 students from
Grade 4 and 4,335 students from Grade 7 participating in the assessments.
The assessments were aligned with grade-appropriate skill levels and
learning outcomes as outlined in the national curriculum.
3. The Teacher Performance Study collected data on teacher knowledge and
classroom practices to provide an understanding of teachers’ classroom
practices and content knowledge performance in Lebanese schools. The
study focused mainly on Grades 4 and 7 classrooms in subjects similar
to the student assessment study (i.e., mathematics taught in English or
French, Arabic, and foreign languages—either French or English). In total,
there were 599 teachers in the first-shift schools, and 108 teachers in
the second-shift schools. Classroom teacher observations (CLASS) and
an evaluation of teachers’ general content knowledge were used as the
primary tools for this study.
4. The Vulnerability Study aimed to identify the risks and opportunities
for improving educational experiences among vulnerable Lebanese and
refugee children. The study examined the educational experiences of
1,800 vulnerable children in Lebanon within different community types
and across different ages and grade levels. It explored the risks, protective
factors, and trends contributing to dropping out of school among
vulnerable Lebanese and Syrian students.
6
Summary of Key Recommendations
Evidence from the four studies provide a wealth of information on the current
status of Lebanon’s education system and across key education indicators.
At the system level, public school administration needs to shift toward a more
decentralized approach while strengthening school-based management,
empowering principals and building a community of learning in which parents
and the larger community carry a joint responsibility along with shared
accountability. Additionally, the curriculum has not been reformed since 1997
and should focus on skills and learning that are required in a fast paced and
changing world. Teaching practices vary by subject in Lebanon, yet there is
an underlying trend that they must shift from a reliance on rote learning and
memorization towards facilitating higher order thinking. Only then can the
quality of instruction and student learning outcomes improve. The studies
brought out further that there is a difference between the quality of teaching
at first-shift public schools and the quality at second-shift, especially with
regard to teaching Arabic language. A recent World Bank report, Advancing
Arabic Language Teaching and Learning: A Path to Reducing Learning Poverty
in MENA, provides solutions to this matter and highlights the inherent
challenges in learning Arabic at schools as the Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)
taught is different than the way children speak at home (Gregory et al. 2021).
The same report also addresses the challenges that Arabic language teachers
themselves face as a product of ineffective Arabic language education,
highlighting how these teachers are often not comfortable using Arabic as a
medium of instruction. Improving the quality of teaching is therefore closely
linked to the need to allocate teachers who specialize in the subject they teach
while equipping them with the pedagogic skills to facilitate growth in student
learning.
The studies shed light that the current system is not sufficiently supporting
students with academic weaknesses and does not help them to improve.
Lowest performing students for the most part remained low performers as
illustrated by the student assessment study. Early intervention programs, and
remedial programs must be institutionalized to focus on the needs of struggling
students and retain them in school . The vulnerability study highlighted
that bullying is a key push-out factor driving vulnerable students towards
school drop-out . A safe, conducive, and nurturing learning environment, free
of bullying but with high levels of stimulation (including ICT) is critical for
improving academic achievement and supporting the development of social
and emotional skills.
7
الملخص التنفيذي
خاص أكبريتكون قطاع التعليم في لبنان من نظام مدرسي رسمي أو حكومي ونظام مدرسي ّ ّ
تقدم كبير نحو تعميم التعليم األساسي؛ ومع ذلك ،ال ّ حقيقية وإحراز
ّ تم بذل جهودومتنوع .وقد ّ
ّ
وبقية
ّ يزال أداء لبنان أدنى بكثير من معظم البلدان في منطقة الشرق األوسط وشمال أفريقيا
والخاصة) .بدأت حركة نزوح
ّ الرسمية
ّ كل من المدارسللطالب (في ّ العالم في التقييمات الدولية ّ
تستمر في
ّ أن ع ّ
المتوق ومن 2019 عام في ة الرسمي
ّ المدارس إلى الخاصة
ّ الطالب من المدارس
العام الدراسي 2022-2021وما بعده مع استمرار الوضع المالي في لبنان واستمرار تدهور الوضع
سكان لبنان يعيشون في الفقر في عام ّ أن أكثر من ٪82مناالقتصادي لألسر .تشير التقديرات إلى ّ
4
3،2021وذلك زيادة من ٪55من عام .2020
يعرض هذا التقرير نتائج المرحلة الثانية من برنامج البحث من أجل النتائج ( .)R4Rبرنامج R4R
هو شراكة بين وزارة التربية والتعليم العالي ،البنك الدولي ،وزارة الخارجية والتنمية البريطانية
يتمثل الهدف األساسي لـ R4Rفي ّ ( )FCDOوالوكالة األمريكية للمساعدة الدولية (.)USAID
ّ ّ
كمية حول أداء الطالب والمعلمين ،البيئة المدرسية وإدارتها ،واألدلة النوعية المتعلقة إنتاج ّ
أدلة ّ
التسرب من المدرسةّ .
يتم دعم هذا التحليل القائم ّ المعرضين لخطر
ّ باألطفال االكثر عرضة للمخاطر
االستراتيجية الخماسية ( )2025-2021التعليم العام
ّ ويتم عرضها فيّ ّ
األدلة من خالل توصيات على
التي تم تطويرها من قبل وزارة التربية والتعليم العالي.
تم تنفيذ برنامج R4Rعلى مرحلتين ،األولى عبر تحليل قطاع التعليم في لبنان من منظور ّ
ّ
الرئيسية على مستوى المدرسة التي تؤثر
ّ االقتصاد السياسي ،والثانية عبر تحليل العوامل
ّ
التعلم والتعليم واإلستبقاء. على
ّ
المجلد )1على االقتصاد السياسي للتعليم في لبنان ّ
تركز المرحلة األولى من تقرير R4R( R4R .1
والفعالية ،مع
ّ ّ
المتشعب من ناحية نتائج التعلم ،اإلنصاف
ّ وتشمل تقييم أداء النظام اللبناني
شرح أسسها والديناميات األساسية (.)Abdul-Hamid and Yassine 2020
المجلد 1من R4Rمن خالل ّ ّ
(المجلد ،2هذا التقرير) على .2تستند المرحلة الثانية من R4R
ّ ّ
الغوص العميق في العوامل المختلفة على مستوى المدرسة التي تؤثر على التعلم والتعليم
واالستبقاء .يعالج ً
أيضا التحليل الوارد في هذا المجلد 2تعليم المجتمعات الضعيفة واألطفال
يشكلون نسبة كبيرة من الشباب في ّ
سن الدراسة في لبنان. ّ الالجئين الذين
ّ
كمية على أداء الطالب والمعلمين ،البيئة أدلة ّ تنتج المرحلة الثانية من برنامج ّ R4R
المعرضين
ّ ّ
المتعلقة باالطفال االكثر عرضة للمخاطر النوعية
ّ ّ
واألدلة المدرسية وإدارتها،
وتضم
ّ ّ
التسرب .يشمل المجلد 2من برنامج R4Rأربع دراسات أجريت بين عامي 2016و 2018
ّ لخطر
الرسمية التي
ّ عينة تمثيلية على المستوى الوطني من 145مدرسة بما في ذلك المدارس ّ
3 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099102
4 ESCWA 2020
8
مجانية ،ومدارس ّ
خاصة خاصة ّتعمل في المناوبتين الصباحية وبعد الظهر على التوالي ،مدارس ّ
العينة في جميع الدراسات الموضحة أدناه باستثناء دراسة االطفال
ّ مدفوعة األجر .تظهر هذه
أنها ّ
ركزت على األطفال االكثر عرضة للمخاطر ،حيث كانت المجموعة المستهدفة مختلفة بما ّ
التسرب من المدرسة أوكانوا قد ّ
تسربوا من المدرسة. ّ معرضين لخطر
ّ والشباب الذين كانوا
الدراسة المدرسية :هدفت الدراسة المدرسية إلى توفير فهم للسياق التمكيني .1
للمدارس في لبنان بما في ذلك الوضع المالي واالداري ،والمعلمين ،والبيئة المدرسية،
والمرافق .أجريت هذه الدراسة خالل العامين األكاديميين 2017-2016و 2018-2017وركزت على
دراسة سياقات المدارس العامة والخاصة من خالل أربعة أبعاد رئيسية )1( :اإلدارة الذاتية
للمدرسة ؛ ( )2المدرسين ؛ ( )3تمويل المدرسة و ( )4البيئة المدرسية والمرافق.
دراسة تقييم الطالب :هدفت دراسة تقييم الطالب إلى توفير فهم أفضل لنتائج تعلم .2
الطالب وتصوراتهم في الفصول الدراسية اللبنانية .تم إجراء التقييم مرتين ،في بداية
ونهاية العام الدراسي ،2017-2016مع التركيز على الصفين الرابع والسابع في المواد التالية:
اعتمادا على لغة التدريس في ً الرياضيات (تدرس باللغة العربية أو اإلنجليزية أو الفرنسية،
مدرسة معينة)،العربية (قراءة وكتابة) واللغات األجنبية (الفرنسية أو اإلنجليزية قراءة وكتابة).
طالبا من الصف السابع الذين شاركوا في ً طالبا من الصف الرابع و4،335ً شملت الدراسة 5،806
التقييمات .تم مواءمة التقييمات مع مستويات المهارات المناسبة للصف ونتائج التعلم كما
هو موضح في المناهج الدراسية الوطنية.
دراسة أداء المعلم :جمعت دراسة أداء المعلم بيانات حول المعرفة لدى المعلم .3
وممارسات الفصل الدراسي لتوفير فهم لممارسات الفصل الدراسي للمعلمين واألداء
المعرفي للمحتوى في المدارس اللبنانية .ركزت الدراسة بشكل أساسي على الصفين
الرابع والسابع في الفصول الدراسية في مواد مشابهة لدراسة تقييم الطالب (أي الرياضيات
التي تدرس باللغة اإلنجليزية أو الفرنسية ،العربية واللغات األجنبية (الفرنسية أو اإلنجليزية)).
معلما في مدارس ً معلما في مدارس الدوام الصباحي ،و 108 ً في المجموع ،كان هناك 599
دوام بعد الظهر .تم استخدام مراقبة معلم الفصل ( )CLASSوتقييم المعرفة العامة بالمحتوى
للمعلمين كأدوات أساسية لهذه الدراسة.
دراسة االطفال االكثر عرضة للمخاطر :هدفت دراسة االطفال االكثر عرضة للمخاطر إلى .4
تحديد المخاطر والفرص لتحسين فرص التعلم لألطفال اللبنانيين االكثر عرضة للمخاطر
والالجئين .سلطت الدراسة الضوء على التجارب التربوية لـ 1800طفل من الفئة االكثر عرضة
للمخاطر في لبنان ضمن مجتمعات مختلفة ومن مختلف األعمار والمستويات الصفية .كشفت
الدراسة المخاطر وعوامل الحماية التي تواجه هذه االطفال واالتجاهات التي تسهم في
التسرب من المدرسة بين الطالب اللبنانيين االكثر عرضة للمخاطر والالجئين السوريين.
ملخص التوصيات الرئيسية
توفر األدلة من الدراسات األربع هذه ثروة من المعلومات حول الوضع الحالي لنظام التعليم في
لبنان وعبر مؤشرات التعليم الرئيسية.
على مستوى النظام العام ،من الضروري أن تتحول إدارة المدارس الرسمية إلى نحو نهج أكثر
المركزية مع تعزيز اإلدارة الذاتية للمدرسة ،باالضافة الى ضرورة تمكين المديرين وبناء مجتمع
تعليمي يتحمل فيه األهل وأولياء شؤون الطالب والمجتمع األكبر مسؤولية مشتركة ً
جنبا إلى
جنب مع المساءلة المشتركة .باإلضافة إلى ذلك ،لم يتم إصالح المنهج منذ عام 1997ولذلك
يجب أن يركز المنهج الجديد على المهارات ونظام التعلم المطلوبين في عالم سريع الخطى
ومتغير .تختلف ممارسات التدريس باختالف المادة في لبنان ،ولكن هناك اتجاه أساسي مفاده
9
أنه يجب أن يتحول نظام التعليم من االعتماد على الحفظ والتسميع إلى نظام يرتكز على تحفيز الفكر بأعلى
الدرجات .عندها فقط يمكن أن تتحسن جودة التدريس ونتائج تعلم الطالب .كما أوضحت الدراسات أن هناك ً
فرقا بين
جودة التعليم في المدارس الحكومية في الدوام الصباحي وجودة التعليم في دوام بعد الظهر ،ال سيما فيما يتعلق
حديثا عن البنك الدولي بعنوان النهوض بتعليم اللغة العربية وتعلمها :طريق ً بتدريس اللغة العربية .وفي تقرير صدر
حلوال لهذه المسألة ،كما ويسلط هذا التقرير
ً دم قّللحد من فقر التعلم في منطقة الشرق األوسط وشمال إفريقيا ،تُ َ
الضوء على التحديات الكامنة في تعلم اللغة العربية في المدارس في منطقة الشرق األوسط وشمال افريقيا
حيث أن اللغة العربية الفصحى الحديثة التي يتم تدريسها مختلفة عن الطريقة التي يتحدث بها األطفال في المنزل
أيضا التحديات التي يواجهها مدرسو اللغة العربية أنفسهم كنتاج لتعلم ( .)Gregory et al. 2021يتناول التقرير نفسه ً
فعال ،ويبرز كيف أن هؤالء المعلمين ً
غالبا ما ال يشعرون بالراحة عند استخدام اللغة العربية اللغة العربية بشكل غير ّ
ً
ارتباطا وثيقا بالحاجة إلى تعيين مدرسين متخصصين في ً كوسيلة للتعليم .لذلك فإن تحسين جودة التدريس يرتبط
سونها مع تزويدهم بالمهارات التربوية لتسهيل النمو في تعلم الطالب. المادة التي ُي َ
د ّر ُ
كاف
ٍ أيضا على أن النظام الحالي ال يدعم الطالب الذين يعانون من ضعف أكاديمي بشكلً سلطت الدراسات الضوءّ
أداء في الغالب من ذوي األداء المنخفض (أي أن فرص تقدمهم ّ
وال يساعدهم على التحسن .يبقى ّ
الطالب األقل ً
جدا) كما هو موضح في دراسة تقييم الطالب .يجب إضفاء الطابع المؤسسي على برامج التدخل االكاديمي ضئيلة ً
المبكر والبرامج العالجية للتركيز على احتياجات الطالب المتعثرين والمساعدة على ابقائهم في المدرسة.
المعرضين للخطر نحو
ّ مر هو عامل رئيسي يدفع الطالب نّالت َ
أبرزت دراسة االطفال االكثر عرضة للمخاطر أن َ
التنمر ،ولكن بمستويات عالية
ّ تعليمية آمنة ومواتية وراعية وخالية من
ّ التسرب من المدرسةّ .
إن وجود بيئة ّ
األهمية لتحسين التحصيل األكاديمي ودعم
ّ من التحفيز (بما في ذلك تكنولوجيا المعلومات واالتصاالت) أمر بالغ
تنمية المهارات االجتماعية والعاطفية.
10
ABBREVIATIONS AND
ACRONYMS
CERD Center for Educational Research and Development
CLASS Classroom Assessment Scoring System
DOPS Direction d’Orientation Pédagogique et Scolaire
FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
GDP Gross Domestic Product
MEHE Ministry of Education and Higher Education
MENA Middle East and North Africa
MSI Management Systems International
NGO Non-governmental Organization
OOSC Out-of-School Children
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
RACE Reaching All Children with Education
R4R Research for Results
SEL Social and Emotional Learning
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Sciences Study
USAID United States Agency for International Aid
11
INTRODUCTION
Sector Context
Lebanon’s education sector is a tale of two systems: a public school system
run by the government, and a larger, diverse private school system comprising
well-established religion-based schools alongside others. Once known
as “the classroom of the Middle East” for the reputation of its schools and
universities, Lebanon’s education system has faced significant challenges in
recent decades. Schools in Lebanon frequently face resource constraints and a
security environment, both of which interrupt the academic calendar, disrupt
student attendance, and make it difficult to develop and maintain a cadre
of high-quality teachers. As a result, many of the country’s most talented
and promising citizens emigrate. In Lebanon, roughly two-thirds of school
students are enrolled in private schools.5 Very few countries in the world have
a greater private sector share of primary or secondary school students.6
Although progress has been made toward universal basic education,
substantial room remains for improvement. Net primary school enrollment—
the share of primary-level students of a given age who are enrolled in the
grade (year class) appropriate for that age—was 82 percent in 2016, while net
secondary enrollment was 65 percent (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2018).
Thus, a significant proportion of students are not progressing through the
education system in line with international benchmarks.
Lebanon performs far below average on international assessments and below
other countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Lebanon
participated in the Trends in International Mathematics and Sciences Study
(TIMSS) in 2015 and 2019 and in the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) in 2015 and 2018. In TIMSS 2019, Lebanon’s eighth grade
students scored an average of 429 in mathematics, or 71 points below the
international average score of 500. Further, this represented a decline of
13 points from the country’s performance in 2015 (CERD 2018). In science,
Lebanon’s eighth graders ranked in the bottom quartile of participating
countries, and their achievement had declined 21 points from 2015 to 2019
5 Lebanon’s school education system includes first-shift public schools, second-shift
public schools, free private schools, and fee-based private schools.
6 According to World Bank 2015 data, only Macao SAR, China, Belize, and the United
Arab Emirates had a higher share of primary level students enrolled in private schools
than did Lebanon; similarly, Macao SAR, China, Bangladesh, and Guatemala had a
higher share of secondary level students enrolled in private schools than did Lebanon
(World Bank 2018).
12
(CERD 2018). PISA assesses the academic progress of students ages 15 to 16 in mathematics,
science, and reading. In 2018, Lebanese PISA participants scored very poorly in all three
subjects. Student underperformance amounted to either three or four years of schooling below
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average, depending on
the subject. Performance in reading was especially low at 58 points below the MENA average,
which in terms of productive classroom time equates to almost two years below the MENA
average. In all three subjects, roughly two-thirds of participating students did not meet the
basic level of proficiency, leaving them at risk of exclusion (World Bank 2019).
While both private and public schools performed below international standards, the overall
results of these internationally benchmarked assessments mask important differences
between the public and private school systems in Lebanon. According to a World Bank analysis
of PISA data, students enrolled in Lebanon’s private schools are on average two academic
years ahead of students enrolled in the country’s public schools (Gajderowicz and Jakubowski,
forthcoming). In Lebanon’s National Examination, taken in Grades 9 and 12, students enrolled
in private schools also significantly outperform their public school counterparts.
Public spending on education is low compared to that in other MENA countries with
economies of a similar size. In 2015, for example, Lebanon’s public spending on education
was 2.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and 6.3 percent of total public expenditure.
Government expenditure on education has further decreased from 2.0 percent of GDP in 2019
to 1.8 percent in 2020. However, after factoring in public subsidies for private schools (0.40
percent of GDP) and parents’ contributions (1.45 percent of GDP), total spending on schools
as a share of GDP was almost 4.00 percent, which is closer to the MENA average (4.47 percent
of GDP) and indeed the average for middle-income countries (4.40 percent of GDP) (UNESCO
2018; World Bank 2017; World Bank 2018).
Lebanon’s beleaguered education system has been further challenged by the influx of
Syrian refugees (which includes around 400,000 school-age children registered with the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]). Syrian refugee children currently
represent 37 percent of the total student population in public schools in Lebanon (CERD
2020). This influx led to the introduction of a second shift of instruction in the afternoon
to accommodate demand. Teachers also have to manage different curricula and language
needs (discussed below) to accommodate the various needs of Lebanese and Syrian children,
adjustments which impact the quality of learning for all students.
Despite government efforts and the support of the international community to provide
education to the Syrian population, almost one-half of Syrian refugees between the ages of
5 and 17 remain out of formal schooling (UNHCR 2019). This has both short- and long-term
consequences for children, families, and society. For families coping with the daily struggles of
displacement, schooling presents an added burden. However, an absence of schooling today
is likely to contribute to a life of poverty tomorrow, eroding human capital development and
exacerbating inequality. Both outcomes could contribute to the risk of future conflict and
destabilization in the region.
Lebanon and its public services, including the school system, have struggled to accommodate
the ongoing influx of refugees while simultaneously addressing deeper systemic issues that
beset the funding and delivery of a service of adequate quality. The protracted nature of the
Syrian crisis, and the related increase in demand for schooling, have resulted in further strains
on severely stretched public services, including public education for both refugee and host
13
community children. Moreover, the recent economic and financial crises during the 2020–
2021 academic year have led to the arrival at the front gates of public schools of an additional
50,000 students whose parents can no longer afford to pay private school fees elsewhere.7
It is further expected that more children will transition from private to public schools in
the forthcoming academic year 2021–2022 due to the deteriorating economic situation in
the country.
The many crises, contraction of the economy, and an increase in poverty rates will likely
lead to more parents shifting their children to public schools in the coming years, as well
as a higher number of student dropouts. Families who used to prioritize education for their
children in Lebanon, as seen in high private investments in education, will now be forced
to prioritize other needs such as food and health. Education will increasingly become a
commodity that only a few can afford. Just like health workers, teachers have started to leave
the country, with many more expected to seek greener pastures elsewhere, further putting a
strain on an already fragile system. According to the head of the Teachers’ Union, almost 15%
of the private school teachers had left the country by September 2021 (El Deeb 2021). The
future looks grim if quick action is not taken to reform the sector with a shift from a quality
of education that benefits a few to one that ensures every child in Lebanon has access to
quality education.
Purpose and Objectives of
Research for Results
The Research for Results (R4R) program is a partnership between MEHE, the World Bank,
the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the United States Agency
for International Aid (USAID). The program leverages education research and system-wide
analyses, along with stakeholder engagement and communication, to improve decision-
making on the provision of education in Lebanon. The R4R’s primary objective is to generate
new evidence on student and teacher performance, insights into schools, and factors
related to equity and vulnerability. This evidence will be used to provide data-driven policy
recommendations to strengthen the efficiency and quality of education services in Lebanon
and provide recommendations to policy makers for a post-Reaching All Children for Education
(RACE) Phase 2.
The R4R program comprises system-level political economy analyses (R4R Volume 1),
combined with research on education service delivery (R4R Volume 2).
1. The first phase of the R4R (R4R Volume 1) focuses on the political economy of education in
Lebanon and includes an assessment of the performance of Lebanon’s bifurcated system
in terms of learning outcomes, equity, and efficiency, while explaining its foundations and
underlying dynamics (Abdul-Hamid and Yassine 2020).
2. The second phase of the R4R (Volume 2, this report) builds on the political economy
study of R4R Volume I by deep diving into the various school-level factors that affect
learning and teaching. The analysis also focuses on service delivery within a nationally
representative sample of schools (145 schools including public first and second shifts,
free private, and fee-based private schools). The analysis included in this Volume 2 also
7 Preliminary numbers from the School Information Management System (SIMS) at the Ministry of
Education and Higher Education (MEHE) in May 2021.
14
addresses the education for vulnerable communities and refugee children
who constitute a large proportion of school-age minors and young adults
in Lebanon.
This R4R Volume 2 encompasses the following four studies:
1. School study: to understand the enabling context of schools in Lebanon
(school finances, management, teachers, school environment, and
facilities);
2. Student assessment study: to understand student learning outcomes
and perceptions in Lebanese classrooms focusing on Grades 4 and 78 in
mathematics (taught in Arabic, English, or French, depending on a given
school’s language of instruction), Arabic (reading and writing) and foreign
languages (French or English reading and writing);
3. Teacher performance study: understanding teachers’ classroom practices
and content knowledge performance in Lebanese schools, mainly in
Grades 4 and 7 classrooms in subjects similar to the student assessment
study (i.e., mathematics taught in English or French, Arabic, and foreign
languages—either French or English); and
4. Vulnerability study: to identify the risks and opportunities for improving
educational experiences among vulnerable Lebanese and refugee children.
8 Grades 4 and 7 were selected for the R4R studies because they are the entry grades
for Cycles 2 and 3, both of which are transitional grades within the Lebanese
education system. Additionally, the corresponding age groups for these grades are
often selected in international or other large-scale assessments.
15
1. OVERVIEW OF
R4R STUDIES
AND METHODOLOGY 9
The study leveraged at a nationally representative sample of 145 schools
representing public schools operating the first and second shifts of the
day respectively, free private schools, and fee-based private schools. The
same sample was applied in all the studies described below except for the
vulnerability study, for which the target group was different.
Overview of Studies
SCHOOL STUDY
The school study, conducted with support from the RAND Corporation,10 and
executed by MRO (Market Research Organization) that was commissioned on
behalf of RAND, took place during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 academic
years and focused on examining the contexts and processes of public and
private schools in four key dimensions: (1) school-based management; (2)
teachers; (3) school finance; and (4) school environment and facilities.
The school study aimed to address two broad research questions:
What variation is seen among public schools, fee-based private schools,
and free private schools in the areas of finance, school management,
teacher quality, views on teaching and learning, and the provision of a
positive school learning and physical environment?
At public schools that have adopted two shifts to educate Syrian refugees,
how similar or different are the practices they implement (during the first
shift, the second shift, or both) in terms of those four key dimensions?
9 The studies employed standard statistical tests (such as t-tests) for statistical
inference. In addition, reliability tests were applied for the various studies. For
example, mean differences in student assessment rounds were cross-validated by
comparing their Information Resources and Technology (IRT)-based Rounds 1 and 2
mean ability estimates on a logit scale. For the teacher study, using the Classroom
Assessment Scoring System (CLASS tool), a correlation analysis was undertaken that
shows significant and high internal consistency of results. For details refer to the
background reports.
10 RAND Corporation is an American nonprofit global policy think tank.
16
The sample included data from: (1) school principals at each sample school; (2) five teachers
per school who taught either mathematics, languages, science, or social science; (3) three
parents per school in a subsample of 55 schools; (4) the financial managers or individuals
in charge of school finances at 30 schools (often the principal) who completed the finance
questionnaire; and (5) administrators in charge of staffing and enrollment data who provided
basic information about the school. Data were collected using face-to-face interviews with
principals, parents, the individuals responsible for school finances, and administrators. In
addition, there was a self-administered, but proctored, teacher questionnaire. Two trained
enumerators spent one full day at each school collecting data on the school environment and
facilities. All questionnaires were administered in a paper-and-pencil format.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT STUDY
The student assessment study, supported by Management Systems International (MSI) 11 and
administered during the academic year 2016–2017, aimed to provide a better understanding
of effective classroom practices (teaching and learning) and how they affect the quality
of education. The study was administered to Grades 4 and 7 students as these grades were
considered transitional grades in each of the primary and middle schools. In both Rounds 1
and 2, there were 5806 students from Grade 4 and 4335 students from Grade 7 participating
in the assessments.
The student assessment study aimed to address the following research questions:
How much do students learn over the academic year (Rounds one and two of the R4R
assessment?
How do students’ end-of-year exam scores12 compare with their assessment scores?
Each Grade 4 and 7 cohort underwent two rounds of assessment, at the beginning and end of
the school year, respectively. These focused on the following classes:
Arabic: reading and writing;
Foreign language: reading and writing (English or French); and
Mathematics: (taught in English, French, or Arabic).
Each assessment comprised 30 multiple choice questions with four options. All assessments
were aligned with grade-appropriate skill levels and learning outcomes as outlined in the
national curriculum. In Round One, data collection took place in 145 schools13 during the 2016–
2017 academic year. In Round Two, data collection took place in 142 of the 145 schools14 that
participated in Round One. The remaining three schools could not be covered in Round Two
due to strong resistance on the part of the school directors. Round Two assessments were
aligned with Round One assessments with respect to content and psychometric properties. If
any differences in difficulty were observed in Round Two assessments as compared to Round
One assessments, then a test score equating procedure was implemented to account for the
11 MSI is an international development firm.
12 Exams are not harmonized. In other words, exams for Grades 4 and 7 are prepared by the schools and
cannot be compared between schools.
13 The Round One assessments were administered in 120 schools (public, private, and subsidized private
schools; plus 25 second-shift schools) randomly selected by MEHE and the World Bank.
14 The Round Two assessments were administered in 117 schools of the 120 Round One schools.
17
differences. Within each school, researchers endeavored to administer Round
Two tests to the same students who had been tested in Round One. However,
some students tested in Round One could not be tested in Round Two due
to their absence on the day of testing or because they had moved to another
school. To make up for the loss of students in Round Two, researchers also
tested new students who had not participated in Round One testing.
The sample students’ end of grade exam scores were collected from the
respective schools. Researchers developed a template incorporating the
following data: school code, school name, shift, grade, section, student ID
(created in Round One), and student name. School directors were asked to
fill in the template with the students’ end-of-grade marks in Arabic, foreign
language (English or French), and mathematics, and their respective maximum
possible scores. After the data were collected, researchers transformed the
marks into percentages so that the marks collected from different schools
could be reported on the same percentage scale.
Rounds One and Two Test Equivalence—to Measure Student Improvement
during the Academic Year
In order to estimate student improvement (trend over time from the beginning
to the end of an academic year), it was necessary that student scores in Round
Two be brought into the Round One score scale. The psychometric procedure
for bringing Rounds One and Two scores onto the same scale is called “test
equating.”15 A subset of items from Round One assessments (about 30 percent
of the total) was included in the Round Two assessments, such that the item
difficulty parameters established in Round One remained unchanged in
Round Two.
Rounds One and Two assessments were equivalent with respect to content
and level of difficulty, allowing for a time trend analysis of scores. There were
some discrete variations in difficulty level observed along the ability scale for
some assessments. However, these variations in difficulty level were accounted
for when transforming students’ Round Two scores into equivalent Round One
scores through the test equating procedure. The student assessment study is
closely linked to the teacher performance study and was conducted with the
students who were observed in class. However, linkages in analysis were not
made as it was not possible to link the individual teacher with their student
assessment results (see data limitations).
TEACHER PERFORMANCE STUDY
The teacher performance study collected data on teacher knowledge and
classroom practices to provide useful insights for teacher professional
development policies. Studying and measuring the quality of teaching (subject
knowledge and pedagogical practices) in Lebanese classrooms contribute to
15 A subset of items (about 30 percent of total number of items) from Round one
instruments was included in the Round two instruments, and their item difficulty
parameters estimated in Round one were kept fixed in Round two to estimate
difficulty parameters of the remaining Round two items. Test characteristics curves
(TCC) were created for both Rounds one and two to evaluate the equivalence of the
instruments.
18
understanding the gaps in teaching, particularly in light of the continued challenges within the
sector from past and recent crises. The teacher study took place in the 2016–2017 academic
year, with schools being visited twice during the school year.
Just like the student assessment study, the teacher study primarily focused on Grade 4 and
Grade 7 classrooms in the following subjects :
Arabic language
Foreign language (either English or French depending on the school’s language of
instruction)
Mathematics: (either in English or French depending on the school’s language of instruction)
Firstly, each teacher was evaluated on their content knowledge aligned to the curriculum level
they taught. Secondly their classroom was observed live, using the Classroom Assessment
Scoring System (CLASS), and lastly, each teacher was interviewed post classroom observation
about their challenges as a teacher, their professional development needs, lesson planning,
methods of student evaluation, and so forth.
The teacher performance study aimed to address the following research questions:
1. How knowledgeable are the teachers in the content they teach? What is the performance
of teachers (including preparation and activities both in and out of the classroom) across
different types of schools?
2. What is the extent and quality of classroom practices available by teachers across different
types of schools?
3. What is the support available to and used by teachers in the classrooms across different
types of schools?
Teacher study methodology: (I) Teacher content knowledge evaluation
In addition to the live classroom observations, teachers who participated in the R4R study
were evaluated on their general content knowledge aligned with the minimum knowledge
of the curriculum level, subject, and grade they taught. The teacher content knowledge
evaluation was designed under the assumption that understanding teachers’ instructional
practices in the classroom will help MEHE design programs to establish goals that focus
on effective learning, implement and promote reasoning and problem-solving skills among
students, build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding, and elicit and support
evidence of students’ critical thinking abilities.
Therefore, all the teacher assessments were designed such that the teachers marked a
student’s mock exam. The benefit of conducting the evaluation in the form of correcting a
student test was to mainly understand whether or not the teachers were able to apply their
knowledge in their teaching. Each evaluation test consisted of two sections: the first section
of the assessment included 10 multiple choice questions (4 choices per each question). The
teachers were asked to identify whether the student answers were (1) correct/incorrect, and
(2) if the answer was incorrect, provide a correct answer.
19
FIGURE 1.1. TEACHER CONTENT EVALUATION (SECTIONS 1 AND 2 EXAMPLES)
Grade 7 Math in English Example—Section 1
Read the text and then answer the questions
Grade 4 English Example—Section 2
The second section of the teacher content knowledge assessment comprised three questions
from a student’s mock test which had an incorrect answer. For each question, the teachers
were asked to (1) provide the correct response, (2) provide a reason behind the student’s
mistake or source of student’s confusion, and (3) provide a guiding suggestion (teaching
remediation) that would help the student understand his/her mistake and learn the target
leaning objective of that concept/question. The second and third follow-up questions about
the source of student confusion and a guiding suggestion were presented as multiple-choice
options to teachers. An example for each section of the assessment is provide in figure 1.1.
20
Teacher study methodology: (II) CLASS tool
The purpose of live classroom observation was to analyze key elements of the learning
environment that contribute to learning. These elements can best be assessed through
direct observation (Goe, Biggers, and Croft 2012). CLASS,16 developed by Robert Pianta at the
University of Virginia, assesses classroom settings on 12 components (dimensions), measuring
three broad domains: emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support.
The main aim of CLASS observation is the potential to identify strengths and address specific
weaknesses in teachers’ practices. At the upper elementary level, CLASS produces qualitative
ratings of teacher performance on a scale from 1 to 7 on 12 dimensions across three broad
domains: (1) emotional support; (2) classroom organization; and (3) instructional support
(Bruns and Luque 2015) as shown in figure 1.2.
FIGURE 1.2. CLASS DOMAINS
Measures specific teacher’s behavior that promotes students’
academic achievement and engagement by fostering positive
relationships and motivation. This domain also measures whether
EMOTIONAL or not the teachers are being aware and responsive to students’
SUPPORT needs and allowing students to willingly take learning risks
(Hu et al. 2016). The emotional support domain consists of
positive climate, teacher sensitivity, and regards for student
perspective dimensions.
Describes teachers’ behaviors that establish and affect structure
for learning through organization and management of students’
behavior, time, and attention in the classroom. Classrooms function
CLASSROOM best and provide the most opportunities to learn when students are
ORGANIZATION well-behaved, consistently have things to do, and are interested and
engaged in learning tasks. The classroom organization domain
consists of productivity, behavior management, and a positive or
negative climate.
Refers to specific teaching behaviors that push the students
thinking to deeper understanding and more advanced performance
skills. These behaviors help students build knowledge, promote
INSTRUCTIONAL higher order thinking skills, expand students' learning through
SUPPORT specific feedback, and use discussion to deepen students’ academic
understanding. The instructional support domain consists of
institutional learning formats, content understanding, analysis
and inquiry, quality of feedback, and instructional dialogue.
16 The CLASS observation tool has been extended to classrooms worldwide. Initial evidence from research
in international contexts suggests that the predictive utility of classroom interactions as captured by
the CLASS extends across cultures (Cadima et al. 2010; Malmberg and Hagger 2009; Pakarinen et al.
2010). The focus of the CLASS instrument observers is on the process of learning rather than on “what”
is being taught.
21
CLASS is a scientifically developed and largely applied classroom observation tool, both for its
theoretical framework and for its accumulation of robust empirical evidence demonstrating
connections between teachers’ quality of classroom behaviors and children’s developmental
competencies (for example, social skills and learning behaviors), school readiness skills,
and even long-term academic outcomes (Hamre et al. 2014; Pianta and Hamre 2009). The
CLASS tool for upper elementary and secondary classrooms requires the observers to make
standardized, structured judgments and assign a numeric score on a 1–7 Likert scale grouped
in three ranges: a score of 1 or 2 (the low range); a score of 3, 4, or 5 (the mid-range); and a score
of 6 or 7 (the high range). Scores of 1 or 2 indicate the quality of teacher-student interaction
is low or there is a lack of interaction between teachers and students, the management of
classroom is done poorly, and teaching is purely rote. Scores of 3, 4, or 5, are given when
classrooms show a mixture of effective teacher-student interactions with periods when
interaction are ineffective or absent. Scores of 6 or 7 mean that effective teacher-student
interactions are consistently observed throughout the classroom observation period (Coflan
et al. 2018).
Low range Mid-range High range
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The classroom observation (using the CLASS tool) focused on assessing the quality of
instruction given by 707 teachers in a total of 145 schools from a nationally representative
sample across Lebanon in Grades 4 and 7, including in public (first and second shifts), free
private, and fee-based private schools.17 The counselors at the Department of Guidance
and Counseling or Direction d’Orientation Pédagogique et Scolaire (DOPS) at the Ministry
of Education and Higher Education implemented the study in 53 first-shift public schools
and 25 second-shift public schools. Meanwhile, the contractor, Info Pro, conducted the data
collection in 64 private schools.
In total, there were 599 teachers (85 percent) in the first-shift schools, and 108 teachers (15
percent) in the second-shift schools. There were 375 teachers in public schools (53 percent),
71 teachers in free private schools (10 percent), and 261 teachers (37 percent) in fee-based
private schools. In order to gain an in-depth understanding of a teacher’s instructional
effectiveness, each classroom was visited twice, and during each visit two enumerators
observed the lesson for two cycles, each consisting of 15-minute lessons. The inter-reliability
rate for observers who observed Grade 4 teachers was 96%, and for Grade 7 teachers it was
98%. Enumerators then performed a post observation interview with all the teachers in the
sample, asking a range of questions about their lesson plans, opportunities for professional
development, students’ behavioral issues, the teachers’ own morale, and so forth.
Teacher study methodology: (III) Post observation interview
The R4R study used a post observation instrument and interviewed the teachers (whose
classrooms were observed live) to better understand the teachers’ philosophy of teaching
and the planning behind the delivered class. Results from post observation interviews—
coupled with live classroom observation data (using CLASS) and teacher content knowledge
evaluations—will help policy makers better identify options to improve Lebanon’s education
system. The post observation instrument included basic information about the students,
notes about the lesson plan, observations about teacher success or challenges, educational
17 Fee-based private schools are financed by students’ tuition fees. Free private schools are private
schools that are privately owned but subsidized by the government, religious associations, charities,
and other organizations.
22
resources, assessments, educational needs, teacher’s perspective on parent
participation, teacher’s professional development need, and teachers’
methods of student evaluation and feedback using samples of student
evaluation methods used by teachers during the school year (such as annual
or quarterly exams, homework, etc.) (figure 1.3).
FIGURE 1.3: POST OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCT
Teacher
professional
development
information
Educational
Teachers'
resources and
challenges
support
P OS T
OBS ERVATION
Student
evaluation Lesson plan
techniques
TEACHERS’ CHARACTERISTICS
Out of the teachers whose classrooms were observed and interviewed,
around 20 percent of them were male and 80 percent were female teachers,
with one-third of the teachers in the sample (31 percent) having five years or
less years of teaching experience. Table 1.1 shows the summary statistics for
teachers’ characteristics in the sample. Around one-half of the teachers (49
percent) have a bachelor’s degree and 20 percent have a bachelor’s degree
in education. About one-third (36 percent) of the teaching force in the
sample specialize in subjects other than the subjects that their classrooms
were observed for (i.e., Arabic, English, French, and math). This indicates that
Grade 4 and Grade 7 teachers are specialized in a subject that is often not as
relevant to the subject they teach. Only around 19 percent of the teachers
have a teacher training diploma.
23
TABLE 1.1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF TEACHERS’ CHARACTERISTICS
Percent
Gender
Male 20
Female 80
Years of teaching experience
<= 5 years 31.2
> 5 years and ≤10 years 21.2
> 10 years and ≤15 years 13.9
> 15 years and ≤20 years 13.3
> 20 years and ≤30 years 12.3
> 30 years 9.4
Education level
Secondary school diploma 9.9
Secondary school diploma (with teacher training certificate) 5.9
Bachelor’s degree (university degree) 48.8
Bachelor’s degree (in education) 20.2
Post graduate diploma (DEA-DES) 4.7
Master’s degree 9.2
Master’s degree in education 1.0
Area of specialization
Arabic 26.3
French 10.6
English 15.1
Math (in English and French) 15.3
Others 36.0
VULNERABILITY STUDY
The vulnerability study, supported by the American University of Beirut, was conducted
during the academic years of 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 and aimed to provide a better
understanding of the reasons why vulnerable Lebanese and Syrian refugee children either
remain in school or drop out of school. The study examined the educational experiences of
1,800 vulnerable children in Lebanon within different community types and across different
ages and grade levels. It explored the risks, protective factors, and trends contributing to a
persistence in enrollment among vulnerable Lebanese and Syrian students. It also examined
the experiences of Lebanese and Syrian out-of-school children (OOSC), addressing their family
and personal backgrounds, and the reasons that led them to drop out. Finally, the study
identified best practices in classroom instruction, school environment, and home support in
order to ensure that vulnerable children remain at school and are successful.
24
To learn about these issues, the study focused on five cohorts of vulnerable children: (1)
Syrian (refugee) children enrolled in schools, for either the first-shift or second-shift schools;
(2) Syrian (refugee) children enrolled in nonformal education programs; (3) Syrian (refugee)
children who are out of school; (4) vulnerable Lebanese children enrolled in schools; and (5)
vulnerable Lebanese children who do not attend school. The study adopted a mixed method
approach using quantitative and qualitative tools.
In addition to quantitative assessment tools, the study also included a background
questionnaire on children’s characteristics (including academic achievement—as reported by
schools) and family information. Qualitative tools included semi-structured interviews with
children attending school, interviews with children not attending school, and focus group
discussions with parents, teachers, and school counselors.
Two rounds of data collection were conducted between May and November 2018 in eight
governorates: Akkar, Baalbeck-Hermel, Beirut, Beqaa, Mount Lebanon, North Governorate,
Nabatiyeh, and South Governorate. The design for sample selection was based on five stratifying
variables: governorate, school shift (first or second), nationality (Syrian or Lebanese), grade (4
or 7), and gender. The first round of data collection identified the most marginalized student
populations and causes exacerbating their vulnerability. The second round captured progress
or decline as reported by students (mainly during Round One) and examined in greater depth
the profile of the most marginalized group identified during Round One.
Data synthesis challenges in triangulating results across studies
The challenges discussed in this section highlight the challenges that arose in making cross-
study comparisons, given inconsistency in data collection. Since different agencies were
responsible for producing different data sets, the school IDs were coded differently, making it
difficult to match schools when other school specific information was not available. In some
cases, school IDs used in the various studies were linked to the Center for Educational Research
and Development (CERD) school IDs; however, this was not the case for the vulnerability study.
Therefore, it was not possible to evaluate or triangulate the results across all studies at the
school level.
While almost all studies could be linked at the school level, except for the vulnerability study,
results at the individual level could not be linked, making a more granular analysis impossible.
After the studies were completed, efforts were made to synthesize information—specifically
drawing linkages—which required returning for clarification to various stakeholders, including
researchers, field staff, and data collection agencies. While the final version of the data set is
reflective of all studies, there remained two primary linking gaps that could not be addressed.
First, the teacher observation study did not record any variables to uniquely identify teachers.
Although data could be aggregate to the school level, it was not possible to analyze the
data at the specific teacher level. Therefore, it was not possible to link individual students’
assessment scores to their individual teachers nor to the classroom observations. All relevant
variables from the teacher observation study as well as the final class scores were averaged at
the school level. Secondly, in the vulnerability study the school identifiers for the quantitative
phase of the study could not be linked to the master data set (which included data from the
other R4R studies). As a result, it was not possible to link the findings of the vulnerability
study and the findings from the other studies at the school level.
25
2. KEY FINDINGS OF 18
THE R4R STUDIES
Findings from the School Study
CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS
On average, private schools provided 13 to 17 percent more instructional days
than public schools, which is equivalent to a total of six to seven hours of
formal learning per day for 170 to 189 days per year. Private schools served a
much larger population of Lebanese students than did first-shift and second-
shift public schools.19
First-shift public schools had a higher proportion of teachers with a
bachelor’s degree than other types of schools, and public schools relied on a
higher proportion of teachers who were not permanent (either on contracts
or seconded20 for temporary assignments) than fee-based private schools.
On average, the proportion of permanent teachers in free private schools was
at least twice that of teachers in public schools for mathematics, Arabic, and
foreign languages. Second-shift public schools had the largest proportion of
teachers without formal education.
In public schools, permanent teachers taught fewer hours, on average, than
permanent teachers at private schools. Furthermore, permanent teachers in
public schools taught, on average, similar or fewer hours than teachers on
contracts. A higher proportion of public schools reported teacher shortages in
mathematics, Arabic, foreign languages, and sciences than did private schools.
Teachers comprised a higher proportion of staff in public schools than private
schools. On average about 80 percent of staff in first-shift and second-shift
public schools were teachers, compared to 75 percent of staff in private
schools. Public schools and free private schools lacked a nurse or special needs
instructor. Roughly 75 percent of free private and fee-based schools owned
their facilities, compared to only 50 percent of first-shift public schools and
64 percent of second-shift public schools.
18 For further information on the analysis of the R4R studies, please refer to the original
reports.
19 First-shift public schools refer to the morning shifts in public schools, and second-
shift public schools refer to the afternoon shifts in public schools.
20 Seconded teachers are teachers who receive reimbursement for their services from
donors, school funds, and/or parents’ councils. They were hired in response to the
Syrian crisis to teach Syrian students in Lebanese public schools. Seconded teachers
work without annual contracts, and they do not have an ID number at the Ministry of
Education and Higher Education (MEHE) that guarantees them any legal rights, such
as an increase in hourly wages or health insurance.
26
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
Private school principals reported higher educational qualifications and more managerial
experience than principals at the other types of schools. On average, principals at private
schools had 15 years of experience as a principal, including an average tenure of 11 years in
their current school. In comparison, principals in public schools had an average of 7 to 8 years
of experience as a school principal.
In addition to having more years of experience working as principals, private school
principals had more formal education, on average, than public school principals. In first-
shift and second-shift public schools, 14 percent and 12 percent of principals, respectively,
had only a high school diploma, compared to 6 percent in free private schools. In fee-based
private schools, 96 percent of principals had a bachelor’s degree and 43 percent had advanced
degrees.
Across all types of public and private schools, the majority of principals had prior experience
as teachers. In public schools, all principals surveyed had teaching experience. The percentage
of private school principals with such experience was comparatively lower, but still quite high:
69 percent of principals in free private schools and 79 percent in fee-based private schools
had teaching experience.
Private schools also reported having a larger administrative cadre than public schools
(79 percent of private schools have more than 11–15 people on staff), including the school
principal, assistant principal, a bursar, a psychologist, and a secretary. The only administrative
position that was available in 96 percent of public schools was an assistant director (naazir).
The administrative cadres in private schools also met more frequently than at the public
schools and spent more time on administrative tasks and less on instructional tasks.
Diverse stakeholders are involved in schools’ financial management. Over one-half of fee-
based private schools had just one person managing the finances. The principal was more
likely to be involved in school finances than any other individual or committee across all
school types. However, the percentage of principals who reported being involved in making
financial decisions was much lower in public first-shift schools (68 percent) and fee-based
private schools (50 percent) than second-shift public schools (92 percent) and free private
schools (88 percent). Therefore, second-shift public and free private school principals are
quite engaged in managing the finances of the schools.
Free private schools were least likely to have parent councils. Only 56 percent of free private
schools were found to have parents councils, although all schools, irrespective of type, are
required by MEHE to have parent councils. On the other hand, all public schools reported
having parent councils, as did 92 percent of fee-based public schools. Parents councils in
first-shift public schools met more frequently than those in second-shift public schools. In
general, parent councils in public and fee-based private schools engaged in similar activities,
such as facilitating parent communication and providing input on limited school matters.
Parent councils in free private schools engaged in fewer activities.
The percentage of time principals spent on various daily activities varied slightly across the
different school types. Overall, principals tended to spend at least one-third of their time on
administrative duties. They reported spending about one-sixth of their total time on each
of the following activities: observing teachers, interacting with parents, addressing student
discipline problems, and providing feedback to teachers.
Almost all teachers agreed that their school principals were effective managers who
respected them, welcomed feedback, and worked collaboratively with them. There were
slight differences across school types on some measures of leadership by the principal: for
27
example, teachers in fee-based private schools were more likely to report that their principals
ran efficient meetings, and teachers in both types of private schools were more likely than
their public school counterparts to agree that the principal clearly articulated her or his vision
for improving the school.
Teachers rated their principals to be effective; however, principals reported a constraint
imposed by insufficient parent interest in participating in school affairs. A substantial
proportion of public school principals (28 percent of first-shift public and 36 percent of
second-shift public principals) reported that insufficient parent involvement limited their
effectiveness as leaders.
SCHOOL INSPECTION AND TEACHER EVALUATION
School inspection: Private schools were inspected far less frequently than public schools.21
Private schools received inspection visits from the Department of Private Education
(60 percent of fee-based private schools reported not receiving any such visits), while
public schools were monitored by both the Central Inspection Board and the Educational
Inspectorate. The average number of inspection visits by the Educational Inspectorate was 13
for first-shift public schools and 19 for second-shift public schools, compared to two and three
visits, respectively, from the Central Inspection Board. For private schools, the Department of
Private Education made two visits on average to free private schools, and roughly one visit to
fee-based schools. Almost all (96 percent) of public school principals reported that evaluating
the content and quality of exams was one purpose of inspection visits. Most principals found
feedback from these visits to be helpful (that is, when feedback was provided).
Teacher evaluation: In most schools, principals reported that teachers were evaluated at
least once a year. Different types of schools emphasized different factors in evaluating their
teachers. Fee-based private schools were more likely to take feedback from principals, subject
coordinators, and parents into account compared to other school types. Free private schools
were the least likely to take the feedback of other teachers into account.
All principals with underperforming teachers reported having taken action to address such
issues. Public school principals were more likely to have read comments from the Department
of Guidance and Counseling or Direction d’Orientation Pédagogique et Scolaire (DOPS) coaches
at MEHE or to have reported a teacher to MEHE (this only applies to public schools). Principals
from free private schools were more likely to have given a teacher a verbal notification or
to have fired a teacher. Principals from fee-based private schools were more likely to have
given a teacher a written warning notification or deducted pay from a teacher’s salary. In
all school types other than free private schools, about 40–50 percent of principals reported
having underperforming teachers in the 2016–2017 school year. In free private schools, only
13 percent of principals reported having underperforming teachers.
Classroom observation: Method and frequency of classroom observation of teachers
varied across the different types of schools. The majority of teachers across all school
types reported they were observed in their classroom at least twice during the school year
2016–2017. Most teachers reported receiving feedback after being observed. In most types of
schools, the principal was the most likely individual to have observed a teacher’s classroom
at least once and to have also visited teachers’ classrooms more frequently than any other
21 It is important to note that it is within the responsibility of the Department of Private Education at
MEHE to visit private schools. This department visits all free private schools annually and fee-based
private schools on a needs basis.
28
school personnel. Across all types of schools, the assistant principal was the least likely to
provide feedback. Teachers overwhelmingly reported that the feedback they received was
helpful. Public schools had a higher proportion of teachers receiving feedback on content
and quality of tests. Fewer teachers in first-shift public schools, however, reported receiving
feedback on teaching practices than did teachers in fee-based private schools and second-
shift public schools. Public school teachers reported receiving the least amount of feedback
on proficiency of language of instruction compared to private school teachers.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER)
Professional development for principals and teachers: More than 50 percent of the
principals (ranging from 52 percent of principals in second-shift public schools to 63
percent of principals in free private schools) reported that they did not receive professional
development in 2016–2017. Those who did receive training reported typically one to five days
of training. Most training days were provided by the Center for Educational Research and
Development (CERD) for both public and private school principals.22
Similarly, a substantial proportion of teachers did not receive training in 2016–2017. About
one-half of the fee-based private school teachers, and over one-third of free private school
and first-shift public school teachers reported not receiving training. However, teachers were
more likely than principals to have received at least one day of professional development
training throughout the school year. A much higher proportion of public school teachers
reported receiving training from CERD than private school teachers. Private school teachers
also received training internally at their schools. Topics addressed in training varied somewhat
by school type, with a larger proportion of private school teachers reporting receiving training
on educational technology, ways to integrate low performing students into their classes, and
classroom management, compared to public school teachers where training focused mainly
on active teaching methods and evaluations. Teacher training was perceived as generally
helpful, as it enabled teachers to adopt new practices (a range of 78–85 percent of the
teachers reported having changed their practices on the basis of training received).
Private school teachers were far more likely than their public school counterparts to report
receiving training on educational technology (more than 60 percent in private schools
compared to 36 percent of public school teachers) and on integrating low performing
students into their classes and otherwise addressing their needs (56 percent and 42 percent
in free and fee-based private schools, respectively, compared to 27 percent of teachers in
second-shift public schools and only 9 percent in first-shift public schools). Similarly, about
one-half of fee-based private school teachers reported that training addressed classroom
management, compared to (at most) one-third of public school teachers. On the other hand, a
larger proportion of free private school teachers reported learning about student assessment
during the training, compared to about one-fourth of the teachers (or less) in the other
school types.
About 50 percent of private school teachers reported collaborating with other teachers
between one to three times a week, and in some cases as often as every day, while most public
school teachers reported collaborating a couple of times a year, or at best twice a month, with
about 10 percent of teachers in each type of public school reporting never collaborating with
other teachers at all.
22 It is within the mandate of CERD to train teachers and principals from public and private schools,
although those from private schools do not usually attend these trainings but rather often conduct
their own trainings.
29
TEACHER WORKLOAD AND STUDENT SUPPORT
Teachers, on average, reported spending about 33 percent of their time teaching. On average,
teachers in public schools spent 31 to 32 percent of their day teaching, compared to a little
over 35 percent in private schools (36 to 37 percent of their day). The percentage of time
teachers spent on other activities, such as planning lessons and marking exams, was similar
across all school types.
Public school teachers were more likely to have underperforming students and a lower
percentage of gifted students in their classes compared to private school teachers. In public
schools, about 39 percent of teachers in first-shift public schools and 42 percent in second-
shift public schools reported that at least one-third of their classes comprised low academic
achievers, compared to 4 percent of fee-based private school teachers and 10 percent of
teachers in free private schools. Therefore, public schools seem to have more underperforming
students than fee-based private schools.
The strategies teachers used to deal with underperforming students were similar across all
school types, although public school teachers were less likely to provide after-class support
to low performers, and instead referred them to be tested for learning disabilities. Despite
employing these various strategies, at most 25 percent of teachers at each type of school felt
that they were “quite successful” in improving the performance of low academic achievers.
About 25 percent of teachers in first-shift public schools reported their efforts as successful
in dealing with special needs students, compared to 14 percent and 16 percent in second-shift
public schools and fee-based private schools, respectively.
PARENTS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
About two-thirds of parents whose children were enrolled in public schools had not
completed high school compared to less than one-third of private school parents. About 40
percent of private school parents reported holding a bachelor’s degree, while the remaining
parents reported having completed high school or a vocational or technical school.
Almost all parents reported receiving information about their children’s academic
performance, behavior, activities, and the performance of their school.23 Ninety percent
of parents with children enrolled in first-shift public schools indicated that they received
information on how schools used parent funds, compared to 77 percent of parents in second-
shift public schools. About 80 percent of parents with children in first-shift public schools
reported receiving information on school policies, compared to at least 90 percent of parents
with children in other school types.
Overall, parents agreed that their children’s schools have been responsive to their opinion or
complaints, and that the schools initiate discussion of their children’s academic progress and
behavior. Furthermore, almost all parents reported receiving a variety of information from
the schools. A slightly smaller proportion of parents of children in public schools reported
receiving information, particularly regarding the use of parents’ funds and school policies.
According to principals’ reports, about 75 percent or more of the schools collaborate with
community organizations to provide presentations or workshops to the school, classes,
or parents. Over 80 percent of private school principals and about 75 percent of second-
23 School performance in the context of the study refers to school management, school engagement,
financial decision-making, and improvement of school environment and facilities.
30
shift public school principals indicated working together with community organizations to
organize academic or artistic competitions for students. A much lower proportion reported
working with community organizations to host career fairs or raise money to support the
schools and students.
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AND EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
A school’s environment and facilities are important in how they make teachers and students
feel about the school. In general, a higher share of private schools had the assistance of adults
to manage traffic and pedestrians, designated drop-off zones, and adequate parking. A higher
share of public schools had both exterior and interior facilities in need of repair compared to
private schools. While all schools had functioning electricity during the enumerators’ visits, a
significantly higher share of private schools had an electric generator or service contract as a
backup, than did the other school types. Both students and staff lavatories in private schools
were rated better maintained and cleaner than those in public schools. Around 70 percent of
staff lavatories in private schools were very clean, compared with 50 percent of those in free
private schools and fewer than 50 percent in public schools.
Vandalism was also observed at some participating schools. About 33 percent of second-
shift public schools had signs of vandalism to their interior, compared to about 20 percent of
first-shift public schools and 15 percent or less of private schools. Most schools had railings
on stairs, and one-half or more of schools had a functioning public announcement system in
case of emergencies. Regarding availability of specialty rooms, a significantly greater share of
private schools had an indoor gym and a multipurpose room. A greater share of public schools
had health resources such as a clinic and a nurse on campus, while private schools were more
likely to contract out health services.
All parents reported that their children’s school provided extracurricular activities. The most
common activities across all school types were school plays or musicals, and field trips. Parents
with children in second-shift public schools reported fewer opportunities for their children
to volunteer or to participate in scholarly competitions, compared to parents with children
in other types of schools. Parents viewed physical fighting, student conflict, students not
respecting staff and other students, and teachers harming students to be greater problems
in public schools and free private schools than in fee-based private schools.
SCHOOL FINANCE
While the MEHE pays teachers’ salaries and large capital expenditures from its budget,
public schools have a discretion over two types of funds, the school fund and the parent’s
fund. They receive these directly, enabling them to procure certain services. For every public
school, the MEHE contributes to a school fund for each student enrolled. Parents are also
expected to contribute with a small fee for each student; however, this requirement has been
relaxed more recently due to economic hardship. Public schools that enroll Syrian students
and other refugees receive additional funds from donors, particularly for running second
shifts in the afternoon. Donor funding has also supported the financing of the parents’ fund
for all children enrolled in public schools (Grades 1 to 9) regardless of their nationality as
part of the RACE 2 program. Private schools draw their resources from student tuition fees,
although some schools (free private schools) receive a government subsidy for enrolling
low-income students. Fee-based private schools also receive indirect financing from the
31
government through education subsidies given to civil servants, who then
enroll their children at these schools. Private schools are typically run by a
religious association or independently, and governance and budgeting vary
depending on that arrangement.
Among the public schools in the study sample, all the second-shift public
schools reported revenues in 2015–2016 in line with their expectations, as
did a majority of first-shift public schools. Similarly, all free private schools
reported that revenues were in line with their expectations, compared to only
two out of four fee-based private schools.
In general, both public and private schools reported that they were able to
track and spend their funds. This was less the case among free private schools
where only one school of the four sampled indicated not facing any difficulty
spending their funds. Among all the schools in the sample, second-shift public
schools reported that the funds they received were sufficient to meet their
needs. Only five of the eleven first-shift public schools in the study’s sample
indicated that the school fund was sufficient to meet their needs, and seven
of eleven indicated that the parent fund was sufficient to meet their needs.
Among private schools, two of five free private schools and two of four fee-
paying private schools reported that the funds were sufficient to meet their
needs. Therefore, school financing seemed to be insufficient among many
schools within the sample.
CHALLENGES SCHOOLS FACE
Principals across all school types cited the top two challenges as lack of support
staff (such as psychologist or social worker) and inadequate information
and communication infrastructure (including computers and connectivity).
The third challenge most frequently identified by principals was inadequate
school facilities (for first-shift public schools), inadequate student basic skill
preparation (for second-shift public schools), large numbers of students in
classes (at free private schools), and difficulty in managing student discipline
(at fee-based private schools).
The top challenges identified by teachers, which focused more on student
preparedness and parents, differed the challenges identified by principals.
There was consensus among teachers across various schools on the three top
challenges: insufficient parent participation or support, student misbehavior,
and inadequate student preparation in basic skills.
32
Findings from the Student Assessment Study
Students in the participating classes had to take a test (Round One assessment) at the
beginning of the school year and another (Round Two assessment) at the end of the school
year to determine overall student progress in three subjects: Arabic, a foreign language
(French or English), and mathematics, and a Student Perception Survey was completed by
each student during the Round 2 student assessment. In Round One, a baseline assessment
was administered at the beginning of the school year which assessed students on knowledge
from the previous grade as well as content covered thus far in the grade they were in, and in
Round Two, an assessment was administered at the end of the school year to determine overall
student progress at that grade level. The assessment consisted of 30 questions of equal weight.
One of the intended ways in which this study sought to measure student learning growth by
grade level and subject area was by analyzing the differences in scores between Round One
and Round Two assessments. According to the Management Systems International (MSI),
Round Two assessments were made equivalent to Round One assessments with respect to
content and psychometric properties in order to ensure comparability of scores. Consistent
across both Grades 4 and 7, as well as across school types, students’ growth was found to be
positive overall. These differences in scores remain of statistical significance.
One of the intended ways to measure student learning was by making a comparison of the
Research for Results (R4R) assessment scores with end-of-year scores, however, the scope of
reliance on end-of-year scores is limited given that these were not nationally administered but
rather designed and administered at the individual school level, thus making validity inconsistent.
For Grade 4 students, the average score percentage in Round One was 35.68, whereas
in Round Two it rose to 41.18. This is a substantially low average regardless of the type of
school. Students from fee-based private schools showed the greatest improvement (seven
points) despite having also started from the strongest position. Free private schools show the
least progress, although students from these schools started off better than those in public
schools, with students from public second-shift schools performing the lowest in Round
One. While score differences are positive across most categories, there seems to be a fall in
mathematics scores (tested in Arabic) among students from first-shift public schools and
free private schools: down 1.6 and 2.6 points, respectively (figure 2.1).
FIGURE 2.1. GRADE 4 SCORE DIFFERENCE BY SCHOOL TYPE
14
12
11.5
10
8 7.9
7.2 7.5 6.8 6.8 6.8
6 6.3 6.6
6.0
6.7
5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6
4.8 4.8 4.8 5.1 4.9
4 4.4
1.9
2 1.4
0.5 0.7
0.3
0
-2 -1.6
-2.6
-4
Math in English Math in French English French Arabic Math in Arabic Total
First-Shift Public Schools Second-Shift Public Schools Free Private Schools Fee-based Private Schools
Source: Author calculations.
33
For Grade 7 students, the average score in Round One was 42.64, whereas in Round Two it
rose to 45.06. Students from second-shift public schools showed the greatest improvement,
4.8 points on average. Students from these schools also started off lowest compared to other
school types. There seemed to be a fall in French language assessment scores for students
from first-shift public schools and free private schools: down by 1.4 and 4.3 points, respectively.
Students’ scores from fee-based private schools dropped by 2.0 points in mathematics when
tested in French (figure 2.2).
FIGURE 2.2. GRADE 7 SCORE DIFFERENCE BY SCHOOL TYPE
10
9.0
8
6 6.5
5.7 5.5
4.9
4
3.0 3.0
2 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1
0.5 1.5 0.6 1.5 0.6 1.7
1.1
0
-0.7
-2.0
-2 -1.4
-4 -4.3
-6
Math in English Math in French English French Arabic Total
First-Shift Public Schools Second-Shift Public Schools Free Private Schools Fee-based Private Schools
Source: Author calculations.
UNDERPERFORMING STUDENTS
In order to understand students’ performance better, including any likelihood that
underperforming students will improve their performance over time, inter-quintile mobility
was tracked. For this purpose, students were clustered into five quintiles, where the first
quintile consisted of the lowest performing students in Round One, and the fifth quintile
consisted of the highest performing students in Round One. When assessing inter-quintile
mobility for aggregate scores of students, results showed that low performing students were
50 percent more likely to continue to perform the worst in their cohort across different time
periods (in this case rounds). Moreover, only 2.13 percent of those in the lowest quintile in
Round One managed to rise to the highest quintile in Round Two.
Underperforming students mostly do not catch up. Grade 4 students who fell in the first
quintile, the lowest performing group of students in Round One, remained clustered around
low scores in Round Two. This confirms that poorly performing students will continue to
underperform, with the slimmest of chances that they might climb to membership in the
highest performing quintile group.
34
Consistent with Grade 4 findings, a small share of students are seen to rise up to the highest
performing group in Grade 7, with a majority continuing to remain in the first quintile
(figure 2.3). This clearly implies that upward learning mobility remains a challenge among
the underperforming students, and programs designed to focus on their needs are key for
equitable learning growth.
FIGURE 2.3. UPWARD LEARNING MOBILITY AS A CHALLENGE
Tracking Low Performing Students in Grade 4
From Round 1 to Round 2
30
1
2
25
3
4
20 5
Round 1 scores
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Round 2 scores
Source: Author calculations.
Almost one-half of the students in the lowest performing quintile in Round One (roughly 43
percent of the 565 students) were from the first-shift public schools, 24 percent were from
the second-shift public schools, 25 percent were from fee-based private schools, and only 8
percent were from the free private schools. Among the lowest performing students in Grade
7 (421 students), roughly 60 percent were from the first-shift public schools, 15 percent were
from second-shift public schools, 23 percent were from fee-based private schools, and less
than 1 percent of the students were from free private schools.
WELL PERFORMING STUDENTS
The highest performing students in Grade 7 attended fee-based private schools. In the fifth
quintile, which consists of students who perform best in Round One, roughly 71.00 percent
of the students were from fee-based private schools, roughly 16.00 percent were from first-
shift public schools, 12.00 percent from free private schools, and only 0.79 percent were from
second-shift public schools.
A similar pattern is seen in Round Two, where roughly 74 percent of the students were from
private fee-based private schools and only 1.28 percent were from second-shift public schools.
Among Grade 4 students, nearly 62 percent of the highest performing students attended fee-
35
based private schools, 17 percent attended first-shift public schools, nearly 16
percent attended free private schools, and fractionally more than 5 percent
were from second-shift public schools. The same trend is seen in Round Two
scores, where nearly 67.00 percent of students were from fee-based private
schools whereas only 4.66 percent were from second-shift public schools.
Therefore, growth was observed between Rounds 1 and 2 across all school
types. However, the equity gap in learning among school types is clearly
evident in that private schools begin much better off than public schools
and then show much greater progress over time. It is important to note that
positive growth of school averages in absolute terms must not be construed
to show progress relative to other school providers. Furthermore, results
among students in public schools continue to remain low compared to their
counterparts in private schools.
The overall distribution of scores across school types is presented in figures
2.4 and 2.5. As is evident, the distribution for public school scores across both
grades is significantly lower than that of private schools. The distribution of
round average scores in private schools is also more dispersed than public
schools where the highest density of students fall below 50 percent.
FIGURE 2.4: GRADE 7 ROUNDS AVERAGE SCORE DISTRIBUTION
First-shift public schools Second-shift public schools
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
Density
Free private schools Free-based private schools
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Source: Author calculations.
36
FIGURE 2.5: GRADE 4 ROUNDS AVERAGE SCORE DISTRIBUTION
First-shift public schools Second-shift public schools
.06
.04
.02
0
Density
Free private schools Free-based private schools
.06
.04
.02
0
0 50 100 0 50 100
Source: Author calculations.
DISAGGREGATING RESULTS BY CATEGORIES
1. SCHOOL PROVIDER
Overall, the results from this study show that private schools perform better
than public schools. Scores from both rounds of assessments were averaged
out to analyze the overall performance of students across time. An average
of Round One and Round Two scores for Grade 4 indicate that second-shift
public schools perform the worst, while fee-based private schools perform
the best. This trend continues for schools across grade 7 as well.
Grade 4
When comparing the two types of public schools based on shifts, schools
with the first shift perform slightly better on Round One and Round Two
averages of the student assessment than schools with the second shift that
primarily host non-Lebanese students (first-shift: 34 percent; second-shift:
32.8 percent). This trend is reversed when comparing end-of-year student
exam scores,24 with a second-shift public school average of 53.2 percent
compared to 51.5 percent in first-shift public schools (figure 2.6).
24 Please note the limitation in using the end-of-year exam score as a comparison, as it
is not a harmonized measure across school types.
37
FIGURE 2.6. GRADE 4 TOTAL SCORE BY SCHOOL TYPE
70
68.3
60 63.5
50 53.2
51.5
40 44.4
41.2
30 34.8 32.8
20
10
0
First-Shift Second-Shift Free Private Fee-based
Public Schools Public Schools Schools Private Schools
R4R Assessment School End of Year Exam
Source: Author calculations.
Grade 7
When comparing schools’ average scores across providers in Grade 7, fee-based private
schools and free private schools perform almost identically relative to public schools. The
end-of-year average for Grade 7 in free private schools was as high as 64 percent, which is
about 3 percent higher than at fee-based private schools. This difference is significant at the
99 percent confidence interval along with differences among most other provider types. The
difference in the assessment is significant at the 90 percent confidence interval across the
two private providers (figure 2.7).
FIGURE 2.7: GRADE 7 TOTAL SCORE BY SCHOOL TYPE
70
60 64.0
60.9
50
49.3 49.4
40 45.9 47.1
39.7
30 36.0
20
10
0
First-Shift Second-Shift Free Private Fee-based
Public Schools Public Schools Schools Private Schools
R4R Assessment School End of Year Exam
Source: Author calculations.
Similar to Grade 4 results, first-shift public schools were found to outperform students in
second-shift public schools on the assessments administered. The reverse is true for end-
of-year exam scores, where second-shift school students have a higher school average of 47.1
percent (figure 2.7).
38
2. GENDER
In both Grades 4 and 7, girls outperform boys on average at both the assessments as well
as the end-of-year exam across all types of schools. These score differences are statistically
significant at the 99 percent confidence interval. These results are promising in view of the
efforts by the Government of Lebanon, as well as the World Bank, to bridge the gender divide
in learning (figures 2.8 and 2.9). These results are in line with achievement trends from the
official exam results for Grades 9 and 12 for the years 2016–2017, 2017–2018, and 2018–2019,
where the official exams showed that results (grades) were significantly better for females.
FIGURE 2.8. GRADE 4 TOTAL SCORE BY GENDER AND SCHOOL TYPE
70
60
70.7
65.9
65.9
50
61.2
55.5
54.3
40
50.8
49.1
45.3
43.5
42.9
30
39.5
36.0
33.9
33.8
31.7
20
10
0
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
First-Shift Public Schools Second-Shift Public Schools Free Private Schools Fee-based Private Schools
R4R Assessment School End of Year Exam
Source: Author calculations.
FIGURE 2.9. GRADE 7 TOTAL SCORE BY GENDER AND SCHOOL TYPE
70
60
65.5
64.9
62.1
57.4
50
51.9
51.2
49.2
48.5
47.0
47.2
40
44.8
43.1
40.1
39.3
36.9
37.0
30
20
10
0
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
First-Shift Public Schools Second-Shift Public Schools Free Private Schools Fee-based Private Schools
R4R Assessment School End of Year Exam
Source: Author calculations.
39
3. GOVERNORATE
For Grade 4 students, the South Governorate is the highest performing (figure 2.10). The
differences across governorates are statistically significant throughout.
FIGURE 2.10. GRADE 4 SCORES BY GOVERNORATE
South 64.1
44.0
North 54.4
32.2
Nabatieh 61.1
39.7
Mount Lebanon 60.4
41.5
Beqaa 57.1
36.4
Beirut 55.6
37.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
School End of Year Exam R4R Assessment
Source: Author calculations.
For Grade 7 students, Mount Lebanon is the best performing governorate overall, with
differences across governorates remaining statistically significant (figure 2.11).
FIGURE 2.11. GRADE 7 SCORES BY GOVERNORATE
South 58.4
45.5
North 48.1
39.9
Nabatieh 51.7
41.8
Mount Lebanon 58.2
47.9
Beqaa 50.0
42.3
Beirut 51.0
44.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
School End of Year Exam R4R Assessment
Source: Author calculations.
40
Findings from the Teacher Study
TEACHERS’ CONTENT KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION
The content knowledge evaluation results indicate that regardless of the
grade and subject, teachers in Lebanon did not sufficiently master the content
they teach. Teacher content knowledge evaluation is often linked to student
outcome, as teachers cannot effectively teach a lesson to their students when
they do not have sufficient knowledge. Teachers with better knowledge of
the subject they teach offer a higher level of value added instruction to help
students learn topics from a more in-depth perspective.
FIGURE 2.12. AVERAGE SCORE STATISTICS FOR TEACHER CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION—SECTION 1
Arabic, Grade 4 47%
Arabic, Grade 7 60%
Math in French, Grade 4 63%
Math in English, Grade 4 63%
English, Grade 4 75%
Math in English, Grade 7 78%
French, Grade 7 78%
French, Grade 4 78%
Math in French, Grade 7 79%
English, Grade 7 80%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of correct answers
Source: Author calculations.
Figure 2.12 shows the average score for the first section questions, which
included mostly short answers. The outcome was below what is expected
of teachers across all subjects and grades. For example, a low percentage of
Grade 4 Arabic teachers (average of 47 percent correct answers) got correct
answers, indicating that on average each teacher was only able to provide
correct answers to around one-half of the questions in the evaluation test.
With the exception of Grade 7 Arabic teachers, who scored 60 percent on
average, the rest of the teachers in Grade 7, who taught English, French, and
math, scored an average of 80 percent in their assessment for the first section
of the evaluation.
41
For the second part of the teacher content evaluation, as shown in figure
2.13, the teachers were (1) asked to provide a correct answer to an incorrect
response from a student test; (2) justify the reason behind the student
mistake or confusion; and (3) provide a teaching remediation to help the
student understand the underlying concept. Compared to the first section of
content evaluation, fewer teachers were able to follow a coherent instructional
process to provide correct answers to all parts of the questions in section
2. Less than 33 percent of the teachers were able to answer the follow-up
questions correctly when asked to provide a justification of the source of
student confusion and a guiding solution and/or a remedy to alter the way
they teach.
FIGURE 2.13. AVERAGE SCORE STATISTICS FOR TEACHER CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION—SECTION 2
French, Grade 4 59%
English, Grade 7 44.4%
French, Grade 7 42.4%
Math in French, Grade 4 31.9%
Arabic, Grade 4 31.3%
English, Grade 4 27.2%
Arabic, Grade 7 26.5%
Math in English, Grade 4 26.4%
Math in French, Grade 7 23.4%
Math in English, Grade 7 14.2%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of correct answers
Source: Author calculations.
42
TEACHER CONTENT KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION—BY SCHOOL SHIFT
The teacher content knowledge evaluation results indicate a significant difference between
first-shift and second-shift teachers regardless of the subject and grade taught. Second-
shift public school teachers performed significantly lower on their evaluation tests than did
first-shift teachers in most of the subjects. As an example, figure 2.14 indicates that Grade 7
French second-shift teachers scored significantly lower in 70 percent of their assessments
compared to teachers who taught French in first-shift schools.
FIGURE 2.14. TEACHER EVALUATION SCORE IN GRADE 7 FRENCH LANGUAGE—BY SHIFT
100.0
100.0%
100.0%
97.8%
90.0
86.7%
86.7%
86.7%
86.7%
80.0
77.8%
77.8%
70.0
Percent of assessments
68.9%
68.9%
66.7%
66.7%
66.7%
66.7%
60.0
60%
50.0
53.3%
40.0
44.4%
30.0
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
31.1%
20.0
10.0
0.0%
0.0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13
French, Grade 7, first shift French, Grade 7, second shift
Source: Author calculations.
TEACHER EVALUATION—BY SCHOOL TYPE
The content knowledge evaluation analyses showed no statistically significant difference
in evaluation scores of teachers in private and public schools across all grades and subjects.
It is important to indicate that private school teachers (both fee-based and free private)
performed better in their evaluation scores as compared to public school teachers; however
this difference was not observed to be significant.
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION OUTCOMES (USING CLASS TOOL)
Similar to content knowledge evaluation findings, teachers in Lebanon follow steady and
fixed teaching practices in their classrooms regardless of the subject and grade they teach,
when observed live (using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System [CLASS] tool). While
some students periodically shared their ideas or gave responses, generally most Grade 4
43
and Grade 7 students in Lebanon appeared to be in a receptive rather than an active mode.
Teachers rarely followed students’ lead in the classroom and did not welcome students’ ideas
and opinions. The low-performing teachers (around 73 percent of the teachers observed) only
offered information with little to no variety in delivery strategies or materials (figure 2.15).
Around 26 percent of the teachers scored medium-high according to the CLASS scoring
system discussed earlier, and even those teachers were not able to deliver teaching practices
that meet the higher range of CLASS instructional support domain standards, instead falling
into the low to mid range of this domain.
During live classroom observation, even the best and worst performing teachers seem to
fail to deliver teaching practices that meet a high range of instructional support domain
standards. They both fall within the low to mid range in this domain. Only a small number of
teachers (fewer than 4 percent) were seen to maximize student engagement through clear
presentation of key ideas reflected on by students. These teachers also focused on encouraging
a deep understanding of content through the provision of meaningful, interactive discussions
and an explanation of broad organizing ideas that were consistently linked to students’ prior
knowledge in ways that clarified misunderstandings. In those select classrooms, students
were consistently engaged in extended opportunities to use higher order thinking and
independently solve or reason through an open-ended task, requiring them to select, utilize,
or apply existing knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, these teachers still remain the exception
rather than the norm in Lebanon.
FIGURE 2.15. CLASS DOMAIN ANALYSIS SCORE, LEBANON
Grade 4
Instructional support
Classroom organization
Emotional support
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LOW 1 2 MODERATE 3 4 5 HIGH 6 7
Grade 7
Instructional support
Classroom organization
Emotional support
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LOW 1 2 MODERATE 3 4 5 HIGH 6 7
Source: Author calculations.
44
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION—BY SUBJECT
Teachers appeared inflexible, rarely following students’ leads or encouraging expression of
their ideas and opinions. The majority of teachers (94 percent) rarely connected students’
practical experiences to the lesson. Class materials were not presented in such a way that they
communicated relevance to students, nor did they help them understand the value or connection
of the lesson to their current life experiences. In classroom settings, there were only limited
opportunities for students to independently practice the skills relevant to lesson content.
Further analyses of live classroom observation across subjects and grades indicated that
teachers in Lebanon follow similar pedagogical practices (figure 2.16). Regardless of the
subject taught in the classroom, teachers in both Grade 4 and Grade 7 were found to provide
students with opportunities to apply knowledge and skills within familiar contexts; however,
they did not provide them with opportunities for analyses and problem solving within novel
contexts and/or without teacher support.
FIGURE 2.16. CLASS SCORE—SUBJECT DOMAIN ANALYSIS, LEBANON
Grade 4
7
6
5
5.50
5.46
5.37
5.37
5.41
4
3.89
3.86
3.9
3
3.71
3.7
3.28
3.01
3.01
2.89
2 2.9
1
0
Emotional support Classroom organization Instructional support
Arabic language (n= 130) French language (n= 60) English language (n= 69)
Math in French (n= 60) Math in English (n= 70)
Grade 7
7
6
5.68
5.66
5
5.52
5.53
5.51
4
3.88
3.91
3.75
3.73
3.65
3
3.37
3.09
3.13
2.94
2.95
2
1
0
Emotional support Classroom organization Instructional support
Arabic language (n= 107) French language (n= 49) English language (n= 56)
Math in French (n= 49) Math in English (n= 57)
Source: Author calculations.
45
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION—BY SHIFT
There is a significant difference in the quality of teaching practices between first-shift
and second-shift public school teachers, specifically in the quality of teacher feedback
to students. Lack of student independence was mostly observed among teachers of Grades
4 and 7 in second-shift schools, indicating that students were not encouraged to think
independently, evaluate, reflect on their own learning, or plan their own learning experiences.
For instance, Grade 4 first-shift public school teachers were observed to mildly engage students
in facilitating lesson content, whereas the vast majority of Grade 4 second-shift public school
teachers (92 percent) were observed to communicate learning targets in a disorganized
manner and only offered lesson contents in a single mode (for example, a lecture). Figure 2.17
indicates that only 10 percent of second-shift public school teachers scored medium-high, as
compared to 30 percent of first-shift public school teachers.
FIGURE 2.17. CLASS SCORE DISTRIBUTION IN LEBANON BY SHIFT
Second-shift 29% 61% 10%
First-shift 14% 55% 30% 1%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LOW 1 2 MODERATE 3 4 5 HIGH 6 7
Source: Author calculations.
Furthermore, both Grades 4 and 7 second-shift public school teachers performed significantly
lower than teachers at other schools on all dimensions of the instructional support domain
discussed earlier in the CLASS tool description (figure 2.18).
FIGURE 2.18. INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION IN LEBANON BY SHIFT
Grade 4
Instructional dialogue 2.28 3.04
Quality of feedback 2.48 3.33
Analysis and inquiry 1.84 2.39
Content understanding 2.77 3.56
Instructional learning format 3.25
3.82
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Second-shift First-shift
Grade 7
Instructional dialogue 2.36 3.07
Quality of feedback 2.61 3.31
2.09 2.42
Analysis and inquiry
3.03 3.64
Content understanding
3.4
Instructional learning format 3.78
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Second-shift First-shift
Source: Author calculations.
46
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION—BY SCHOOL TYPE
Teachers at fee-based and free private schools provided students with occasional
opportunities to practice metacognition through reflection, self-evaluation, and planning.
The quality of teaching at free private and fee-based private schools is similar. Even though
teachers in fee-based private schools were observed to perform slightly better in the
instructional support domain compared to their counterparts in free private schools, this
difference was not observed to be statistically significant. While only 14 percent of public
school teachers scored medium-high (a score of 5), 38 percent of teachers who taught at
free private schools, and 43 percent of fee-based private school teachers scored medium-
high (figure 2.19). Around one-third (27 percent) of public school teachers scored medium
(between the ranges of 3 and 4 as described in CLASS scoring system earlier), while only 3
percent of fee-based private school teachers and 6 percent of free private school teachers
scored medium.
FIGURE 2.19. CLASS SCORE DISTRIBUTION IN LEBANON BY SCHOOL TYPE
Fee-based private 3% 52% 43% 1%
Free-private 6% 55% 38%
public 1% 27% 58% 14%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LOW 1 2 MODERATE 3 4 5 HIGH 6 7
Overall, teachers in Lebanon follow fixed teaching practices in their classrooms throughout
the school year. No evidence of significant improvement in quality of teaching outcomes was
observed in the second visit to classrooms (the second visit was five to six months after the
first visit). During both visits, students often showed passive rather than dynamic engagement
in the classroom. Additionally, a majority of the teachers (90 percent) across Grades 4 and 7
in all subjects (languages and mathematics) did not exhibit a significant difference in the
CLASS score compared to their content knowledge evaluation score, meaning that teachers in
Lebanon, regardless of their level of knowledge and mastery of the curriculum, adopt similar
instructional practices in classrooms. Most teachers (nearly 80 percent) did not encourage
students to think, evaluate, or reflect on their own learning. Instruction was mostly presented
in a rote manner with limited opportunities for students to engage in open-ended tasks, and
the majority of surveyed students (nearly 90 percent) are not encouraged by their teachers to
continuously apply previous knowledge and skills to new contexts during a lesson.
47
TEACHER POST OBSERVATION INTERVIEW FINDINGS
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
AND STIMULATION
Classrooms appeared to offer a suitable environment in most schools (85 percent), although
there were some schools without proper heating or electricity.
Special Education Needs. Even though most teachers (81 percent) reported employing
different instructional learning formats that adjust the pace of lessons to students with
special needs, these descriptions were somewhat undermined by the low performance of the
teachers in live classroom observations.
Parents’ Support. Most public school teachers (85 percent) expressed their dissatisfaction
with the degree to which parents were involved in their children’s education, such as frequency
of participation—if any—and in school-related events and activities during a school year. The
majority of the parents (94 percent) whose children attended second-shift schools were not
involved at all in their children’s academic and social achievements.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF CHALLENGES, SUCCESS,
AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Educational Resources and Curriculum. The majority of observed classrooms (90 percent)
used traditional resources such as textbooks or learning aids, and teachers did not have access
to educational resources that employed information and communication technology. Second-
shift teachers reported that schools did not provide them with the access to computers,
tablets, or liquid crystal display projectors enjoyed by their colleagues who taught in first-
shift schools.
Learning Resources. Around 75 percent of the teachers expressed concern regarding
students’ previous learning achievements or levels, which do not seem to be sufficient to
give them the foundational skills needed to advance to higher grades. Most teachers (80
percent) expressed concern regarding access to learning resources (such as lab equipment,
tablets, computers, projectors, etc.) needed to support their teaching. Teachers also stated
that professional development training opportunities for creating stimulating classroom
environments were insufficient. Most public school teachers (75 percent) requested training
in the use of technology in the classroom, followed by support and training in the use of
formative learning and assessment tools to enhance student learning, such as collaborative
student projects, new methods in exams and quizzes, standardized tests, and so forth. There
was a visible mismatch between teachers’ perception of the professional development support
versus their performance in content evaluation and live classroom observations. Only 37
percent of the teachers expressed a need in professional development training that included
in-depth understanding of the curriculum they taught. Based on the content knowledge
evaluation findings, this need appears to be more alarming.
48
LESSON PLANS
Preparation. On average, a typical teacher in Lebanon spends roughly 7 hours planning his/
her lessons and roughly 20 hours teaching during the week, which indicates that on average,
for every hour of teaching, only 20 minutes is spent on planning and preparing a lesson.
Additionally, on the day of the interview, around one-fifth of the teachers did not have an
observable lesson plan.25
Content and Clarity. More than three-quarters (75 percent) of the observable plans were
clear, organized, and easy to follow. However, more than one-half of the lesson plans did
not include a review activity of what was taught in the previous lessons. The majority of the
plans (76 percent) did not take into consideration that students were of different skill levels
and learning abilities. Interactive methods in the lesson plans were not well structured. Less
than 50 percent of the lesson plans included setting a homework assignment based on that
lesson. Around 94 percent of lesson plans did not include the use of technology, particularly
at second-shift public schools. Additionally, none of the lesson plans indicated a special
activity/exercise for children with special needs who have learning difficulties/disabilities, nor
was it observed in the lesson plans that the pace of the lesson would be adjusted for those
individual students.
Utilization. Most teachers (86 percent) did not utilize and implement their lesson plans
in their classrooms. For instance, while the majority of teachers (94 percent) reported
using discussions between the teacher and the students as an interactive method in their
classrooms, only 43 percent of them included this activity in their lesson plans.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF STUDENT ASSESSMENT
Teachers (65 percent) did not utilize formative learning and assessment tools (such as student
collaborative projects, poster presentation, or student self-evaluation techniques) that can
foster students’ cognitive and critical thinking skills. Teachers also did not provide effective
feedback and comments to increase student understanding of the lesson or curriculum.
This result was also reflected in teacher content knowledge evaluation performance, where
teachers were unable to identify students’ sources of mistakes and provide an appropriate
teaching remediation.
The majority of teachers (86 percent) of both grades four and seven failed to provide
practical and critical thinking, and challenging questions for students in both languages
and mathematics. Additionally, most teachers (close to 80 percent) did not provide
additional assistance or hints in order to direct students to correct their mistakes. The
majority of language teachers (86 percent) used short-answer, fill in the blank, and essay
writing assessment questions in exams, homework assignments, and school projects, while
mathematics teachers (83 percent) rarely utilized problem-solving questions requiring an
analysis of graphs, charts, and tables that could stretch students’ critical thinking skills.
25 Observable lesson plans refer to the lesson plans prepared by the teacher and observed by the
researchers after the classroom observation.
49
Findings from the Vulnerability Study
The study survey was administered to over 1,800 Grade 4 and Grade 7
students26 in public schools or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) across
the eight governorates.27, 28 The study presented the analysis of specific factors
associated with the learning experiences of vulnerable Lebanese children and
refugee children in Lebanon. It further analyzed the factors that contributed
to the dropout or persistence of these vulnerable children in schools in
the country. The findings of the study provided a better understanding of
the inequities in the Lebanese education system, particularly highlighting
inequities due to age, gender, and socioeconomic status of vulnerable children.
WHY DID SOME CHILDREN DROP OUT OF SCHOOL:
PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS IDENTIFIED IN
STUDENTS’ SURVEYS
The main risk factors associated with children struggling at school and
potentially dropping out were age, gender, academic performance, behavioral
problems, and bullying. In contrast, the school environment was the main
protective factor that lessened children’s chances of dropping out.
Poor academic performance was often associated with grade repetition and
eventual dropout, which increased children’s vulnerability. The main factors
correlated with academic performance were gender, age, and (public school)
shift. Females showed higher academic achievement than males. Academic
achievement was lower for older children, highlighting the importance of early
intervention to support children who struggle at school. First-shift public
school students showed higher academic achievement levels than those in
the second-shift public schools.
26 It is important to note that the vulnerability study included a representative sample
of Grades 4 and 7 students across eight different governorates in Lebanon. However,
these students were not the same students targeted in Grades 4 and 7 in the other
R4R studies.
27 The study targeted children from five cohorts of vulnerable children: (1) Syrian
(displaced) children enrolled in the Lebanese school system (morning or afternoon
shifts); (2) Syrian (displaced) children enrolled in nonformal education programs
(usually at NGOs); (3) Syrian (displaced) children who are out of school (children who
are not enrolled in any form of formal schooling, children who are enrolled only in
nonformal schooling, or children who have dropped out of school [for more than
3 years] and are currently not enrolled in any form of schooling); (4) vulnerable
Lebanese children enrolled in schools; and (5) Lebanese children who are out of
school .
28 NGOs included in the study were organizations that provided services to refugees,
among which were education services in the form of nonformal education.
50
The survey findings also showed that many vulnerable children were facing challenges of
resilience and emotional distress, often suffering from behavioral and emotional disorders
that can hamper their development as well as academic success. Children reporting severe
social, emotional, and resilience challenges were at a higher risk of failing and dropping out
of school. Children who suffered from behavioral and emotional disorders had negative
perceptions of their school environment, which correlated with poor academic performance.
Among all surveyed students, 63.5 percent reported having experienced bullying in school.
Boys were more involved in bullying or being bullied than girls. Bullying among children varied
according to gender, the role they played—whether they were being bullied or they were doing
the bullying—their age, and the type of school they were enrolled in. From a social and emotional
standpoint, children who were involved in bullying behaviors exhibited more hyperactivity,
emotional symptoms, conduct problems, and peer problems. Children who reported not being
involved in any type of bullying had better and more positive social-emotional attributes and
skills. Also, the more positively children perceived their school environment, the less likely they
were to be involved in bullying. Verbal bullying (40.19 percent), including spreading rumors
(36.66 percent), was reported to be among the most common type of victimization used,
followed by being bullied about one’s religion or sect (27.47 percent), and being rejected from
a group (27.17 percent). In contrast to these behaviors, being bullied physically, threatened or
forced to do things, and having money and other things taken away or damaged were found
to be less prevalent.
Additionally, interviewed children who had dropped out of school all reported experiencing
violence at or on the way to the school. Many of the out-of-school children (OOSC) reported
being bullied when they were at school and peers, school staff (including teachers), and other
OOSCs inflicted the violence. Interviewees shared that the school did not address any of the
bullying that took place at school, even in cases where violence and bullying were reported.
They also mentioned violence between school shifts and among children of the same or
different nationalities.29
In general, both Syrian and Lebanese children at a young age reported a positive perception
of their school environment in both the first-shift and second-shift public schools. They felt
safe and secure and reported being treated fairly by their teachers and classmates. Students
who perceived their school positively tended to have lower levels of behavioral and emotional
disorders and higher academic achievement. Female children had a more positive perception
of their school environment than did males. They also received more social support than
males from their teachers, peers, and friends in the form of emotional support, advice,
encouragement, and companionship. Children reported diminishing satisfaction with their
school environment as they grew older. They reported receiving lower levels of social support
from teachers, peers, and friends; had fewer meaningful relationships with classmates;
and experienced more dissatisfaction with teachers’ help in academic matters. A positive
perception of the school environment was also associated with children, who reported having
positive social and emotional attributes and skills. Violence was highlighted among the key
issues within the school environment.
Poverty was also a key characteristic (regardless of nationality) among most of the students
participating in the study, particularly those who had dropped out of school. It was one of
the main factors impacting the enrollment of children in formal education (and in nonformal
educational institutions) as families struggled to provide some of the basic needs for their
children. Many dropouts who were interviewed indicated that they were obliged to work in
29 Violence between school shifts refers to the time when children from the first-shift public school
(morning shift) are leaving and children from the second-shift public school (afternoon) are entering.
This is observed at public schools that run two shifts.
51
order to help their families withstand the pressure of the rising costs of living. Boys were at a
higher risk of dropping out than girls. Almost all the male children who had repeated one or
more grades worked in the summer—or through the entire academic year—to support their
families. Poorer children were less likely to receive academic support at home—from parents
or private tutors—when tackling schoolwork or struggling with it.
Lack of diagnosis and support for those with learning difficulties30 and class repetition were
other factors that put vulnerable children at risk of dropping out of school. Almost one-half
of the students participating in the study suffered from learning difficulties. The majority of
children who repeated a grade or dropped out were struggling in core learning areas: reading,
writing (especially spelling), or mathematics in their native language (Arabic). However,
none of these students had received any diagnostic assessment to identify their learning
difficulties. Schools were not equipped to take on children with special educational needs
because of the school’s inadequate infrastructure, or for lack of qualified teachers trained
to handle the relevant situation. Data collected through the fieldwork showed that the lack
of services for children with special education needs was a significant factor behind school
dropout numbers. Furthermore, special education services were simply not available at public
schools.
Learning science and mathematics in a foreign language was associated with the likelihood
of children struggling at school. Participating Lebanese and Syrian children reported that
they had difficulties in learning foreign languages, whether English or French, and in some
cases in learning Arabic. All these children said that if they had received academic support
from the school or elsewhere, they would not have failed or repeated grades. Schools did
not seem to have the administrative flexibility or resources to provide the academic support
needed.
WHY SOME VULNERABLE CHILDREN REMAINED AT SCHOOL: FACTORS
LEADING TO RETENTION AT SCHOOL AND REDUCING VULNERABILITY
Interviews with children from disadvantaged backgrounds who persisted at school, despite
having some of the abovementioned risk factors, point to factors that support continued
schooling:
Higher aspirations and foreseeable opportunities. The majority of vulnerable children
participating in the study that remained in school reported aspirations to at least finish Grade
7, so as to progress to vocational education or enroll in the army later.31 The families of these
children also had higher aspirations and expectations and did not want them to drop out of
school despite difficult circumstances. As for Syrians who persisted in school, they had hopes
of going back to Syria and were among those refugees with better family and neighborhood
circumstances.
30 Learning disabilities and learning difficulties are educational terms used in the UK and US. These
two terms are often interchangeable when used in the context of health and social care for adults.
Some people with learning disabilities prefer the term learning difficulties. In this report, we use the
term “learning difficulties” (used in the UK) to describe difficulties in reading, writing, spelling, or
mathematics.
31 Vulnerable Lebanese children, mainly males, aspired to join the army after completing middle school.
52
Integration into the first-shift public or private subsidized school. Almost
all interviewed Syrian children who were succeeding in school were enrolled
in first-shift public schools. These children had enrolled in these schools since
Cycle 132 (beginning in Grade 1). If asked to move to the second-shift public
schools, their families had chosen either to move them to another first-shift
public school or enroll them in a private low-cost school, which reflected the
negative perception of second-shift public schools. Children who were enrolled
at private subsidized schools (run by a charity) made much better progress
in school than those at second-shift public schools. Children described the
environment of these schools as “safe” and the quality of learning as “good.”
Joining an accelerated learning program. For refugee students who came to
Lebanon and did not speak a foreign language, joining an intensive learning
program allowed them to bridge the language gap and hence resume their
normal academic course of study. A few of the interviewed children reported
that joining such programs had helped them re-enroll in school.
Academic support. The study found evidence of lack of academic support,
particularly at the schools. Academic support outside of school was reported
to be provided either by siblings at home, or by NGOs at which the children
were enrolled, particularly among Syrian children. Additional academic
support for children became even more scarce for older children, even among
the Lebanese. However, if and when academic support was provided, Syrian
children in particular reported that it had a significant effect, helping them to
succeed and continue their education. NGOs provided a variety of educational
programs such as literacy, remedial education, accelerated learning programs,
intensive language support, homework clubs, and extracurricular activities.
Extracurricular activities. Many of the children who were thriving at school
had participated in extracurricular activities run either by the school or by
NGOs. These programs were either academic (remedial) or psychosocial.
32 Cycle 1 includes Grades 1 to 3.
53
3. POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Evidence from the reports provide a wealth of information on the current
status of Lebanon’s bifurcated education system and across key education
indicators. This information can be used to inform ongoing education reform
measures as well as new sector planning. This next section uses the evidence
from the R4R studies to propose a few, but not exhaustive, key policy options.
The evidence presented in this report highlights similarities and discrepancies
among the types of schools. For instance, in the teacher study, teachers’ weak
performance in content knowledge evaluation coupled with the low quality
of teaching practices were observed in both public and private schools. The
discrepancies present areas of strengths among the schools as good practices
and areas that may be further developed such as the need to increase the
number of instructional days in public schools, or to ensure that all private
schools have parents’ councils. These specific issues are identified in the
discussion presented earlier.
System Reform Recommendations
Improve public school administration. Public school administration requires
restructuring in order to ensure that more experienced school principals with
higher academic qualifications are in place. It is vital that school principals
receive increased and systematic professional development training
opportunities. In order to further improve public school administration, it is
also important to strengthen school-based management by elevating the
role of the principal to a strategic decision-maker and agent of school change,
and supporting a more decentralized approach to school management.
Update the curriculum and improve teaching practices in order to improve
students’ learning and align skills with the Lebanese economy’s needs.
Curriculum reform to refocus the system on skills and learning has not been
undertaken in the country since 1997. Most teachers surveyed in the teacher
performance study reported that they were unable to cover all curricular
content over the course of the school year, nor did the curriculum allow
for knowledge and skills development beyond the textbooks. This was also
confirmed by Lebanon’s poor Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Sciences Study (TIMSS)
results. Student-centered teaching methods were not commonly observed
in Lebanese classrooms, nor was active learning or collaboration among
students. It is critical to focus on learning and conveying skills, and that will
54
necessitate revision of the curriculum, learning materials, and pedagogy. It is vital that efforts
are made to ensure that teachers facilitate higher order thinking in their classrooms rather
than introduce activities based on rote learning and memorization.
If these efforts are built around a carefully revised curriculum, they are likely to improve the
quality of instruction and student learning outcomes for all, and close the attainment gap
between students. Furthermore, it is important to introduce social and emotional learning
(SEL) programs at the basic level within the curriculum. Researchers have studied the impact
of SEL programs on student learning.33 The inclusion of SEL programs within the Lebanese
curriculum could yield important benefits, especially considering the psychological and
emotional challenges that the large populations of vulnerable children in Lebanon are facing.
Recommendations for
Teacher Professional Development Reform
Address the teacher’s specialization gap by allocating teachers who specialize in the subject
they teach and consider a new hiring strategy which is more subject centered. Teachers who
lack specialization in the subject they are teaching often do not master adequate content
knowledge of the subject and therefore cannot effectively transfer that knowledge to
students. This also includes pedagogical practices required for specific subjects. There is a
pressing need to improve all teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills, particularly
public schools second shift teachers and Arabic content knowledge.
Improve professional development opportunities for teachers with constant follow-
up. The teacher performance study revealed that teachers could benefit from ongoing
professional development and coaching opportunities. During post observation interviews,
teachers asked to be provided with professional development courses that replicate their
classroom environments. There is an overarching need to improve teaching practices through
coaching, professional development opportunities with ongoing follow-up, individually
tailored support to teachers that targets their specific skill level, improvement in their lesson
planning development, and so forth. It may be difficult for teachers to apply techniques
learned during training to their classrooms if these techniques cannot be adapted to their
classroom environment, particularly in the absence of required educational materials.
Teaching can be strengthened to better integrate and coordinate various functions to enhance
teacher training with ongoing support. Unfortunately, teachers rarely received training on
educational technology or how to integrate underperforming students into their classrooms
and respond to their needs, despite the fact that public school teachers reportedly had
the highest proportion of low performing students. Therefore, impactful improvements in
student learning resulting from appropriate teacher training may in part be driven by a high
degree of overlap with other interventions. Many of the successful instructional interventions
are shown to be coupled with teacher training in how to employ new instructional methods
in the classroom (McEwan 2015). The curriculum reform can also be considered as a stepping
stone to include most updated pedagogical practice methods, as well as designing programs
to improve teachers’ mastery of curriculum content.
33 A large meta-analysis (Durlak et al. 2011) measured the impact of 213 school-based, universal SEL
programs involving more than 270,000 students from kindergarten all the way to high school.
Compared to the controls, SEL participants demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional
skills, attitudes, and behaviors, which were reflected in an 11 percent gain in achievement.
55
Improve quality of teaching and learning across all types of schools and
shifts at public schools. The studies clearly showed that there was a difference
between the quality of teaching at first-shift public schools and the quality
at second-shift public schools. Teachers expressed their need to be provided
with appropriate resources in their classrooms (e.g., lab equipment, books,
digital resources, etc.). Policy options and interventions should focus on
significant improvement in the quality of teaching practices and on methods
to achieve a more equitable distribution of teaching and learning resources
among the various school types. Additionally, it is critical that appropriate
and professional development of teachers is provided in order to support
underperforming students.
Encourage collaboration among teachers. About one-half of private school
teachers reported collaborating with other teachers within the same school
between one to three times a week, and sometimes as often as almost
every day, while most of the public school teachers reported collaborating
between twice a year to twice per month at best. Such collaboration can
create a teacher learning community that encourages peer mentoring and
coaching among teachers within the school. Long-term peer coaching and in-
classroom training programs (including peer observations) could be initiated
to help teachers write and share lesson plans that can be effectively used in
their classrooms.
Recommendations for
Reform of the School Environment
Create and enable safe and nurturing learning environments for students.
The vulnerability study found that school violence is present in many schools
despite published child protection policies in Lebanon. Improving the learning
environment is critical for improving academic achievement and supporting
the development of social and emotional skills, as children with a positive
perception of their school tended to show superior academic attainment.
As a result, there is a pressing need to introduce anti-bullying intervention
programs that tackle violence toward children. A reporting system should be
introduced whereby teachers are held liable for any violations, while ensuring
that parents and children feel safe to report such violations. Finally, key school
personnel should be trained on preventing and responding to such violations.
Improve physical and information technology infrastructure as well as
other school facilities across school types . This entails making instructional
materials available to teachers, particularly computers, smartboards, and so
forth. The recent transition to distance learning due to the effect of the global
pandemic presents a pressing need and an opportunity to invest in technology
in education. Furthermore, it is critical for schools to ensure connectivity
to facilitate the use of technology during teaching. Many teachers in public
schools reported not having access to essential learning and instructional
materials. It is equally important to ensure that teachers are trained on the
effective use of this equipment and materials for instructional purposes.
56
Recommendations for
Student-Centered Support
Encourage upward learning mobility. This remains a challenge among the
underperforming students who mostly do not catch up, and this challenge is
further observed among older children who seem more likely to repeat a grade
or drop out. Programs designed to focus on their needs are key for equitable
learning growth. Furthermore, early intervention programs are critical to
help identify difficulties among children for the design of remedial courses
and academic support programs. Relationships between parents, schools,
teachers, and the community could be strengthened, and a school culture
toward promoting parental involvement and shared responsibility to improve
learning should be created, rather than holding schools solely accountable. For
instance, schools could provide families with information related to creating a
supportive learning environment at home and establish effective school-to-
home and home-to-school communications.
Provide support and transition programs, particularly for children with
special education needs, low performing students, and students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. More than 84 percent of surveyed students in
the vulnerability study reported that teachers did not help them when they
needed help. In view of the financial constraints faced by families today,
particularly vulnerable families whose children are enrolled in public schools,
extra academic support must be made widely available for those children who
need it. As for the children with learning difficulties, it is essential to introduce
professional academic support services for children with special education
needs. It is equally important to provide teachers with the necessary training
on addressing these children’s needs. Teachers must focus on underperforming
students to avoid the risk that they will drop out of education, as the results
show these students continue to perform poorly across survey rounds.
57
REFERENCES
Abdul-Hamid, Husein, and Mohamed Yassine. 2020. Political Economy
of Education in Lebanon: Research for Results Program. International
Development in Focus.World Bank: Washington, DC.
Bruns, Barbara, and Javier Luque. 2015. Great Teachers: How to Raise Student
Learning in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank: Washington DC.
Cadima J., Leal T., Burchinal M. 2010. “The quality of teacher-student
interactions: Associations with first graders’ academic and behavioral
outcomes.” Journal of School Psychology 48: 457–482.
CERD (Lebanon, Center for Educational Research and Development). 2018.
TIMSS 2015—Grade 8 National Report. CRDP: Lebanon, Beirut.
CERD. (Lebanon, Center for Educational Research and Development). 2020.
Statistical Bulletin 2019–2020. CRDP: Lebanon, Beirut.
Coflan, Andrew Moore, Andy Ragatz, Amer Hasan, and Yilin Pan. 2018.
“Understanding effective teaching practices in Chinese classrooms: evidence
from a pilot study of primary and junior secondary schools in Guangdong,
China.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8396. Washington, DC.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K.
2011. “The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a
meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions.” Child Development,
82, 405–432.
El Deeb, Sarah. 2021. In crisis-struck Lebanon, school year is gripped by chaos.
AP News.
Gajderowicz, Tomasz, and Maciej Jakubowski. Forthcoming. “PISA In-Depth
Analysis of Results for Jordan and Lebanon (draft).” Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Goe, Laura, Kietha Biggers, and Andrew Croft. 2012. Linking Teacher Evaluation
to Professional Development: Focusing on Improving Teaching and Learning.
Policy Brief, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Washington,
DC.
Hamre, Bridget, Bridget Hatfield, Robert Pianta, and Faiza Jamil. 2014. “Evidence
for general and domain-specific elements of teacher–child interactions:
associations with preschool children’s development.” Child Development
85(3): 1257–1274.
Hu, Bi Ying, Xitao Fan, Chuanhua Gu, and Ning Yang. 2016. “Applicability of
the Classroom Assessment Scoring System in Chinese preschools based on
psychometric evidence.” Early Education and Development 27, no. 5 pp. 714-
734.
58
Malmberg, L.-E., & Hagger, H. 2009. “Changes in student teachers’ agency
beliefs during a teacher education year, and relationships with observed
classroom quality, and day-to-day experiences.” British Journal of Educational
Psychology 79(4): 677–694.
McEwan, Patrick. 2015. “Improving Learning in Primary Schools of Developing
Countries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Experiments.” Review of Educational
Research, 85, 353–394. 10.3102/0034654314553127.
Pakarinen, E., Lerkkanen, M., Poikkeus, A., Kiuru, N., Siekkinen, M., Rasku-
Puttonen, H., & Nurmi, J. 2010. “A validation of the Classroom Assessment
Scoring System in Finnish kindergartens.” Early Education & Development 21:
95–124.
Pianta, Robert C., and Bridget Hamre. 2009. “Conceptualization, measurement,
and improvement of classroom processes: standardized observation can
leverage capacity.” Educational Researcher 38(2): 109–119.
UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics). 2018. Data for Sustainable Development
Goals. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization).
2018. Global Education monitoring report, 2019: Migration, displacement
and education: building bridges, not walls. UNESCO, Paris.
UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2019. Vulnerability
Assessment of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon. UNHCR, Beirut.
World Bank. 2017. Lebanon Education Public Expenditure Review 2017. World
Bank: Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2018. Expectations and Aspirations: A New Framework for
Education in the Middle East and North Africa: Overview. World Bank:
Washington DC.
World Bank. 2019. Lebanon PISA 2018. World Bank: Washington, DC.