Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon i
© 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org
Some rights reserved.
This work is a product of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this
work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments
they represent.
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, links/footnotes and other information shown 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. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank
endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works.
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.
Teaching at t
Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2024. Pilot of a he Right Level (TaRL)-
Based Approach in Lebanon. Washington DC. © World Bank.”
All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications, 1818 H Street NW,
Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.
Cover photo credit: A class participating in the Catch-up Pilot, implemented by Save the Children International
and the World Bank. © Save the Children International. Used with the permission of Save the Children
International. Further permission required for reuse.
Cover design: Danielle Willis, Washington, DC, USA
ii World Bank
Pilot of a
Teaching at
the Right Level
(TaRL)-Based
Approach
in Lebanon
January 2025
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments vi
Acronyms vi
Executive Summary vii
A series of profound crises since 2019 has drastically weakened the Lebanese education
system and resulted in learning losses.............................................................................. vii
Teaching at the Right Level was identified as a promising approach for improving learning
outcomes in Lebanon ..................................................................................................... viii
Results suggest that the pilot was effective at improving learning outcomes in Lebanon........... x
Limitations.....................................................................................................................xii
Recommendations......................................................................................................... xiii
Introduction and Context
1. 1
Pilot Design and Implementation
2. 3
2.1 Needs assessment and mapping ..................................................................................3
2.2 Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL): a “great buy” for learning recovery ...............................4
2.3 Sampling...................................................................................................................9
2.4 Monitoring and evaluation........................................................................................... 12
Results: How Did Students Learning Outcomes Evolve Following the Pilot? 16
3.
3.1 How did learning outcomes vary between first shift (AM) students in the treatment
and control groups? ...................................................................................................16
3.2 How did the learning outcomes of second shift (PM) students evolve between
baseline and endline? ............................................................................................... 24
3.3 Teacher observation findings ..................................................................................... 28
3.4 Feedback from teachers, principals, students............................................................... 29
3.5 Cost analysis............................................................................................................ 32
4. Conclusion 36
4.1 Key results .............................................................................................................. 36
4.2 Main challenges ....................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Study limitations...................................................................................................... 38
4.4 Recommendations and next steps.............................................................................. 38
Annexes
Annex 1. Programs Identified in the Mapping Exercise................................................................. 42
Annex 2. Sample Lesson Plan.................................................................................................................... 44
Annex 3. Teacher Training Report.............................................................................................................. 48
Annex 4. Classroom Observation Tool....................................................................................................... 56
Annex 5. Results by Gender and Grade...................................................................................................... 61
Annex 6. Classroom Observation Results Breakdown............................................................................... 65
Annex 7. Costing Methodology................................................................................................................. 69
References 70
iv World Bank
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. Country Examples of TaRL Implementation...................................................................... 5
Table 2. Instructional Hours Delivered During the Pilot.................................................................. 7
Table 3. Breakdown of Intervention and Control Group ................................................................ 10
Table 4. AM Shift and Control Students Balance Table at Baseline....................................................11
Table 5.a. Literacy Levels...................................................................................................... 12
Table 5.b. Numeracy Levels.................................................................................................. 13
Table 6. Reliability of Assessments, Cohen’s Kappa Values, by Subject............................................. 14
Table 7. Summary Table...................................................................................................... 32
Table 8. Definition of Different Cost Categories......................................................................... 34
Table 9. Transportation Related Costs.................................................................................... 35
Table A1.1. Programs Identified in Lebanon............................................................................... 42
Table A1.2. Relevant Programs Identified Internationally.............................................................. 43
Table A3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Teachers Completed the Literacy Test (N=101)........... 49
Table A3.2. Literacy Teacher Training Pre- and Post- Assessment Results........................................ 50
Table A3.3. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Teachers Completed the Numeracy Test (N=24)....... 52
Table A3.4. Numeracy Pre- & Post-assessment Results for Teacher Training Activity.......................... 53
Figures
Figure 0.1.a. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in Arabic Across the Control and Treatment Groups .. xi
Figure 0.1.b. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in Foreign Language Across the Control and
Treatment Groups ........................................................................................................... xi
Figure 0.1.c. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in Mathematics Across the Control and
Treatment Groups ........................................................................................................... xi
Figure. 0.1.d. PM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes Across Subjects ............................................. xi
Figure 1. AM Shift Students’ Average Levels Across Subjects and Treatment Status ........................... 18
Figure 2.a. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in Arabic Across the Control and Treatment Groups .. 20
Figure. 2.c. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in Mathematics Across the Control and
Treatment Group ............................................................................................................ 20
Figure. 2.b. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in Foreign Language Across the Control and
Treatment Groups .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3. Changes in AM Shift Students’ Levels Between Baseline and Endline, Across Subjects and
Treatment Status............................................................................................................ 23
Figure 4. PM Shift Students’ Average Levels Across Subjects ....................................................... 24
Figure 5. PM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes Across Subjects ................................................. 25
Figure 6. Changes in PM Shift Students’ Levels Between Baseline and Endline, Across Subjects............ 27
Figure 7. Teacher Observation Key Findings ............................................................................. 28
Figure 8. Spending by Category (All Costs).............................................................................. 33
Figure A5.1. Learning Outcomes by Gender, Across Groups and Subjects......................................... 62
Fig A5.2. Mean Scores Across Subjects and Treatment Status Among AM Shift Students in Grade 3 ...... 63
Fig A5.3. Mean Scores Across Subjects and Treatment Status Among AM Shift Students in Grade 4 ...... 63
Fig A5.4. Mean Scores Across Subjects Among PM Shift Students in Grade 3 .................................. 64
Fig A5.5. Mean Scores Across Subjects Among PM Shift Students in Grade 4 .................................. 64
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon v
Acknowledgments
This note is a product of collaboration between the World Bank and Save the Children
International. From the World Bank, this report was prepared by Adelle Pushparatnam
(Senior Education Specialist), Fatine Guedira (Young Professional), and Nadine Joseph El
Franji (Consultant) under the guidance of Jean-Christophe Carret (Country Director), Fadila
Caillaud (Practice Manager), and Raja Bentaouet Kattan (Lead Economist and Program Leader).
Peter Holland (Lead Education Specialist) and Deborah Newitter Mikesell (Senior Education
Specialist) provided valuable feedback on the report. From Save the Children International,
this report was prepared by Iman El Ali (Education Cannot Wait Programme Manager), Erin Wall
(Education Technical Advisor), and Chrystal Holt (Senior Education Advisor). This publication
was funded by the Forced Displacement Trust Fund under the PROSPECTS Partnership
Program, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The report was designed by Danielle
Willis. Special thanks to the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) and Center
for Educational Research and Development (CERD), under the guidance of Director General
Imad Achkar and President Hyam Ishak, respectively, for their support and engagement, and
to all schools, principals, teachers, students, and parents for their participation in the pilot.
Acronyms
ASER Annual Status of Education Report
CERD Center for Educational Research and Development
MEHE Ministry of Education and Higher Education
NGO Non-governmental organization
SEL Social-emotional learning
SCI Save the Children International
TaRL Teaching at the Right Level
Note: All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated.
vi World Bank
Executive Summary
A series of profound crises since 2019 has
drastically weakened the Lebanese education
system and resulted in learning losses
Since 2019, Lebanon’s education sector has been severely impacted by a series of profound
crises—exacerbating an already fragile system. Over the past five years, the education sector
has faced the ongoing Syrian crisis, the 2019 economic and financial collapse, the COVID-19
pandemic, the 2020 Beirut Port explosion, and protracted political instability. Even before the
start of the macroeconomic crisis, learning levels were notably low, with students estimated
to receive only 6.3 years of effective education despite attending school for an average of 10.2
years.1 In 2018, 15-year-old public and private school students in Lebanon had one of the lowest
reading performances in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).2
Lebanese public schools have faced significant disruptions since 2019. Over the course
of four consecutive academic years (2019–20 to 2022–23), students in public schools have
only received about 270 days of in-person instruction, far below the 600 days typical across
four academic years. This has resulted in considerable learning losses, expected to translate
into losses of future earnings across the working lives of affected students.3
The recent conflict in Lebanon, which started in October 2023, has further disrupted
schooling, reinforcing the urgent need for effective remedial education. The Ministry of
Education and Higher Education (MEHE) estimates that around 10,000 students from public
schools and 10,000 students from private schools were displaced in the 2023–24 academic year
due to the conflict in the South. After the escalation in September 2024, MEHE estimated that
more than 500,000 students and 45,000 teachers were directly impacted by the conflict. The
start date of the 2024–25 academic year for public schools was postponed until 4 November.
More than 1,000 shelters were opened across the country, with more than 60 percent of shelters
being public schools, TVET centers, and university buildings.4 As such, even after the end of
the conflict, it will take time for in-person learning to return to normal in the public sector,
particularly in areas most affected by the conflict. Private schools were closed temporarily
1 World Bank (2020)
2 World Bank (2018)
3 Kheyfets & Pushparatnam (2023)
4 UNICEF Lebanon (2024)
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon vii
(soon after starting the academic year), and have then been given the option to reopen with
either in-person, hybrid, or remote learning.
Teaching at the Right Level was identified as
a promising approach for improving learning
outcomes in Lebanon
To foster rapid learning recovery amidst ongoing crises, the World Bank, funded by the
PROSPECTS Trust Fund from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, partnered with Save the
Children International (SCI) to design, implement, and evaluate a pilot program based on
the Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) model—marking its first application in Lebanon. The
TaRL approach involves regular assessment of students’ learning levels, grouping students
according to their learning levels instead of by age or grade, and targeting instruction based
on their learning levels.5 The model has been implemented and rigorously evaluated in various
settings across the world over several years, with consistent evidence of impact in enhancing
foundational skills among students.6
The key features of the pilot design are summarized below. It is worth highlighting that the
pilot was designed and implemented amidst challenging circumstances referenced above,
including the macroeconomic crisis, which led to school closures as a result of teacher strikes
in the face of their devalued salaries, as well as the escalation of the conflict in the South
of Lebanon starting in October 2023. As such, concessions had to be made in terms of the
rigor of the evaluation while still ensuring that the pilot would serve as proof of concept for
the relevance and promise of the TaRL approach in Lebanon.
Key features
► The pilot was implemented between November 2023 and April 2024 by public school
teachers, outside of regular school hours. During the 2023–24 academic year, there
was a shortened, 4-day school week (Monday to Thursday) in place to reduce operating
and transportation costs for students and teachers. The program was implemented
on Fridays and Saturdays for 3.5 hours per session, with the pilot spanning 18.5 weeks
for the AM shift and 12.5 weeks for the PM shift.7 The difference in hours between the
5 Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (2018)
6 Banerjee et al. (2016)
7 Lebanon operates a two-shift public education system, with mostly Lebanese students taught in the morning (AM)
shift, and Syrian students taught in the afternoon (PM) shift. The AM shift typically starts between 7:30 AM—8:00 AM
and ends around 1:30 PM; the PM shift typically starts between 1:30–2:00 PM and ends between 5:30–6:00 PM.
viii World Bank
two shifts was due to delays in the start of the scholastic year 2023–24 for the PM
shift. To support attendance, students and teachers were provided with transportation
allowances, while schools received additional funds to cover operational costs for the
additional days of instruction.
► The pilot targeted a sample co-developed by MEHE and the Center for Educational
Research and Development (CERD), encompassing 3,6868 Grade 3 and 4 students in
33 low-performing public schools across Lebanon, and a control group of 388 students
in Grades 3 and 4 enrolled in 8 non-intervention schools. The intervention group
included both AM and PM shift students; however, the control group only included AM
shift students.
► The pilot integrated Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) activities, a distinctive
addition to the regular model tailored to the specific needs of the students. SEL was
embedded in every subject and included as stand-alone activities to help students
build resilience, improve emotional regulation, and foster positive relationships. The
pilot leveraged SCI’s Catch-up Clubs SEL resources to create a supportive learning
environment that addresses both the academic and emotional needs of students in
this complex context.
8 The initial target was 4000 students, but some schools from the South and North Bekaa (Baalbek) had to be excluded
due to security reasons.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon ix
Results suggest that the pilot was effective at
improving learning outcomes in Lebanon
In AM shift schools that participated in the pilot, the share of beginner-level students across
all three subjects dropped four- to five-fold by endline—showing greater improvements
compared to in control schools. For Arabic literacy, the proportion of students unable to read
words dropped from 41 percent at baseline to around 9 percent at endline—a 32 percentage
point improvement—compared to a 13 point change in the control group. Similarly, the
proportion of students not able to recognize words in English or French decreased almost
four-fold in schools that benefited from the pilot—from 66 percent to 17 percent, compared
to a decrease from 69 percent to 41 percent among control group students. In Mathematics,
the proportion of beginner-level students dropped from 35 percent at baseline to 7 percent
at endline among those who benefited from the pilot—a 28 percentage point improvement—
compared to a 12 point decrease in control schools (Figure 0.1.a, b, c).
Second shift students also saw their learning outcomes considerably improve across all
three subjects by the end of the TaRL pilot. The proportion of PM shift students unable to
read words in Arabic dropped from 52 percent at baseline to around 17 percent at endline—a 35
percentage point improvement—while the proportion of students not able to recognize words
in English or French decreased from 75 to 33 percent—corresponding to a 42 percentage
point improvement. In Mathematics, the proportion of beginner-level students dropped from
37 percent at baseline to 19 percent at endline.
The TaRL pilot is linked to a notable increase in the share of students reaching foundational
learning outcomes, especially in the AM shift. In Arabic, the share of AM shift students able
to read a story increased from 12 to 42 percent by the end of the TaRL pilot, compared to a rise
from 9 to 14 percent among non-participating students. In French and English literacy, the
proportion of AM shift students reaching foundational reading level increased significantly
in schools that participated in the TaRL sessions, rising from 2 percent at baseline to 22
percent by the end of the pilot, while in control schools, this level remained below 1 percent.
Similarly, the share of AM shift students with foundational level in Mathematics increased
almost four-folds in schools that benefited from the pilot. Similar patterns were observed
among PM shift students in Arabic. However, at least 80 percent of PM shift students had
not reached foundational level in Foreign Languages and Mathematics by the end of the pilot.
x World Bank
Figure 0.1.a. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes Figure 0.1.b. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes
in Arabic Across the Control and Treatment Groups in Foreign Language Across the Control and
(Baseline and Endline) Treatment Groups (Baseline and Endline)
Arabic Foreign Language
Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control
100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75
PERCENT (%)
PERCENT (%)
50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Figure 0.1.c. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes Figure. 0.1.d. PM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes
in Mathematics Across the Control and Treatment Across Subjects (Baseline and Endline)
Groups (Baseline and Endline)
Mathematics Across subjects
Treatment - AM shift Control Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics
100 100 100
75 75 75
PERCENT (%)
PERCENT (%)
50 50 50
25 25 25
0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon xi
The intervention was universally appreciated by teachers, principals, parents, and
students. Feedback from teachers and principals highlighted that the TaRL approach, of
targeting instruction to students’ learning levels, is relevant to the Lebanese context. They
also highlighted that public school teachers were able to implement the approach despite
challenges they were facing such as managing mixed-ability groups and resource limitations.
Teachers and principals reported high levels of student engagement, and students themselves
expressed increased confidence and enthusiasm for learning as a result of the intervention.
The pilot program costed on average $227.50 per student and just $2.28 per student-
hour of instruction—though these estimates likely represent an upper bound. This
is partly because the PM shift, which had fewer students and instructional hours due to
implementation challenges, inflated the average cost per student-hour. The AM shift, with
longer instructional hours, benefited from more efficient distribution of fixed costs (e.g.,
teacher training and operations) across a larger number of student-hours. When evaluated
against the learning gains observed between baseline and endline, these costs estimates
suggest a relatively high cost-effectiveness, which aligns with the 2023 Smart Buys report’s
recognition of TaRL as a “Great Buy,” offering substantial learning gains cost-efficiently
across diverse educational contexts.
Limitations
While the pilot has provided proof of concept for the relevance and promise of the TaRL
approach in Lebanon, there are limitations that should be taken into consideration
when interpreting study findings. First, schools and students were not randomly assigned
to treatment and control groups. Second, it is not possible to distinguish if the observed
learning gains are attributable to the additional hours of instruction received by students
who participated in the pilot (given the pilot was implemented out of regular school hours),
to the TaRL pedagogical approach per se, or both. In addition, the lack of a control group for
PM shift students does not allow to have a reference point to evaluate the observed learning
gains associated with the pilot. Finally, it is possible that the transportation allowances
provided to teachers and students inflated their engagement with the pilot, and that without
these allowances (e.g., if the TaRL approach was implemented during regular school hours),
the impact of the pilot might have been diminished. A randomized experiment evaluating
different possible modalities of the TaRL-based approach, including within or outside school
hours, or with or without incentives, would allow a more rigorous assessment of these study
design features and the impact on learning outcomes.
xii World Bank
Recommendations
Relevance of the TaRL approach to the education response
in Lebanon
1. The TaRL approach meets children where they are, which is especially relevant given
there have been disruptions to schooling in one way or another since the 2019–20
academic year.
2. It focuses on foundational skills, at a time when MEHE and CERD need to prioritize
curricular content for delivery during a contracted school year.
3. The approach was well-received by students, teachers, and school principals who
found that it responded well to their needs and resulted in tangible improvements in
students’ learning.
4. The approach requires minimal equipment and materials,9 and can be delivered
through various modalities, including during regular school hours, as part of non-
formal education delivery, and/or through remedial education programs (as part of
a summer school program, start of the school orientation, or after-school clubs, for
example). Thus, there is scope for MEHE, CERD, and other development partners to
adopt the approach within various education programs to serve as many children’s
needs as possible. Table 1 (in Chapter 2) presents several examples of how the TaRL
approach has been implemented in other countries.
5. Finally, the SEL component of the current pilot is highly relevant, as psychosocial
support for students and teachers is crucial in the face of the recent crisis.
Factors for consideration in the future roll out and scale up of
the TaRL approach in Lebanon
1. Greatest cost efficiency would be reached if the TaRL approach (activities or sessions)
were integrated within the regular school day.
2. While the pilot targeted students in Grades 3 and 4, MEHE, CERD, and partners could
consider expanding TaRL implementation to other grades.10
9 Teaching at the Right Level (n.d.)
10 While TaRL activities are typically implemented in classrooms with children in Grade 3 and above (J-PAL 2018), it has
been implemented for children in Grades 2–6, for example, in Morocco (Ibrahim et al. 2024).
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon xiii
3. If national roll-out is not immediately feasible, MEHE and CERD could consider a
staggered roll-out of the TaRL approach, first targeting schools or students based
on need, which will allow for a gradual scale-up and further adaptation of TaRL within
Lebanese schools.
4. It is important to engage relevant departments across MEHE and CERD to provide
quality ongoing teacher professional development on the TaRL approach to all
language and Mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. This includes initial
training, peer support (such as Teacher Learning Circles) and coaching/mentoring
delivered by a Peer Coach or Master Teacher. Further, establish an effective mentoring
system for teachers that enables MEHE, CERD, and relevant departments to identify
which teachers/schools may require additional support to uplift learning outcomes.
5. If determined infeasible to implement TaRL sessions in schools, or as a complement
to the implementation of the TaRL sessions in schools, NGOs and other Lebanon
Education Sector partners could consider integration of TaRL within existing non-
formal education programming, such as Basic Literacy and Numeracy or the
forthcoming compensation measures (such as an Accelerated Learning Program)
that target out-of-school children to prepare them for entry into the formal system.
Additionally, the TaRL approach could be used as an appropriate methodology for
existing academic or remedial support for children enrolled in public schools who are
at risk of drop-out that are implemented by NGOs, such as Retention Support. As
TaRL sessions are skills-based, they can be linked to any curriculum level or curriculum
objectives, making them simple and straightforward to use with any learners who
need support for foundational literacy and numeracy acquisition.
6. MEHE, CERD, and partners might also explore the roll out of TaRL-like EdTech (e.g.,
adaptive learning apps11,12) as part of the education response.
11 Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) (n.d.)
12 Brookings Institution (2024)
xiv World Bank
1. Introduction
and Context
Since 2019, Lebanon’s educational sector has been grappling with the consequences of
a series of profound crises—putting significant pressure on an already struggling system.
Over these five years, the education sector has faced the ongoing Syrian crisis, the 2019
economic and financial collapse, the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Beirut Port explosion,
and protracted political instability. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, learning levels
were comparatively low, with only an estimated 6.3 years of learning taking place despite
students completing an average of 10.2 years of schooling.13 In 2018, 15-year-old students in
Lebanon had one of the lowest reading performance levels among participating countries
in OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
The ongoing macroeconomic crisis has created severe challenges in maintaining core
government operations and providing basic public services, including in education. Since
the onset of the crisis in 2019, the Lebanese pound has lost more than 98 percent of its
value. The failure of the country’s banking system and the devaluation of the LBP have
increased the portion of the economy that is dollarized and cash-based.14 A 2024 World
Bank report estimates that one out of every three Lebanese have fallen into poverty in
2022.15 Triple digit inflation and currency devaluation have eroded public sector salaries,
rendering them too low for civil service staff to afford fuel costs to commute to work or
to secure basic necessities. As a result, a significant number of staff have left the public
sector, and for staff that remain, there are high absenteeism rates.
Lebanese public schools have faced significant disruptions since 2019. Over the course
of four consecutive academic years (2019–20 to 2022–23), students in public schools
have only received about 270 days of in-person instruction, far below the 600 days typical
across four academic years. This has resulted in considerable learning losses, expected
to translate into losses of future earnings across the working lives of affected students.16
13 World Bank (2020)
14 World Bank (2023)
15 World Bank (2024)
16 Kheyfets & Pushparatnam (2023)
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 1
The recent conflict in Lebanon, which started in October 2023, has further disrupted
schooling, reinforcing the urgent need for effective remedial education. The Minister of
Education and Higher Education (MEHE) estimates that around 10,000 students from
public schools and 10,000 students from private schools were displaced in the 2023–24
academic year due to the conflict in the South. After the escalation in September 2024,
MEHE estimated that more than 500,000 students and 45,000 teachers were directly
impacted by the conflict. The start date of the 2024–25 academic year for public schools
was postponed until 4 November. More than 1,000 shelters were opened across the country,
with more than 60% of shelters being public schools, TVET centers, and university buildings.17
As such, even after the end of the conflict, it will take time for in-person learning to return
to normal in the public sector, particularly in areas most affected by the conflict. Private
schools were closed temporarily (soon after starting the academic year), and now have
been given the option to reopen with either in-person, hybrid, or remote learning.
To foster rapid learning recovery amidst ongoing crises, the World Bank, funded by the
PROSPECTS Trust Fund from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, partnered with Save
the Children International (SCI) to design, implement, and evaluate a pilot program
based on the Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) model—marking its first application
in Lebanon. The TaRL approach involves regular assessment of students’ learning levels,
grouping students according to their learning levels instead of by age or grade, and targeting
instruction based on their learning levels.18 The model has been implemented and rigorously
evaluated in various settings across the world over several years, with consistent evidence
of impact in enhancing foundational skills among students.
The objectives of the pilot was to test an approach that could:
1. Enhance learning outcomes: Improve foundational literacy and numeracy skills to
ensure students can progress through the education system effectively.
2. Build teacher capacity: Improve teachers’ abilities to deliver effective pedagogy in the
classroom that meets their students’ needs.
3. Be scalable and sustainable: Develop a scalable and sustainable innovative approach
that can be replicated and mainstreamed into public education service delivery.
Together, it was hoped that by identifying a scalable and sustainable approach to improving
learning outcomes and enhancing the capacities of teachers to support children’s learning
effectively in Lebanon, this would also increase educational retention for crisis-affected girls
and boys. This comprehensive approach addresses immediate educational gaps and lays the
groundwork for long-term improvements in Lebanon’s education system.
17 UNICEF Lebanon (2024)
18 Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (2018)
2 World Bank
Pilot Design and
2.
Implementation
2.1 Needs assessment and mapping
The first step in the project was a mapping exercise to identify existing remedial education
or learning recovery programs in Lebanon and globally, gather data on their design and
implementation, identify gaps in current practices in Lebanon, and draw on international
best practice to fill those gaps. This exercise also mapped existing local resources (teaching
and learning materials, teacher training materials, assessment tools, etc.) that could be built
on for the pilot. The exercise involved surveys and workshops with representatives from the
Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) and various non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) active in the education sector in Lebanon, as well as a desk review of
relevant programs globally. The programs identified through this mapping exercise are listed
and described in Annex 1.
The mapping exercise highlighted the following key gaps within the Lebanese context:
1. A lack of programs that effectively targeted students who were performing below
grade level.
2. A lack of formative and summative assessment of learning outcomes to evaluate the
effectiveness of remedial education or learning recovery programs.
3. A lack of practical and ongoing support to teachers to implement new pedagogical
approaches.
4. A lack of programs that integrate socio-emotional learning within academic
instruction (rather than providing standalone socio-emotional lessons).
5. A lack of support for caregiver engagement in students’ learning.
Based on these gaps identified through the mapping exercise, the Teaching at the Right
Level (TaRL) approach was identified as best fit for purpose in the current Lebanese context
to address learning loss and improve learning outcomes. The TaRL approach is described in
the following section.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 3
2.2 Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL):
a “great buy” for learning recovery
TaRL is an educational methodology developed by Pratham,19 a prominent NGO in India, to
address the foundational literacy and numeracy needs of primary school children. Unlike
traditional age-grade teaching methods, TaRL prioritizes instruction adjusted to individual
learning levels, ensuring that each student receives tailored instruction to bridge learning gaps
effectively. The approach has been globally recognized for its simplicity and effectiveness,
particularly in low-income and resource-constrained settings.
TaRL has been identified as one of the most cost-effective approaches to improving student
learning outcomes, as highlighted in the Global Education Advisory Panel 2023 Cost Effective
Approaches to Improve Global Learning report where targeting teaching instruction by level
not grade is recognized as a ‘great buy’ in terms of cost effectiveness.20 This finding builds
on extensive evidence which shows significant learning gains in programs using the TaRL
methodology.
Globally, TaRL has been implemented through various modes, including:
1. School-based approach: Students spend specific hours during the school day in
leveled groups, focusing on foundational skills.
2. After-school approach: Students in leveled groups attend additional learning
sessions after regular school hours.
3. Community-led approach: Community members lead learning sessions outside
the formal school system.
4. Intensive learning camps: Concentrated learning periods focusing on rapid skill
acquisition during school breaks.
These modes are adapted to fit the specific needs of a given context, providing flexibility in
addressing diverse educational challenges. Country examples and evidence of impact are
summarized in Table 1 below.
19 Pratham (n.d.)
20 Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (2023)
4 World Bank
Table 1. Country Examples of TaRL Implementation
Country TaRL implementation
Zambia21 The community-led TaRL approach in Zambia showed substantial gains in
reading and Mathematics skills, as documented by the Abdul Latif Jameel
Poverty Action Lab. In partnership with the Ministry of General Education,
TaRL Africa implemented the methodology across various schools, resulting
in improved literacy and numeracy outcomes among students.
Kenya22 The TaRL program in Kenya, led by the Government of Kenya and Evidence
Action, focuses on improving literacy among primary school children,
especially in underserved areas. The Pamoja Twasoma project uses local
languages initially, transitioning to English, and employs a level-based
approach to instruction. The program has shown significant improvements in
literacy, particularly for students starting with basic letter recognition.
Nigeria23 The program operated across seven states, focusing on foundational literacy
and numeracy for primary school children. Notable results include significant
improvements in reading and Mathematics skills, with pilot projects showing
increased literacy and numeracy proficiency. These efforts are supported by
local governments and other organizations, demonstrating TaRL’s adaptability
and effectiveness in various contexts.
Morocco24,25 Evaluations of a one-month pilot at the start of the 2022–23 academic year,
and then subsequent scale up of the TaRL approach within the Moroccan
public education system in the 2023–24 academic year demonstrated
significantly large impacts on students’ Mathematics, Arabic, and French
competencies. Of particularly interest is the design of the scale up, which
included a targeted remedial program for two months at the start of the
academic year, followed by weekly follow up sessions.
Ghana The TaRL approach was delivered to students in Grades 4–6 for one hour
a day, 4 days a week, 8 weeks a term for one academic year, leading to
improvements in students’ English and Mathematics performance.26 As a
result, the approach is now being scaled up to 10,000 primary schools and
over 2 million students, the first scale up of the TaRL approach led by an
African government.27
21 Lipovsek et al. (2023)
22 Teaching at the Right Level. (n.d.a)
23 Teaching at the Right Level. (n.d.b)
24 Binaoui et al. (2023)
25 Ibrahim et al. (2024)
26 Beg et al. (2023)
27 World Bank (2019)
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 5
These examples illustrate the adaptability and success of TaRL in diverse educational contexts,
emphasizing its role as a powerful tool globally for enhancing the acquisition of foundational
literacy and/or numeracy skills for children in primary grades or above.
2.2.1 Adapting the TaRL approach to Lebanon
Recognizing TaRL as a promising approach for addressing key challenges in the Lebanese
education sector, the approach was adapted for a pilot evaluation within the Lebanese context.
It is worth highlighting that the pilot was designed and implemented amidst challenging
circumstances, including the macroeconomic crisis, which led to school closures as a result
of teacher strikes in the face of their devalued salaries, as well as the escalation of the conflict
in the South of Lebanon starting in October 2023. As such, concessions had to be made in
terms of the rigor of the evaluation while still ensuring that the pilot would serve as proof of
concept for the relevance and promise of the TaRL approach in Lebanon.
The pilot was implemented between November 2023 and April 2024 by public school teachers,
outside of regular school hours. During the 2023–24 academic year, there was a shortened,
4-day school week (Monday to Thursday) in place to reduce operating and transportation
costs for students and teachers. The program was implemented on Fridays and Saturdays
for 3.5 hours per session, with the pilot spanning 18.5 weeks for the AM shift and 12.5 weeks
for the PM shift.28 The difference in hours between the two shifts was due to delays in the
start of the scholastic year 2023/2024 for the PM shift.
The pilot encompassed three subjects—Arabic, Foreign Language (French or English),29
and Mathematics. The number of instructional hours required to support a child to achieve
foundational numeracy or literacy skills has been estimated to be between 50 to 100 hours,
depending upon the modality used (e.g., community based, school based, after school) and
the frequency and duration of the TaRL programme.30 Thus, for both AM and PM shift, the
largest number of instructional hours within the pilot were allocated to Arabic, as this is the
students’ mother tongue and acquisition of foundational skills in mother tongue allows more
effective learning of the Foreign Language and capacity to access other curriculum subjects.
Foreign Language (English or French) was prioritized next, as students learn Mathematics
and Science in their chosen Foreign Language from the first grade. The instructional hours
per subject and per shift are broken down in Table 2 below.
28 Lebanon operates a two-shift public education system, with mostly Lebanese students taught in the morning (AM)
shift, and Syrian students taught in the afternoon (PM) shift. The AM shift typically starts between 7:30 AM—8:00 AM
and ends around 1:30 PM; the PM shift typically starts between 1:30 - 2:00 PM and ends between 5:30 –6:00 PM.
29 Within the Lebanese education system, students have to enroll in either the French or English language streams
from the start of schooling.
30 Lipovsek et al. (2023)
6 World Bank
Table 2. Instructional Hours Delivered During the Pilot
Total Foreign
Weeks of Hours of hours of Arabic Language Mathematics
Shift instruction instruction instruction sessions sessions sessions
3.5 per day 129.5 47 sessions 43 sessions 13 sessions
AM
18.5
shift
7 per week 55 hours 50 hours 15 hours
3.5 per day 43 sessions 21 sessions 5 sessions
PM
12.5 87.5
shift
7 per week 50 hours 24 hours 6 hours
Source: Pilot data
Teachers used a simple 5–8-minute one-on-one assessment per subject area using the
Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) tool, adapted to align with the Lebanese Grade 2
curriculum and CERD learning objectives, to group students based on their current literacy
and numeracy levels. Assessments were conducted at baseline and endline, and continuous
formative assessments were carried out by teachers to track progress and regroup students
as needed.
To support attendance, students and teachers were provided with transportation allowances,
while schools received additional funds to cover operational costs for the additional days
of instruction.31 This was necessary given the macroeconomic crisis, and given that the
pilot was implemented on non-school days (meaning participants had to make extra trips
to and from school to attend the TaRL sessions). Additionally, whenever a child was absent,
their caregiver/parent was contacted and encouraged to support their child to return to the
sessions at the next available opportunity.
Public school teachers received a two-day training on the TaRL-based approach and how to
utilize the structured lesson plans (which included socio-emotional learning (SEL) activities)
and teaching and learning materials provided to them, as well as on how to implement the
ASER assessment and group students by learning level. The tailored lesson plans were
developed in accordance with the Lebanese curriculum. SEL activities were integrated into
the pilot sessions, ensuring that emotional and social skills are developed alongside academic
skills, providing a more holistic approach to learning. Examples include activities to discuss
emotions and feelings, handling disclosure, and cognitive skills like decision making and
problem solving. Annex 2 contains a sample lesson plan, and Annex 3 presents the results of
a pre- and post-test administered to assess changes in teachers’ understanding of the TaRL-
based approach as a result of the training. Three SCI Education Officers also participated
31 Teachers received $15 per teaching day, students received $2 per day of attendance, and each participating school
received $1000.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 7
in the two-day training; to allow proper guidance and support to teachers through ongoing
meetings visits (one visit every two weeks per teacher on average) with them along the
program implementation period. While, trainings, guidance and support were provided to
teachers, more comprehensive mentoring was limited due to human resource constraints.
Finally, caregivers/parents of students participating in the pilot were provided with the
opportunity to attend an online workshop on strategies to best support their child’s
foundational literacy and numeracy developing skills. These online materials were adapted
from existing SCI resources used within Lebanon.
2.2.2 Main differences with the typical TaRL approach
The main differences between the approach used in the pilot and typical TaRL approaches
are as follows:
1. Subjects and levels covered: While typical TaRL interventions generally only look at
one literacy subject and possibly also Mathematics, the pilot covered three subject
areas: Arabic, a Foreign Language (English/French), and Mathematics. The resources
and materials for the program were aligned with the Lebanese curriculum and grade-
level expectations for Grade 2, as Grade 2-level literacy and numeracy skills were
determined to be foundational, as defined by CERD, in that they are necessary for
students to be able to continue with the Lebanese national curriculum and make the
transition from learning to read to reading to learn.
2. Integration of SEL: The traditional TaRL approach typically does not include a focus
on SEL. In Lebanon, SEL was incorporated within every subject and as stand-alone
activities throughout the sessions. The prioritization of SEL was identified as crucial
due to the expected psychosocial impact of conflict and fragility32 (including, as
mentioned above, the macroeconomic crisis and increased levels of poverty in the
country, disruptions to schooling over recent school years, and the escalation of
hostilities in the South) on students in Lebanon. Even in contexts without conflict
and fragility, SEL is an essential aspect of children’s development, providing students
with skills that they need to succeed academically and in life.33
3. Structure of sessions: CERD identified, based on past experience, that teachers
have faced challenges in delivering differentiated instruction in the classroom. As
such, the sessions were designed as structured plans for two groups of students at
different levels, rather than as a collection of activities or activity bank from which
32 UNICEF (2024)
33 Steponavičius et al. (2023)
8 World Bank
teachers select to deliver content to children. Each session consisted of a large
group activity followed by a small group activity or pair work.
4. Caregiver/parenting component: While the TaRL approach traditionally does
not focus on engagement of caregivers and families, SCI opted to include a light
component around caregiver awareness of the TaRL approach based on lessons
learned and best practices from SCI’s global Catch-Up Clubs approach.
2.3 Sampling
The pilot included 3,686 students in Grades 3 and 4 (1830 girls and 1856 boys) in the AM
and PM shifts, from 33 low-performing public schools.34 A control group, consisting of 388
students in Grades 3 and 4 (229 girls and 159 boys) enrolled in eight non-intervention schools
in the AM shift (low-performing public schools with low number of registered students) were
assessed at baseline and endline. The control group represents 10 percent of the overall
number of students involved in the baseline.
All schools were selected in coordination with MEHE, and for the purposes of the pilot, “low-
performing” was defined as schools where 50 percent or less of the student body is passing
the end-of-year exams. A purposeful sampling approach was used to select intervention and
control schools. The schools were selected taking into consideration the highest number of
enrolled students and spanned over several geographical areas to make sure to represent
all Lebanon in the program.
Table 3 below shows the distribution of students across gender, nationalities, classes, shifts,
and geographic regions.
34 The initial target was 4000 students, but some schools from the South and North Bekaa (Baalbek) had to be excluded
due to security reasons.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 9
Table 3. Breakdown of Intervention and Control Group
AM PM Total treatment Control
Total N = 1723 Total N =1963 (AM+PM) = 3686 Total N =388
Gender
Male 794 (46%) 927 (47%) 1721 (47%) 160 (41%)
Female 929 (54%) 1036 (53%) 1965 (53%) 228 (59%)
Nationality
Lebanese 1556 (90%) 368 (18%) 1924 (52%) 207 (53%)
Non-Lebanese 167 (10%) 1595 (82%) 1762 (48%) 181 (47%)
Grade
Grade 3 783 (45%) 981 (50%) 1764 (47%) 190 (50%)
Grade 4 940 (55%) 982 (50%) 1922 (53%) 198 (50%)
Governorate
Akkar 397 (23%) 464 (23%) 861 (23%) -
Baalbek El Hermel 323 (19%) 205 (10%) 528 (14%) 96 (25%)
Beirut 60 (3%) - 60 (2%) 11 (3%)
Bekaa 204 (12%) 565 (29%) 769 (21%) 127 (33%)
Mount Lebanon 100 (6%) 267 (14%) 367 (10%) 33 (8%)
North 575 (33%) 462 (24%) 1037 (29%) 82 (21%)
South 64 (3%) - 64 (1%) 39 (10%)
Source: Pilot data
Comparability across control and treatment schools
As described above, participation in the pilot was not randomly allocated across schools
or students. Instead, AM and PM shift schools were selected to participate based on their
students’ learning outcomes and characteristics. The absence of randomization can thus
introduce potential bias. To understand the results of the endline assessment, it is essential
first to evaluate how comparable students in the treatment and control groups were at
baseline.
The analysis distinguishes across three groups: Treatment AM shift, Treatment PM shift
and Control. Only Treatment AM shift students are compared to the control group, with the
outcomes for PM shift students discussed separately, as the control group only includes
students in the AM shift. Further, the length of the intervention for PM shift students were
different from AM shift, making comparisons with AM shift students even more inadequate.
10 World Bank
Based on available data, Table 4 below shows that there are no statistically significant
difference between average baseline scores in Arabic, Mathematics, and Foreign Language
between the control and treatment AM groups at baseline. However, there was a higher
proportion of Lebanese, male students and to a lesser extent Grade 3 students amongst the
AM shift treatment group compared to the control group.
Given that learning outcomes in the two groups were on average similar at baseline, a
comparison of treatment AM shift and control group student learning outcomes serve as a
useful indication of the impact of the pilot. However, since schools were not chosen randomly
to participate in the pilot, but rather through collaboration with MEHE based on a set of
criteria, differences observed between the control and treatment groups at endline cannot
be fully attributed to the pilot.
Table 4. AM Shift and Control Students Balance Table at Baseline
Treatment
(AM shift) Control Difference p-value
Average baseline score
2.055814 2.07772 -0.021906 0.69
in Arabic
Average baseline score
2.123399 2.196891 -0.073492 0.19
in Mathematics
Average baseline score
1.461628 1.432642 0.028986 0.49
in Foreign Language
Average proportion of
0.9045402 0.7804878 0.1240524 0.00***
Lebanese
Average proportion of
0.5383721 0.4093264 0.1290457 0.0***
male students
Average proportion of
0.4540698 0.4870466 -0.0329768 0.0***
grade 3 students
N students 1720 386 - -
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 11
2.4 Monitoring and evaluation
2.4.1 Student assessment tools
The Annual Status of Education (ASER) assessment was used at baseline and endline to track
students’ progress and assess the acquisition of foundational skills.
The literacy assessment, which was conducted in both Arabic and Foreign Language (French
or English), comprised of letter identification, reading words, reading sentences, and reading
a short story. A student begins the assessment at Level 3 (the reading of sentences) and
the test adjusts up to Level 4 (story level) or down to Level 2 (word level) based on initial
responses. The highest level (Level 5) involves responding to questions after reading a story
to demonstrate the student’s ability to comprehend what s/he has read.
Table 5.a. Literacy Levels
Level Literacy skill
Level 0—Beginner Learner cannot read 7 out of 10 letters correctly
Level 1—Beginner (Letter) Can identify 7 or more letters out of 10
Level 2—Pre-reader (Word) Can read at least 7 out of 10 words correctly
Level 3—Emergent reader (Sentences/ Can read a short paragraph fluently with no
Paragraph) more than 3 mistakes in total
Level 4 (Story level) Can fluently read a short story
Level 5—Foundational reader (Story level with Can fluently read a short story and answer
comprehension) correctly 3 out of 4 comprehension questions
Source: https://asercentre.org/aser-survey/, adapted with CERD
Key mathematical concepts tested in the ASER focus on basic operations and number
recognition with Level 5 being equivalent to what a student should be able to achieve by the
end of Grade 2. The ASER levels progress from basic number identification (Level 1) to division
of two-digit numbers by numbers up to 10 (Level 5). Just as the literacy test, the Mathematics
assessment starts at Level 3 (number recognition; 20–100) for all students, adjusting up to
Level 4 or down to Level 2 based on initial responses.
12 World Bank
Table 5.b. Numeracy Levels
Level Numeracy skill
Level 0—Beginner Can read numbers up to 10 and identify higher and
Number recognition lower numbers
Level 1—Beginner Can add and subtract numbers up to 20 (includes
Basic addition & subtraction (0–20) carryover)
Level 2—Emergent Reads numbers up to 100 and can correctly identify
Number recognition (20–100) higher and lower numbers
Level 3—Emergent Can correctly do 2 double digit addition and
Addition & subtraction (0–100) subtraction with and without regrouping/ carryover
Level 4—Novice
Multiple single digit numbers by numbers up to 10
Multiplication
Level 5—Novice Divide 2-digit numbers by numbers up to 10 (no
Division remainders)
Source: https://asercentre.org/aser-survey/, adapted with CERD
All enrolled Grade 3 and 4 students in both the intervention and control schools participated
in baseline and endline. The assessments were conducted by ASER trained teachers using
a one-on-one evaluation form within the classroom environment. Additionally, three Save
the Children Education officers carried out follow-ups with school principals and teachers
to provide oversight, support, and monitoring during the ASER assessment period in all
intervention schools. These follow-ups ensured that the ASER assessments were conducted
correctly and that teachers were confident and knowledgeable about the assessment process.
In order to assess inter-rater reliability, SCI staff, experienced and trained on ASER, reassessed
a group of students at baseline (75 students—45 AM and 30 PM—from 5 schools) and endline
levels (122 students AM in 3 schools). The Cohen’s Kappa values presented in Table 6 below
for each subject indicate the level of agreement between the teachers’ results and those
of the SCI staff. These values typically range from -1 (perfect disagreement) to 1 (perfect
agreement), with values closer to 1 indicating higher agreement. Values around 0 may suggest
no agreement beyond chance, and values above 0.75 are often considered to represent
excellent agreement.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 13
Table 6. Reliability of Assessments, Cohen’s Kappa Values, by Subject
Subject Cohen’s Kappa value
Baseline Endline
Arabic 0.90 1.00
Foreign Language (French or English) 0.58 1.00
Mathematics 0.77 1.00
Source: Pilot data
In addition, the ASER assessment was used as a formative tool during the implementation of
the pilot sessions. The assessment was used to place/move students in appropriate leveled
learning groups, thereby optimizing the learning process by aligning instructional strategies
with students’ current capabilities.
2.4.2 Implementation monitoring
A range of tools were used throughout the pilot to monitor several aspects of implementation
from teacher training to student enrollment and attendance, and classroom practices:
► Pre- and post-tests for training of trainers and teacher training: These assessments
measured the effectiveness of training programs for trainers and teachers, ensuring
that teachers are well-prepared to meet the learning needs of their students.
► Enrollment and attendance tracking: Enrollment and attendance data, disaggregated
by gender and nationality, provided insights into the demographic composition and
engagement levels within the program.
► Classroom observation tool: Between February and March 2024, trained Education
Officers used a classroom observation tool (Annex 4), adapted from SCIs Catch-Up
Clubs observation tool, to evaluate various aspects of the classroom environment,
teacher-student interactions, and the implementation of lesson plans. They also
took qualitative notes to capture detailed observations and insights beyond the
checklist items. Each observation session lasted for an entire class period to provide a
comprehensive view of the teaching and learning activities. A sample of 68 teachers
from both shifts was randomly selected for observation to ensure equitable coverage
across subjects in all implementation regions across Lebanon. The visits were
unannounced, and each teacher was observed once. The objectives of the classroom
observations were to:
14 World Bank
► Evaluate implementation fidelity: Ensure that teachers are correctly applying the
TaRL-based methodology including assessment processes and following the lesson
plans.
► Assess student engagement: Monitor student participation and engagement during
the pilot sessions.
► Identify challenges: Identify any challenges faced by teachers and students in the
implementation of the TaRL-based approach.
► Provide support and feedback: Offer real-time feedback and support to teachers to
enhance their instructional practices.
Direct observations and feedback
In addition to the classroom observation described above, SCI conducted regular school visits
to directly observe the pilot sessions. All classes were visited between 1–3 times. These visits
not only allow for real-time assessment of classroom dynamics but also facilitate immediate
feedback and necessary adjustments to the program. These visits were also conducted by
the SCI Education officers, but did not rely on a specific tool, the direct observations were
rather closer to a shadowing session with on-the-spot clarification and guidance provided
as per the need of the observed session.
Feedback surveys for teachers and caregivers
Teachers and caregivers were surveyed to gather their perspective on the program towards
the end of the program (March 2024). These online surveys were anonymous and received
by the different stakeholders through a link shared by phone, to allow room for transparency.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 15
esults: How Did Students
3. R
Learning Outcomes Evolve
Following the Pilot?
This section describes how students’ learning outcomes in Arabic, Foreign Language, and
Mathematics changed between baseline and endline. The first subsection describes the
change among AM shift students who participated in the pilot (treatment group students)
and those who did not (control group students), while the second subsection focuses on
PM shift students.
3.1 How did learning outcomes vary between
AM shift students in the treatment and control
groups?
3.1.1 Changes in average learning outcomes
At the group level, comparing average learning outcomes between baseline and endline
for both treatment and control students reveals a much larger increase among treatment
students in comparison to control students. In other words, the overall level of students
improved to a larger extent among students who benefited from the pilot. Across all three
subjects, students are assessed according to a 6-level classification, from Level 0 to Level
5, as described in Tables 5.a and 5.b in the previous section.
As Figure 1 below illustrates:
1. In Arabic, the average learning level among students in the treatment group was
2.06 prior to the pilot and reached 3.27 at the end of the program. In comparison,
the average level among control students was 2.08 at baseline and reached 2.49. In
other words, while students were on average able to read sentences and paragraphs
after participating in the pilot, students who did not participate in the pilot were on
average still at pre-reader level (recognizing words only).
16 World Bank
2. For Foreign Language (French or English), the average level among students who
participated in the pilot was 1.46 at baseline and 2.63 at endline. In comparison, the
average level among control students was 1.43 at baseline and 1.82 at endline. In
other words, while students were on average able to recognize words in French or
English after benefiting from the pilot, control students were on average at the lower
level (i.e., recognizing letters).
3. For Mathematics, the average level among treated students was 2.12 at baseline and
reached 3.27 at endline. In comparison, the average score among control students
was 2.20 at baseline and 2.59 at endline. In other words, in schools that benefited
from the pilot, students on average moved from a beginner to an emergent level (able
to do 2 digit addition and subtraction), while in control schools students remained at
beginner level (basic addition and subtraction from 0–10), on average.
It is worth noting that within each of the treated and control groups, the average level increase
was roughly the same across subjects, although treated students had significantly more
sessions in Arabic and Foreign Language than in Mathematics: students who benefited from the
pilot had 55 hours of Arabic, 50 hours of Foreign Language and only 15 hours in Mathematics.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 17
Figure 1. AM Shift Students’ Average Levels Across Subjects and Treatment Status (Baseline and Endline)
Arabic Foreign Language
Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
3.27
3 3 3 3
2.49 2.63
SCORE
SCORE
2.06 2.08
2 2 2 2
1.82
1.46 1.43
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Mathematics
Treatment - AM shift Control
5 5
4 4
3.27
3 3
2.59
SCORE
2.20
2.12
2 2
1 1
0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Source: Pilot data
18 World Bank
3.1.2 Changes in the distributions of students’ learning levels
Figure 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c below show the distribution of students across learning levels in
Arabic, Foreign Language, and Mathematics (respectively) at baseline and endline among
AM shift students who did benefit from the pilot (treatment group) and those who did not
(control group).
Arabic learning outcomes (55 hours instructional time)
At endline, the proportion of non-readers in Arabic has considerably decreased among
students in schools that benefited from the pilot. As Figure 2.a illustrates, about 41 percent
of students were at level 0 or 1 (i.e., they were unable to read words, beginner and letter, at
baseline). By the end of the pilot, the share of students who could not recognize words in
Arabic dropped to approximately 9 percent—meaning a change of 32 percentage points. In
comparison, the change among students in the control group was of 13 percentage points.
The proportion of students with foundational skills has considerably increased among
students in schools that benefited from the pilot: Figure 2.a shows that at baseline, only
about 12 percent of students were at Level 4 or 5 at baseline (i.e., they were at foundational
level or in other words able to read a story). By the end of the pilot, the share of students
who could read a story in Arabic reached 42 percent. In comparison, among students who
did not benefit from the pilot, the proportion of students at foundational level (Level 4 or 5)
was about 9 percent at baseline and reached 14 percent at endline.
Foreign Language (French or English) learning outcomes (50 hours instructional time)
The proportion of students not able to recognize words in English or French decreased almost
four-fold in schools that benefited from the pilot. As Figure 2.b illustrates, 66 percent of
students were at Level 0 or 1 at the start of the pilot (i.e., they were either at beginner level
or only able to recognize letters; unable to read words in English or French). At baseline,
Foreign Language is the subject with the highest share of students at the lowest levels (0 or
1), in both the control and treatment groups. By the end of the pilot, the share of students
who benefited from the pilot sessions and could not recognize words in English or French
dropped to 17 percent—meaning a change of 49 percentage points. In comparison, the
share of students at Levels 0 or 1 in the control group moved from 69 percent at baseline to
41 percent at endline (a change of 28 percentage points).
The proportion of students with a foundational level in English or French increased considerably
in schools that benefited from the pilot—from only 2 percent at baseline to 22 percent at the
end of the pilot. Figure 2.b shows that less than 2 percent of students had a foundational
learning level in English or French at baseline (i.e., only 2 percent were able to read a story,
with or without comprehension). By the end of the pilot, this share increased to 22 percent
among students who benefited from the pilot. In control schools, less than 1 percent of
students had a foundational learning level in English or French at baseline, and this rose to
approximately 4 percent at endline.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 19
Figure 2.a. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes Figure. 2.b. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in
in Arabic Across the Control and Treatment Groups Foreign Language Across the Control and Treatment
(Baseline and Endline) Groups (Baseline and Endline)
Arabic Foreign Language
Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control
100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75
SCORE
SCORE
50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Figure. 2.c. AM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes in
Mathematics Across the Control and Treatment Group
(Baseline and Endline)
Mathematics
Treatment - AM shift Control
100 100
75 75
PERCENT (%)
50 50
25 25
0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Source: Pilot data
20 World Bank
Mathematics learning outcomes (15 hours instructional time)
In schools that benefited from the pilot, the share of students at beginner level in Mathematics
dropped five-folds at endline. Figure 2.c shows that at baseline, 35 percent of students were
at Level 0 or 1 (i.e., they were at beginner level in terms of number recognition or addition and
subtraction). By the end of the pilot, the share of students at beginner level in Mathematics
dropped to 7 percent—meaning a change of 28 percentage points. In control schools, the
share of students at beginner level in Mathematics (Levels 0 or 1) decreased from 31 percent
to 19 percent (12 percentage points).
The share of students with foundational level in Mathematics increased almost four-
folds in schools that benefited from the pilot. Figure 2.c shows that at baseline, only 11
percent of students in treatment schools were at level 4 or 5, meaning they were able to
do multiplications and divisions. By the end of the pilot, this share reached 43 percent (32
percentage points increase). In comparison, in control schools, the share of students able
to do multiplications and divisions increased from 7 percent to 20 percent (14 percentage
points increase).
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 21
3.1.3 Students’ movement across learning levels from baseline
to endline
Overall, almost three-fourths of students who benefited from the pilot saw their learning
outcomes increase by at least one level in comparison to baseline, with over a third of them
seeing an increase of 2 to 3 levels:
1. In Arabic, 37 percent of students moved up 1 level, 28 percent by 2 levels, and 8 percent
by 3 levels. In other words, 73 percent of students in AM shift schools that benefited
from the pilot moved up at least by 1 level in Arabic between baseline and endline;
2. In Foreign Language (French or English), 39 percent of students moved up 1 level,
28 percent moved up 2 levels and 7 percent up 3 levels. In other words, 73 percent of
students in AM shift schools that benefited from the pilot moved up at least by 1 level
in Foreign Language (French or English) between baseline and endline;
3. In Mathematics, 36 percent of students moved up 1 level at endline, 27 percent
moved up 2 levels, and 8 percent up 3 levels. In other words, 71 percent of students
in AM shift schools that benefited from the pilot moved up at least by 1 level in
Mathematics between baseline and endline.
In comparison, about 40 percent of students in the control group reached a higher level at
endline, with almost all of them only moving up 1 level:
1. In Arabic, 40 percent of control students moved up 1 level, 1 percent moved up 2
levels, and none moved up 3 levels;
2. In Foreign Language (French or English), 38 percent moved up 1 level, which is
similar to the control group, but none saw a higher increase in their score (moving up
2 or 3 levels);
3. In Mathematics, 39 percent moved up 1 level, 1 percent moved up 2 levels, but none
of them saw a higher increase in their level (i.e., moving up 3 levels).
Annex 5 presents results disaggregated by Gender and by Grade.
22 World Bank
Figure 3. Changes in AM Shift Students’ Levels Between Baseline and Endline, Across Subjects and
Treatment Status
Arabic Foreign Language
100 100
75 75
60.9
59.3
PERCENT (%)
PERCENT (%)
50 50
39.9 38.5 38.3
37.3
28.0 28.3
25
24.3 25
24.7
7.6 6.6
0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0
0 0
No change Up 1 Up 2 Up 3 No change Up 1 Up 2 Up 3
Treatment – AM shift Control Treatment – AM shift Control
Mathematics
100
75
59.6
PERCENT (%)
50
38.6
35.7
25.3 26.6
25
7.6
1.0 0.0
0
No change Up 1 Up 2 Up 3
Treatment – AM shift Control
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 23
3.2 How did the learning outcomes of PM shift
students evolve between baseline and endline?
3.2.1 Change in average learning outcomes
Average learning outcomes among PM shift students increased between baseline and endline,
although to a lesser extent than among AM shift students in schools that benefited from the
pilot. PM shift students received fewer instructional hours/sessions compared to AM shift
students—50 hours in Arabic, 24 hours in Foreign Language and only 6 hours in Mathematics.
As Figure 4 below illustrates:
1. In Arabic, the average learning level among PM shift students in schools that
participated in the pilot was 1.75 prior to the pilot and reached 2.64 at the end of the
pilot.
2. For Foreign Language (French or English), the average level among PM shift students
in schools that participated in the pilot was 1.36 at baseline and 2.15 at endline.
3. For Mathematics, the average
level among PM shift students Figure 4. PM Shift Students’ Average Levels Across
was 2.03 at baseline and reached Subjects (Baseline and Endline)
2.56 at the end of the pilot. Across subjects
Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2.64 2.56
SCORE
2.15 2.03
2 1.75 2 2
1.36
1 1 1
0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Source: Pilot data
24 World Bank
3.2.2 Changes in the distributions of students’ learning levels
Figures 5 below describes the distribution of the learning levels of PM shift students in Arabic,
Foreign Language (French or English) and Mathematics at the start of the pilot (baseline) and
at the end (endline).
Arabic learning outcomes (50 hours instructional time)
At endline, the proportion of non-readers in Arabic has significantly decreased among PM
shift students in schools that benefited from the pilot. As Figure 5 illustrates, about 52 percent
of students were at Level 0 or 1 (i.e., they were unable to read words, beginner and letter, at
baseline). By the end of the pilot, the share of students who could not recognize words in
Arabic decreased to 17 percent—meaning a change of 35 percentage points.
The proportion of students with foundational skills has increased almost four-folds among PM
shift students in schools that benefited from the pilot. Figure 5 shows that only about 6 percent
of students were at level 4 or 5 at baseline (i.e., they were able to read a story or at foundational
level). By the end of the pilot, the share of students who could read a story in Arabic reached 23
percent (a 17 percentage point increase).
Foreign Language (French or
English) learning outcomes (24 hours
instructional time) Figure 5. PM Shift Students’ Learning Outcomes
The proportion of students not able to Across Subjects (Baseline and Endline)
recognize words in English or French Across subjects
decreased almost four-fold among PM 100
Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics
shift students in schools that benefited
from the pilot. As Figure 5 illustrates, 75
percent of students were at Level 0 or 1 at 75
the start of the pilot (i.e., they were either
PERCENT (%)
at beginner level or only able to recognize
50
letters; unable to read words in English and
French). Just as among AM shift students,
Foreign Language is also the subject with 25
the highest share of students at the lowest
levels (0 or 1) at baseline among PM shift
0
students. By the end of the pilot, the share of Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
PM shift students who could not recognize
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
words in English or French dropped to 33
percent (a change of 42 percentage point).
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 25
The proportion of students with a foundational level in English or French increased among
PM shift students but remained relatively low even at endline. Figure 5 shows that at baseline,
about 1 percent of students had a foundational learning level in English or French (i.e., only
1 percent were able to read a story, with or without comprehension). By the end of the pilot,
this share increased to about 10 percent (a 9 percentage point increase)—meaning that 90
percent of PM shift students still did not reach foundational level in Foreign Language at the
end of the pilot.
Mathematics learning outcomes (6 hours instructional time)
In schools that benefited from the pilot, the share of students at beginner level in Mathematics
dropped about two-folds at endline. Figure 5 shows that at baseline, 37 percent of PM shift
students were at Level 0 or 1 (i.e., they were at beginner level in terms of number recognition
or addition and subtraction). By the end of the pilot, the share of students at beginner level
in Mathematics dropped to 19 percent (a change of 18 percentage points).
The share of PM shift students with foundational level in Mathematics increased almost three-
folds at endline but remained relatively low. Figure 5 shows that at baseline, only 7 percent
of PM shift students in schools selected for the pilot were at level 4 or 5, meaning they were
able to do multiplications and divisions. By the end of the pilot, the share of students able
to do multiplications or divisions reached 19 percent (a change of 12 percentage points). In
other words, 80 percent still had not reached foundational level in Mathematics at the end
of the pilot.
3.2.3 Students’ movement across learning levels from baseline
to endline
Figure 6 below shows that the majority of PM shift students moved at least one level between
baseline and endline:
1. In Arabic, 47 percent moved up 1 level, 17 percent moved up 2 levels, and 3 percent
moved up 3 levels.
2. In Foreign Language, 38 percent moved up 1 level, 19 percent moved up 2 levels, and
1 percent moved up 3 levels;
3. In Mathematics, 23 percent moved up 1 level, 12 percent moved up 2 levels, and
2 percent moved up 3 levels between baseline and endline.
Annex 5 presents results disaggregated by gender and by grade.
26 World Bank
Figure 6. Changes in PM Shift Students’ Levels Between Baseline and Endline, Across Subjects
Arabic Foreign Language
100 100
75 75
PERCENT (%)
PERCENT (%)
50 46.6 50
41.0
38.1
32.0
25 25
17.3 19.0
3.0 1.1
0 0
No change Up 1 Up 2 Up 3 No change Up 1 Up 2 Up 3
Mathematics
100
75
62.6
PERCENT (%)
50
25
23.1
12.0
1.5
0
No change Up 1 Up 2 Up 3
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 27
3.3 Teacher observation findings
The key quantitative findings from the classroom observations across the three subjects are
presented in Figure 7 below.
Across subjects, teachers showed strong preparation and organization, effective use of SEL
activities, positive interactions with students, and integration of formative assessments.
Some minor challenges included managing cases of overcrowded classrooms (more than 30
students) in the North governorate in both shifts, adhering strictly to lesson plans, providing
clear instructions, and diversifying engagement techniques.
More detailed findings from the classroom observations, by subject, are presented in Annex 6.
The classroom observations provided valuable insights into the implementation of the pilot
and its impact on students and teachers. The high levels of compliance with the TaRL-based
methodology, active student engagement, and effective use of instructional techniques
were notable successes. However, challenges related to classroom management, resource
limitations, and language proficiency need to be addressed to further enhance the program’s
effectiveness.
Figure 7. Teacher Observation Key Findings
100
91 91
87 87 87 87 87 87 87
83 83 83 83 83
75
74 74 74
70 70 70
61
PERCENT (%)
50
25
0
Session Lesson plans SEL Grouping Student Positive Individualized
materials children engagement interaction support
AR FL Mathematics
Source: Pilot data
28 World Bank
3.4 Feedback from teachers, principals,
students
Gathering feedback from teachers, principals, and students provides valuable insights into
the effectiveness of the pilot.
Feedback from teachers
Training and support
Teachers generally appreciated the comprehensive training sessions and ongoing support
provided under the pilot. SCI trained CERD experts on the TaRL-based approach, and CERD
experts then provided the training to teachers. Teachers found the training materials and
sessions on the TaRL approach, ASER assessment, and lesson planning to be highly beneficial.
Many teachers reported that the training significantly enhanced their teaching practices. They
felt more confident in assessing students’ learning levels and delivering tailored instruction.
Teachers valued the continuous mentorship and feedback from SCI staff, which helped
them refine their instructional techniques and address challenges in real-time. Additional
support was also provided through WhatsApp groups established with teachers to exchange
experiences and share lessons learned.
Implementation challenges
Some teachers highlighted difficulties in managing mixed-ability groups, especially in larger
classes. They suggested additional training on classroom management strategies. A few
teachers mentioned occasional shortages of learning materials, which impacted the smooth
delivery of lessons. They recommended ensuring a consistent supply of resources such as
stationary and recreational materials. Teachers teaching foreign languages expressed the need
for additional language proficiency training to improve their effectiveness in delivering lessons.
Student engagement and outcomes
Teachers observed a noticeable increase in student engagement and participation during the
pilot sessions. Interactive activities and group work were particularly effective in maintaining
student interest. Many teachers reported significant improvements in students’ literacy and
numeracy skills. They noted that students who were initially struggling made substantial
progress over the course of the program.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 29
Suggestions for improvement
Teachers suggested incorporating more hands-on practice sessions in the training workshops
to better prepare them for real classroom scenarios. Encouraging more collaboration and
peer support among teachers to share strategies and best practices was also a suggestion
from teachers. Instituting regular feedback sessions to continuously gather teachers’
input and address emerging challenges promptly. These suggestions for improvement
indicate that teachers are requesting a more comprehensive professional development
programme incorporating hand on activities in training, peer learning circles/groups, and
support through mentoring.
Feedback from principals
Program impact
Principals observed positive changes in their schools due to the pilot. They noted improvements
in students’ learning outcomes, teacher practices, and overall classroom environments.
Principals appreciated the support provided to teachers through training and mentorship. They
highlighted that well-supported teachers were more effective in delivering quality education.
Implementation logistics
Principals emphasized the importance of timely and adequate resource allocation to ensure
the smooth implementation of the program. They suggested better coordination between
schools and the program team to address logistical issues. Some principals recommended
more flexibility in scheduling training and pilot sessions to accommodate the unique needs
of different schools.
Community engagement
Principals noted increased parental involvement as a positive outcome of the program. They
suggested further initiatives to engage parents and communities in supporting students’
education.
Challenges and recommendations
Principals from conflict-affected areas highlighted the challenges posed by ongoing socio-
political instability. They recommended developing contingency plans to ensure the continuity
of education during disruptions. Principals emphasized the need for sustainable models that
could be integrated into the regular school system, ensuring long-term benefits beyond the
pilot phase.
30 World Bank
Feedback from Students
Learning experience
Many students expressed increased confidence in their reading and Mathematics skills. They
appreciated the tailored instruction that helped them understand concepts better. Students
enjoyed the interactive and engaging activities included in the lesson plans. Group work,
games, and practical exercises made learning fun and interesting.
Support and motivation
Students felt supported by their teachers and peers, which motivated them to participate
actively and strive for improvement. The positive reinforcement and recognition of progress
boosted students’ motivation to continue learning and achieve higher proficiency levels.
Challenges and suggestions
Some students in larger classes (30 and up student per class) felt they did not receive
enough individual attention. They suggested smaller group sessions or additional support for
struggling students. A few students mentioned occasional shortages of learning materials.
They recommended ensuring that all necessary resources were always available.
Aspirations
The program inspired many students to aim higher in their educational journey. They expressed
a desire to continue improving their skills and succeed academically. Students expressed a
strong interest in the continuation of the program, highlighting its positive impact on their
learning experience.
Overall, the program received positive feedback for its training and support mechanisms,
improvements in student engagement and learning outcomes, and the creation of a supportive
learning environment. However, the feedback also highlighted areas for improvement, such as
classroom management, resource allocation, and language proficiency training. Addressing
these challenges and incorporating the suggestions provided by stakeholders will further
enhance the program’s effectiveness and sustainability.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 31
3.5 Cost analysis35
3.5.1. Total cost, cost per student, and cost per student-hour
of instructional time
1. The total program costs amount to a total of $838,689.
2. Brought to the 3,686 students that benefited from the pilot, this yields a cost per
student of $227.5.
3. Considering the total number of hours of instructional time that all 3,686 students
benefited from, which reaches 367,486, the average cost per student-hour of
instructional time amounts to $2.28.
These averages mask variations in costs across the AM and PM shifts, which are not captured
in this analysis given the difference in implementation across the two shifts. The longer
duration of the AM shift program means that fixed costs of the project that were incurred
on a per-student, per-school and per-teacher or at project level were split across more
student-hours for the AM than PM shift. For example, it costs the same amount to train a
teacher whether they teach for 10 sessions or 20 sessions.
Table 7. Summary Table, US$
Number of Cost per
Total costs student-hours student
(direct and Number of of instructional Cost per per hour of
shared) students time student instruction
$838,688 3,686 367,486 $228 $2.28
Source: Pilot data
This average could provide an indication of the cost of an extra number of students and instruc-
tional hours, but it would provide an upper bound. For example, it is estimated that it would cost
$2.28 * 100 * 1000 = $228,000 to deliver 100 hours of instructions to 1,000 students. However,
this does not account for potential economies of scale. Furthermore, the $2.28 might be an
upper bound as the PM shift covered less students and less hours of instructional time due
to implementation challenges at the time of the pilot.
Evaluating the cost per student against the significant learning gains observed between
the start and end of the pilot across both shifts is aligned with the demonstrated high
35 Please refer to Annex 7 for more details on the data used for the analysis.
32 World Bank
cost-effectiveness of the TaRL model. The 2023 Smart Buys report by the Global Education
Evidence Advisory Panel (GEEAP) highlights Pratham’s Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) as
a top “Great Buy,” recognizing it as a cost-effective, evidence-based approach that reliably
improves learning outcomes on a large scale in low- and middle-income countries. TaRL’s
tailored assessments and individualized instruction have proven especially effective in helping
children catch up to grade-level standards, making it an impactful and frugal solution for
addressing diverse educational needs.36
3.5.2 Cost drivers
Overall, variable costs accounted for 56 percent of the program expenses, while fixed costs
made up the remaining 44 percent. Variable costs included transportation stipends for
students and teachers, support to schools, teacher training and MEAL expenses, while fixed
costs included SCI staff and operational costs.
Figure 8 details the distribution of costs across the different categories and Table 8 provides
the definition of each spending category.
Figure 8. Spending by Category (All Costs)
Student transportation stipend 23.2
Teacher transportation stipend 19.7
SCI Staff–Education 19.0
SCI Staff–programs 9.3
Support to schools 6.2
SCI Country shared costs 6.1
SCI Staff–Operations 5.5
SCI Other operational costs 4.5
MEAL 3.8
Teacher training 2.6
0 10 20 30
PERCENT (%)
Source: Pilot data
36 Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (2023)
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 33
Table 8. Definition of Different Cost Categories
Category Definition
Variable
Student transportation
Per student transport stipends paid at fixed rate
stipend
Teacher transportation Transportation stipends paid to teachers proportional to
stipend instructional hours
Support to schools Learning materials and support to schools’ operational costs
Transportation, venue and materials for the training delivered
Teacher training
to teachers prior implementation
Monitoring, Evaluation and
Costs related to MEAL activities
Learning (MEAL)
Fixed
Staff supporting all activities, allocated in proportion to other
SCI staff programs
direct costs
SCI Staff supporting all activities, allocated in proportion to
SCI staff education
other direct costs
SCI staff operations Shared cost, allocated in proportion to direct costs
SCI country shared costs Shared cost, allocated in proportion to direct costs
SCI other operational costs Shared cost, allocated in proportion to direct costs
Source: SCI
34 World Bank
Transportation costs
Transportation costs for children stood out as the biggest single cost item (23.2 percent of
total cost), followed by a transportation allowance for teachers for delivering lessons outside
of regular teaching hours (19.6 percent of total cost). Any program design changes that can
be made to reduce the need for transportation to the schools for students and teachers are
likely to bring down costs significantly. An example of this kind of adaptation would be the
integration of TaRL sessions during the regular school day when students are already present
in schools. Based on Table 9 below, the removal of transportation costs for teachers and
students would reduce the cost per student by $97.61, or by 43 percent.
Table 9. Transportation Related Costs, US$
Transportation-related costs Total
Cost per student $227.53
Cost per student—transport for children $52.79
Cost per student—transport for teachers $44.82
Cost per student without transportation costs $129.92
Cost per student per hour of instruction $1.30
Source: Pilot data
Staff costs
SCI Staff costs (salaries and benefits) were also a major cost driver, with education, program,
and operations staff together comprising 33.8 percent of total spending. Teacher training
comprised just 2.5 percent of costs; however, it is likely that a substantial amount of SCI
Education team staff costs were associated with teacher training and other school capacity
building activities, but it is not possible to break down costs to that level of detail with the
available spending data. An integration of the TaRL approach within public education service
delivery would also reduce the costs associated with an external service provider and allow
for economies of scale; however, further assessment would be needed to determine the
costs to MEHE and CERD for implementing the program.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 35
4. Conclusion
4.1 Key results
In AM shift schools that participated in the pilot, the share of beginner-level students across
all three subjects dropped four- to five-fold by endline—showing greater improvements
compared to control schools. For Arabic literacy, the proportion of students unable to read
words dropped from 41 percent at baseline to around 9 percent at endline—a 31 percentage
point improvement—compared to a 13 point change in the control group. Similarly, the
proportion of students not able to recognize words in English or French decreased almost
four-fold in schools that benefited from the pilot—from 66 percent to 17 percent—compared
to a decrease from 69 percent to 41 percent among control group students. In Mathematics,
the proportion of beginner-level students dropped from 35 percent at baseline to 7 percent
at endline among those who benefited from the pilot—a 28 percentage point improvement—
compared to a 12 point decrease in control schools.
Second shift students also saw their learning outcomes considerably improve across all three
subjects by the end of the TaRL pilot. The proportion of PM shift students unable to read
words in Arabic dropped from 52 percent at baseline to around 17 percent at endline—a 35
percentage point improvement—while the proportion of students not able to recognize words
in English or French decreased from 75 to 33 percent—corresponding to a 42 percentage
point improvement. In Mathematics, the proportion of beginner-level students dropped from
37 percent at baseline to 19 percent at endline.
The TaRL pilot is linked to a notable increase in the share of students reaching foundational
learning outcomes, especially in the AM shift. In Arabic, the share of AM shift students able
to read a story increased from 12 to 42 percent by the end of the TaRL pilot, compared to a rise
from 9 to 14 percent among non-participating students. In French and English literacy, the
proportion of AM shift students reaching foundational reading level increased significantly
in schools that participated in the TaRL sessions, rising from 2 percent at baseline to 22
percent by the end of the pilot, while in control schools, this level remained below 1 percent.
36 World Bank
Similarly, the share of AM shift students with foundational level in Mathematics increased
almost four-folds in schools that benefited from the pilot. Similar patterns were observed
among PM shift students in Arabic. However, at least 80 percent of PM shift students did
not reach foundational level in Foreign Languages and Mathematics by the end of the pilot.
The intervention was universally appreciated by teachers, principals, parents, and
students. Feedback from teachers and principals highlighted that the TaRL approach, of
targeting instruction to students’ learning levels, is relevant to the Lebanese context. They
also highlighted that public school teachers were able to implement the approach despite
challenges they were facing such as managing mixed-ability groups and resource limitations.
Teachers and principals reported high levels of student engagement, and students themselves
expressed increased confidence and enthusiasm for learning as a result of the intervention.
Similarly, students reported increased confidence in their reading and Mathematics skills,
appreciating the tailored instruction and engaging activities that made learning enjoyable.
They expressed a desire to continue improving their skills and succeed academically, and a
strong interest in the continuation of the program.
The pilot program costed on average $227.50 per student and just $2.28 per student-
hour of instruction—though these estimates likely represent an upper bound. This
is partly because the PM shift, which had fewer students and instructional hours due to
implementation challenges, inflated the average cost per student-hour. The AM shift, with
longer instructional hours, benefited from more efficient distribution of fixed costs (e.g.,
teacher training and operations) across a larger number of student-hours. When evaluated
against the learning gains observed between baseline and endline, these costs estimates
suggest a relatively high cost-effectiveness of the program, which aligns with the 2023
Smart Buys report’s recognition of TaRL as a “Great Buy,” offering substantial learning gains
cost-efficiently across diverse educational contexts.
4.2 Main challenges
Teachers highlighted that class sizes were an important factor influencing their ability
to successfully implement the TaRL approach. In the North governorate, overcrowded
classrooms (30 or more student per class) affected group work and limited teachers’ ability
to provide students with individualized attention. Some teachers highlighted difficulties
in managing mixed-ability groups, especially in larger classes. Teachers also mentioned
occasional shortages of learning materials.
In addition, teachers also mentioned that additional, ongoing support beyond the initial
teacher training was important, particularly in the face of the identified resource limitations
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 37
and challenges with managing large classes. Teachers teaching Foreign Languages also
expressed the need for additional language proficiency training to improve their effectiveness
in delivering lessons.
4.3 Study limitations
While the pilot has provided proof of concept for the relevance and promise of the TaRL
approach in Lebanon, there are limitations that should be taken into consideration when
interpreting study findings. First, schools and students were not randomly assigned to
treatment and control groups. Second, it is not possible to distinguish if the observed
learning gains are attributable to the additional hours of instruction received by students
who participated in the pilot (given the pilot was implemented out of regular school hours),
to the TaRL pedagogical approach per se, or both. In addition, the lack of a control group for
PM shift students does not allow to have a reference point to evaluate the observed learning
gains associated with the pilot. Finally, it is possible that the transportation allowances
provided to teachers and students inflated their engagement with the pilot, and that without
these allowances (e.g., if the TaRL approach was implemented during regular school hours),
the impact of the pilot might have been diminished. A randomized experiment evaluating
different possible modalities of the TaRL-based approach, including within or outside school
hours, or with or without incentives, would allow a more rigorous assessment of these study
design features and the impact on learning outcomes.
4.4 Recommendations and next steps
Relevance of the TaRL approach to the education response
in Lebanon
1. The TaRL approach meets children where they are, which is especially relevant given
there have been disruptions to schooling in one way or another since the 2019–20
academic year.
2. It focuses on foundational skills, at a time when MEHE and CERD need to prioritize
curricular content for delivery during a contracted school year.
38 World Bank
3. The approach was well-received by students, teachers, and school principals who
found that it responds well to their needs and resulted in tangible improvements in
students’ learning.
4. The approach requires minimal equipment and materials,37 and can be delivered
through various modalities, including during regular school hours, as part of non-
formal education delivery, and/or through remedial education programs (as part of
a summer school program, start of the school orientation, or after-school clubs, for
example). Thus, there is scope for MEHE, CERD, and other development partners to
adopt the approach within various education programs to serve as many children’s
needs as possible. Table 1 above presents several examples for how the TaRL
approach has been implemented in other countries.
5. Finally, the SEL component of the current pilot is highly relevant, as psychosocial
support for students and teachers is crucial in the face of the recent conflict.
Factors for consideration in the future roll out and scale up of
the TaRL approach in Lebanon
1. Greatest cost efficiency would be reached if the TaRL approach (activities or sessions)
were integrated within the regular school day.
2. While the pilot targeted students in Grades 3 and 4, MEHE, CERD, and partners could
consider expanding TaRL implementation to other grades.38
3. If national roll-out is not immediately feasible, MEHE and CERD could consider a
staggered roll-out of the TaRL approach, first targeting schools or students based
on need, which will allow for a gradual scale-up and further adaptation of TaRL within
Lebanese schools.
4. It is important to engage relevant departments across MEHE and CERD to provide
quality ongoing teacher professional development on the TaRL approach to all
language and Mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. This includes initial
training, peer support (such as Teacher Learning Circles) and coaching/mentoring
delivered by a Peer Coach or Master Teacher. Further, establish an effective mentoring
system for teachers that enables MEHE, CERD, and relevant departments to identify
which teachers/schools may require additional support to uplift learning outcomes.
37 Teaching at the Right Level (n.d.)
38 While TaRL activities are typically implemented in classrooms with children in Grade 3 and above (J-PAL 2018), it has
been implemented for children in Grades 2–6, for example, in Morocco (Ibrahim et al. 2024).
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 39
5. If determined infeasible to implement TaRL sessions in schools, or as a complement
to the implementation of the TaRL sessions in schools, NGOs, and other Lebanon
Education Sector partners could consider integration of TaRL within existing non-
formal education programming, such as Basic Literacy and Numeracy or the
forthcoming compensation measures (such as an Accelerated Learning Program)
that target out-of-school children to prepare them for entry into the formal system.
Additionally, the TaRL approach could be used as an appropriate methodology for
existing academic or remedial support for children enrolled in public schools who
are at risk of drop-out that are implemented by NGOs, such as Retention Support.
As TaRL sessions are skills-based, they can be linked to any curriculum level or
curriculum objectives, making them simple and straightforward to use with any
learners who need support for foundational literacy and numeracy acquisition.
6. Given the current context of school closures and the majority of public schools being
used as shelters for internally-displaced persons, MEHE, CERD, and partners might
also explore the roll out of TaRL-like EdTech (e.g., adaptive learning apps)39,40 as part
of the education response.
39 Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) (n.d.)
40 Brookings Institution (2024)
40 World Bank
Annexes
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 41
Annex 1. Programs Identified in the
Mapping Exercise
Table A1.1. Programs Identified in Lebanon
Target Materials Evidence of
Program name Description Location grades Subjects available impact
A catch-up program
Math, Curricula,
The Learning designed to address Ongoing,
Public Grades English, lesson plans,
Recovery (LR) learning loss from not yet fully
Schools 1–6 French, assessments,
Program school disruptions, evaluated
Arabic, SEL SEL activities
including COVID-19
Jusoor- Internal
Provides educational
Refugee Community Grades Multiple Lesson plans, evaluations
support to Syrian
Education Centers 1–12 subjects assessments show positive
Program refugee children
impact
Amel
Association Summer catch-up No formal
Community Grades Multiple Booklets,
International- booklet programs for evaluation data
Centers 1–6 subjects lesson plans
Summer students available
Booklets
Islamic Relief- Internal
Remedial Remedial classes for Community Grades Multiple Lesson plans, evaluations
Support struggling students Centers 1–6 subjects assessments show
Classes improvement
Relief Remedial classes Curricula,
International- Public Grades Multiple Ongoing, data
focusing on lesson plans,
Remedial Schools 1–9 subjects being collected
Support foundational skills assessments
Mouvement Homework support Limited
Social- Community Grades Multiple Lesson plans,
and catch-up evaluation data
Homework Centers 1–6 subjects assessments
Support activities available
LASeR-Young Empowerment and Internal
Empowered Curricula,
educational support Public Grades Multiple evaluations
Secondary lesson plans,
for secondary Schools 7–12 subjects show positive
Students assessments
(YESS) students impact
Source: Mapping exercise
42 World Bank
Table A1.2. Relevant Programs Identified Internationally
Target Materials Evidence of
Program name Description Location grades Subjects available impact
Focuses on
developing key
Reading
reading and writing Demonstrated
Save the assessments,
skills through 36 countries Early significant
Children- Literacy teacher guides,
assessments, worldwide primary improvements
Literacy Boost community
teacher training, in literacy rates
resources
and community
engagement
Shown to
Numeracy improve
Save the Similar approach
assessments, numeracy
Children- to Literacy Boost, 8 countries Early
Numeracy teacher guides, skills,
Numeracy focusing on core worldwide primary
Boost community especially in
numeracy skills
resources low-income
settings
Positive
Nigeria— Addressed
Curricula, impacts
Education educational
Multiple Multiple lesson plans, on student
Crisis disruptions through Nigeria
grades subjects training attendance
Response catch-up classes and
Program materials and learning
learning centers
outcomes
Proven success
Short-term programs
Accelerated in reintegrating
for out-of-school Over- Curricula,
Education Multiple Multiple children
children to catch up age lesson plans,
Programs countries subjects into formal
(AEPs) and transition back to learners assessments
education
formal education
systems
Resilience in Addressed learning Curricula, Initial positive
the Return
disruptions caused Multiple Multiple lesson plans, indicators,
to Learning Lebanon
by crises, including grades subjects training ongoing
(Lebanon Case
Study) COVID-19 materials evaluation
Source: Mapping exercise
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 43
Annex 2. Sample Lesson Plan
Lesson Plan Topic: Arabic
Levels: 1–2
Day: Lesson 8
SAMPLE ACTIVITY SEQUENCE WEEK 2 – 2 LEVELS
Level Level 1 Level 2
minutes 10 SEL activity
نشاط :الخريطة الذهن ّ
ّية
•اطلب من األطفال إعطاء كلامت متعلّقة مبوضوع ّ
معنّي (مثال عن املوضوع :فواكه ،كرة القدم ،املدرسة) .
•اكتب الكلامت التي يقدّمها األطفال عىل اللوح وش ّ
جع جميع األطفال عىل املشاركة .
•شجعهم عىل التفكري خارج الصندوق والخروج بكلامت مختلفة متاما .
•مبجرد أن يكون لديك مجموعة متنوعة من الكلامت املكتوبة عىل اللوح ،اطلب من األطفال اقرتاح جمل باستخدام الكلمة يف الدائرة
وكلمة واحدة من الكلامت املتصلة بها .
(مالحظة :يف هذه املرحلة ،ميكن لألطفال نطق الجمل شفه ً
ًيا دون كتابتها) .
•ش ّ
جع أكرب عدد ممكن من األطفال عىل املشاركة .
Resources
minutes 10 Oral practice activity/story read aloud/Teaching Oral language practice activity/story read aloud/song
ّرف شكل وصوت حريف العني والقاف وقراءة حرف العني الهدف :تع ّ لهدف :التمييز بني الحرفني املتشابهني كتابة ع غ.
وحرف القاف مع الحركات واألصوات الطويلة. مراجعة الحروف األبجدّيّة مع الكرسة :
تقديم حريف :ع – ق يئ :يقرأ ّ
كل تلميذين الئحة الحروف األبجديّة •عمل ثنا ّ
رف التالميذ عىل اسم الحرف (عني /قاف) وصوته •املعلّم يع ّ مع الكرسة .
علم –ق) من خالل بطاقات تحوي صورة وكلمة (عَ : عْ / (ْ مراجعة الحرفني املتشابهني كتابة ع غ :
بعة – ِ
قرد – قَلم) . ّ ُ ق – َمر ق (ق: ة)، ب
َ ْ ل ع
ُ – نب ِ
ع – صفور ع
ُ
•املعلم ينمذج طريقة كتابة حريف ع غ يف أ ّ
ول وسط آخر
•املعلّم يقرأ الكلمة والتالميذ يُعيدون مع التشديد عىل حرف الكلمة .
العني وحرف القاف .
ً
وجماًل مع املعلّم تحوي هذه •يقرأ التالميذ كلامت
•املعلّم يكتب الحرف عىل اللوح باالتّجاه الصحيح وبخ ّ
ط كبري األحرف .
ويطلب من التالميذ مالحظة طريقة كتابته .
44 World Bank
SAMPLE ACTIVITY SEQUENCE WEEK 2 – 2 LEVELS
Level Level 1 Level 2
•املعلّم يقدّم حريف العني والقاف يف أ ّ
ول وسط آخر الكلمة .
•املعلّم يطلب من التالميذ أن يقرأوا معه حريف العني والقاف
ق ُ
ق قِ ) . ع عِ) ْ
(ق َ ع ُ مع األصوات القصرية ( ْ
ع َ
•املعلّم يطلب من التالميذ أن يقرأوا معه حريف العني والقاف
مع األصوات الطويلة (عا عو عي عيـ) (قا قو قي قيـ) .
•املعلّم يربط الحروف ويؤلّف كلامت ،ث ّ
م يطلب من التالميذ
أن يقرأوا الكلامت التي يكتبها عىل اللوح :
مقا ِ
عد رقِ
قرد َ ع باعَ قادَ بَ ْ
مَسِ •عادََ
سعيد راعيَ
سل عََ
Resources
minutes 5 Brain break/energizer/mindfulness
أغنية :أين مشمش؟ (آدم ومشمش) من يوتيوب .
https://youtu.be/3yKKpH7tOrU
Resources
minutes 20 Small Group Activity Small Group Activity
كل تلميذين ( 3م ّ
رات) حريف العني والقاف •عمل ثنا ّ
يئ :يقرأ ّ كل تلميذين ( 3م ّ
رات) جمل ع غ . •عمل ثنا ّ
يئ :يقرأ ّ
(مع األصوات القصرية واألصوات الطويلة) والكلامت .
•يعمل التالميذ عىل متارين ع غ عىل الدفرت .
Resources دفرت التلميذ .
minutes 20 Individual Activity Individual Activity
كّل تلميذ عىل مترين حول حرف العني ومترين حول حرف القاف يعمل ّ يجمع ّ
كّل تلميذ الحروف ويكتب الكلامت عىل الدفرت :
عىل الدفرت --- .يكتب املعلم الكلامت عىل اللوح وينّفّذ التالميذ التمرين
ع ا د س ع ي د
عىل الدفرت .
س م ع ب ا ع
غ ز ا ل ي غ س ل
غ ا زُ غُ ر ا ب
دفرت التلميذ .
Resources دفرت التلميذ .
minutes 5 Closing activity – Think, Pair Share Closing activity – Think, Pair, Share
يعطي التالميذ كلامت تحوي حرف العني وحرف القاف . يشارك التالميذ عملهم ويص ّ
ّححونه .
Homework Homework
Resources
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 45
Activity Resources
Day _8_
Activity number _8_
:Level 1
بعة— ِ
قرد—قَلم) ميكن تحضري البطاقات عىل ورقة مع تغليف .teehs detanimal عل ْ َ
بة)( ،ق :قَمر—قُ ّ عصفور –ِ
عنب— ُ •بطاقات تحوي صورة وكلمة (عَ :
علم— ُ
•ورقة القراءة :
قراءة
ُع ِعِ عا عو عي عيـ َع ُْع َْ
َق ُ
ُق ِقِ قا قو قي قيـ ْق َ ْ
َع َ
َسل َمقا ِ
ِعد َ ْرقِ
ِقردَ َدَ بَ ْ
َع باَعَ قا َ َس ِ
ِم َ َسعيد راعيَ َدَ عا َ
•مترين حرف العني .
•مترين حرف القاف .
46 World Bank
:Level 2
•لوحة الحروف األبجديّة مع الكرسة .
ِك ِض ِ ِد ِ ِإِ ِ
ِل ِط ِ ِذ ِ ِب ِ ِ
ِم ِظ ِ ِت ِ رِ ِ ِ
ِث ِ زِ ِ عِ ِ نِ ِ
ِه ِس ِغِ ِ ِج ِ
ِ
ِو ِش ِ
ِف ِ ِح ِ ِ
ِص ِقِ ِ
ِي ِخ ِ ِ
•ورقة قراءة ( ع غ :)
قراءة
َن َ
َب سعيد . ِدل ِ
ِع َ َع عا ِ
با َ
غزال غازي يف الغابة .
مترين حرف ع ومترين حرف غ .
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 47
Annex 3. Teacher Training Report
Methodology
Teachers were provided with two-day training to deliver the TaRL pilot. To assess changes in
knowledge level acquired after the training, a pre- and post-test was completed. Two tests
were conducted: Literacy Pre- and Post-test and Numeracy Pre- and Post-test.
All teachers who attended the training were asked to fill the test using a KOBO link. The tests
were available in all languages, Arabic, English, and French. Teachers were asked to choose
a code to ease the process of matching both pre- and post-tests when analyzing the data.
Findings
Literacy test
Socio-demographic characteristics
Collectively, 116 pre- and 116 post-tests were submitted. Upon cleaning, only 101 forms were
matched and analyzed. The majority of respondents were females (N=98, 97%) and from
the North governorate (N=35, 35%), followed by Bekaa (N=19, 19%), and Baalbeck-Hermel
(N=16, 16%) governorates. Table A3.1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents of the 101 respondents.
48 World Bank
Table A3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Teachers Completed the Literacy Test (N=101)
Variable Item Frequency Percentage
Gender Female 98 97%
Male 3 3%
Governorate Akkar 10 10%
Baalbeck -Hermel 16 16%
Beirut 11 11%
Bekaa 19 19%
Nabateye 1 1%
Mount Lebanon 6 6%
North 35 35%
South 3 3%
Source: Pilot data
Results of the Tests
Overall, the training increased scores by an average of 23 percent—72 of the 101 teachers
demonstrated an improvement in scores post training, 8 showed no change, and 21 showed
a decrease in scores. Table A3.2 below presents the questions, along with the summary of
teachers’ responses before and after the training.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 49
Table A3.2. Literacy Teacher Training Pre- and Post- Assessment Results
Pre-test Post-test
Questions Choices Freq. % Freq. %
Basic literacy and numeracy skills that provide
fundamental building blocks for all other learning, 31 31% 10 10%
knowledge, and skills
Basic literacy skills that provide fundamental
building blocks for all other learning, knowledge, 24 24% 17 17%
1. What is and skills
foundational
learning? Basic literacy, numeracy, and transferable skills
16 16% 10 10%
such as social emotional skills*
Basic literacy, numeracy and transferable skills
such as social emotional skills that provide the
30 30% 64 63%
fundamental building blocks for all other learning,
knowledge, and higher order skills
To develop student’s critical thinking skills 9 9% 1 1%
2. What is the To enable a child to achieve age and grade
54 53% 26 26%
main focus of the appropriate learning outcomes
teaching at the
right level (TaRL) To improve a student’s foundational literacy
36 36% 71 70%
approach? and/or numeracy skills*
To promote social-emotional development 2 2% 3 3%
All of the above* 71 70% 69 68%
3. Which of the
following is a Assessment—Grouping—Recording 4 4% 16 16%
key element of
the Teaching at Mentoring & Support 8 8% 6 6%
the Right Level
approach? Teaching & learning materials—Activities—Lesson
18 18% 10 10%
plans
4. In a Teaching By current learning level* 54 53% 79 78%
at the Right
Level classroom, By curriculum standards 7 7% 1 1%
how are children By grade level 40 40% 20 20%
grouped after an
assessment? By Age 0 0% 1 1%
5. In a Teaching
at the Right FALSE 34 34% 11 11%
Level classroom,
a teacher may
group children
of certain levels TRUE* 67 66% 90 89%
together.
*Indicates a correct answer
50 World Bank
Pre-test Post-test
Questions Choices Freq. % Freq. %
By promoting competition between students 1 1% 1 1%
By providing remedial education support to
51 50% 72 71%
6. How does struggling students at their current learning level*
the Teaching at
the Right Level By providing remedial education to struggling
address learning students using grade and age appropriate 40 40% 21 21%
gaps? curriculum standards
By repeating grade and age appropriate activities
9 9% 7 7%
during extra classes
A combination of leveled activities and grade
46 46% 21 21%
appropriate activities
Grade appropriate textbooks 7 7% 2 2%
7. Teaching at
the Right Level Scope and sequence of activities to support
uses: students in progressing within literacy and/or 23 23% 55 54%
numeracy
Specific leveled activities tailored to a student’s
25 25% 23 23%
individual learning level*
Letter—syllable—word—sentences—story* 72 71% 71 70%
8. Students
learn to read by Letter—word—sentences—story 14 14% 24 24%
the following Story—sentences—word—letter 11 11% 3 3%
sequence:
Word—letter—sentences—story 4 4% 3 3%
9. Most students
are able to listen FALSE 41 41% 56 55%
to and answer
questions about
a story that is TRUE* 60 59% 45 45%
read to them
Children first demonstrate an activity to the
whole class and then complete the activity 9 9% 2 2%
individually
The teacher demonstrates the activity to the
10. Students will whole class, children then practice in small 81 80% 91 90%
learn best if: groups and individually*
The teacher only asks children to practice in
11 11% 6 6%
small groups
The teacher asks students to only practice an
0 0% 2 2%
activity individually
*Indicates a correct answer
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 51
Numeracy Test
Socio-demographic characteristics
Collectively, 32 pre- and 32 post-tests were submitted. Upon cleaning, only 24 forms were
matched and analyzed. The majority of respondents were females (N=17, 71%) and from the
North governorate (N=8, 33%), followed by Bekaa (N=4, 17%) governorate. Table A3.3 shows
the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents of the 24 respondents.
Table A3.3. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Teachers Completed the Numeracy Test (N=24)
Variable Item Frequency Percentage
Female 17 71%
Gender
Male 7 29%
Akkar 3 13%
Baalbeck-Hermel 3 13%
Beirut 2 8%
Governorate Bekaa 4 17%
Mount Lebanon 3 13%
North 8 33%
South 1 4%
Source: Pilot data
Results of the Numeracy Test
Overall, the training increased scores by an average of 34 percent. 15 of the 24 teachers
demonstrated an improvement in scores post training, 5 showed no change, and 4 showed
a decrease in scores. Table A3.4 below presents the questions, along with the summary of
teachers’ responses before and after the training.
52 World Bank
Table A3.4. Numeracy Pre- & Post-assessment Results for Teacher Training Activity
Pre-test Post-test
Question Choices Freq. % Freq. %
Basic literacy skills that provide fundamental
building blocks for all other learning, 6 25% 1 4%
knowledge, and skills
Basic literacy and numeracy skills that
provide fundamental building blocks for all 6 25% 10 42%
What is other learning, knowledge, and skills*
foundational
learning? Basic literacy, numeracy and transferable skills
such as social emotional skills that provide
10 42% 12 50%
the fundamental building blocks for all other
learning, knowledge, and higher order skills.
Basic literacy, numeracy, and transferable
2 8% 1 4%
skills such as social emotional skills
To develop student’s critical thinking skills 3 13% 1 4%
What is the
To improve a student’s foundational literacy
main focus of 9 38% 15 63%
the teaching and/or numeracy skills*
at the right To promote social-emotional development 0 0% 0 0%
level (TaRL)
approach? To enable a child to achieve age and grade
12 50% 8 33%
appropriate learning outcomes
Assessment—Grouping—Recording 4 17% 3 13%
Which of the
following is a Teaching & learning materials—Activities—
key element of 0 0% 3 13%
Lesson plans
the Teaching at
the Right Level Mentoring and support 3 13% 0 0%
approach?
All of the above* 17 71% 18 75%
In a Teaching at By grade level 5 21% 3 13%
the Right Level
classroom, how By age 0 0% 0 0%
are children By current learning level* 14 58% 21 88%
grouped after
an assessment: By curriculum standards 5 21% 0 0%
In a Teaching at
the Right Level TRUE* 14 58% 16 67%
classroom, a
teacher may
group children
of certain levels FALSE 10 42% 8 33%
together.
*Indicates a correct answer
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 53
Pre-test Post-test
Question Choices Freq. % Freq. %
By promoting competition between students 2 8% 1 4%
By providing remedial education support to
struggling students at their current learning 10 42% 18 75%
How does
level*
the Teaching
at the Right By providing remedial education to struggling
Level address
students using grade and age-appropriate 9 38% 4 17%
learning gaps:
curriculum standards
By repeating grade and age-appropriate
3 13% 1 4%
activities during extra classes
Scope and sequence of activities to support
students in progressing within literacy and/or 4 17% 11 46%
numeracy
Teaching at Specific leveled activities tailored to a
the Right Level 7 29% 8 33%
student’s individual learning level*
uses:
Grade appropriate textbooks 3 13% 0 0%
A combination of leveled activities and grade
10 42% 5 21%
appropriate activities
Number recognition; basic addition
and subtraction with place value; basic 11 46% 16 67%
multiplication and division*
Place value; number recognition; basic
addition and subtraction; and basic 7 29% 3 13%
Students learn
to read by multiplication and division
the following Number recognition; basic addition and
sequence:
subtraction; basic multiplication and division; 4 17% 1 4%
and place value
Basic addition and subtraction with place
value; number recognition; and basic 2 8% 4 17%
multiplication and division
Opportunity to master regrouping in all
13 54% 19 79%
basic Mathematical operations*
Understanding
place value Skills for basic addition and subtraction 2 8% 3 13%
provides
students with: Skills for basic multiplication and division 4 17% 0 0%
Skills for basic addition 5 21% 2 8%
*Indicates a correct answer
54 World Bank
Pre-test Post-test
Question Choices Freq. % Freq. %
The teacher asks students to only practice an
1 4% 1 4%
activity individually
Children first demonstrate an activity to the
whole class and then complete the activity 3 13% 3 13%
Students will individually
learn best if: The teacher demonstrates the activity to the
whole class, children then practice in small 15 63% 18 75%
groups and individually*
The teacher only asks children to practice in
5 21% 2 8%
small groups
*Indicates a correct answer
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 55
Annex 4. Classroom Observation Tool
TaRL Literacy Arabic Monitoring Tool
School Name: ___________________________________________________________________ CERD Number:___________________________________________________________
Teacher’s Name: _____________________________________________________________ Sex Female Male
Name of Education Officer: ______________________________________ Date of monitoring visit: _________________________________________
Partially
Item #
Not yet met Fully met Not
Item description (<50%) (50–80%) (>80%) applicable Notes / comments
Pre- session observation
1 Necessary materials
for the session are well
prepared.
2 The classroom
environment is
appropriate (e.g.,
adequate, clean, safe,
comfortable etc.)
3 Literacy Charts are
well displayed in the
classroom.
Session activities
1 The teacher has the
lesson plan open at
correct page.
2 Session starts with
an SEL activity for the
whole group.
3 The teacher groups
children according to
their level
4 Activities follow the
sequence of the lesson
plan, with a variety of
literacy activities (oral,
reading, writing).
56 World Bank
Partially
Item #
Not yet met Fully met Not
Item description (<50%) (50–80%) (>80%) applicable Notes / comments
5 When kids get tired,
the teacher uses a
quick energizing activity
instead of waiting for
the regular break.
6 A mix of formats (whole
group, small groups, or
pairs, individual) is used
throughout the session
to maximize students’
engagement.
7 Whenever a text is read
aloud (by facilitator or
learner) techniques
are used to maximize
all learners’ reading of
the text (e.g., spot the
mistake, taking turns
reading, follow with
finger).
8 For the letter and word
level, the syllables and
word resources are used
properly to support the
decoding of letters,
syllables, and words.
9 At the sentence and
paragraph/story levels,
children have the
opportunity to read and
write, with the support
of their teacher.
10 Session ends with an
appropriate reflection
and/or reinforcement
activity.
Children’s experience
1 All or nearly all children
(> 80%) are actively
engaged and appearing
to enjoy the activities.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 57
Partially
Item #
Not yet met Fully met Not
Item description (<50%) (50–80%) (>80%) applicable Notes / comments
2 Children appeared to
understand directions
and content of each
activity.
3 Children worked well
together when paired or
in smaller groups.
4 Boys and girls
participate equally.
Teacher attitude and practice
1 Teacher fully engaged
in overall organization
and running of session.
2 Teacher interacts
well with the children
(positive, encouraging,
and lively).
3 Teacher uses positive
discipline to manage
the children when
they misbehave [if
applicable].
4 Teacher creates a
safe and motivational
environment in the
classroom.
5 Teachers provide
individualized support
to students, addressing
their specific challenges
(e.g., if appear unhappy/
distracted...).
6 Teacher can provide
equitable support
across different levels.
7 The teacher assesses
and moves students
between groups
according to their level.
58 World Bank
Partially
Item #
Not yet met Fully met Not
Item description (<50%) (50–80%) (>80%) applicable Notes / comments
8 The Teacher creates
fun innovations
or adaptations
that contribute to
strengthening relevant
literacy skills.
9 The teacher records
attendance and
makes notes of absent
students.
Reflections summary form
REFLECTIONS FROM TEACHER
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 59
Feedback summary form
FEEDBACK TO TEACHER
Score Criteria
The task or goal is yet to be started, and no steps have been taken
Not Yet (<50%)
towards its accomplishment.
Significant progress has been made towards completing the task or
Partially met (50-80%)
goal, but some aspects or requirements are still pending.
Fully met (>80%) All aspects of the task or goal have been successfully completed.
Not applicable The goal is not relevant or applicable.
60 World Bank
Annex 5. Results by Gender and Grade
Gender
Learning outcome results were further analyzed to identify any gender differences across
shifts and subjects. The results presented in this section are descriptive, with further research
required to determine if there are true gender differences in the impact of the program, and
if so, to identify the drivers of these gender differences.
At baseline, boys were more likely to be at Level 1 (Letter identification) than girls in Arabic
(AM shift: 44% vs 38%; PM shift: 58% vs 47%; and control group: 44% vs 38%). This trend
was repeated across Foreign Languages, with boys more likely than girls to be at Level 1
(Letter identification) (AM shift: 60% vs 55%; PM shift: 78% vs 72%; and control group: 74% vs
66%). There was no significant gender difference between boys and girls at Level 1 (number
recognition) at baseline in Mathematics.
Between baseline and endline for the First shift (AM) and Second shift (PM) in Arabic, both
boys and girls showed improvement, although more girls than boys reach Level 5 (reading a
story) for both shifts (AM shift: 21.91% F compared to 18.51% M; PM shift: 9.17% F, 5.72% M).
For Foreign Languages in the AM shift, both boys and girls showed improvement between
baseline and endline although more girls reach Level 5 (story reading or foundational level)
than boys (21.91% F, 5.27% M). In the PM shift, 2.05% of boys and 2.70% of girls reached Level 5.
For Mathematics, a similar percentage of boys and girls in the AM shift reached Level 5
(19.65% F, 18.73% M). The baseline and endline results for both girls and boys appear to mirror
each other for both AM and PM shift.
Grade
Both grades showed significant improvements in the intervention group compared to the
control group across all subjects. The magnitude of improvement in the treatment groups for
Grade 3 was higher than in Grade 4 for Arabic and Mathematics, indicating that the intervention
may have been slightly more effective for Grade 3 students. The level of improvement in the
intervention group for Grade 3 Foreign Language was marginally less than that of Grade 4
students. The treatment groups for Grades 3 and 4 in all subjects consistently show a larger
improvement than in the control groups, demonstrating the positive impact of the TARL
approach across both grades and all subjects.
It is worth noting that Grade 3 students had a lower starting base than Grade 4 students. On
average, Grade 4 students also had higher levels at endline than Grade 3 students.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 61
Figure A5.1. Learning Outcomes by Gender, Across Groups and Subjects
Arabic, treatment - AM shift Arabic, control Arabic, treatment - PM shift
Female Male Female Male Female Male
100 100 100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75 75 75
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
50 50 50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Foreign Language, treatment - AM shift Foreign Language, control Foreign Language, treatment - PM shift
Female Male Female Male Female Male
100 100 100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75 75 75
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
50 50 50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Mathematics, treatment - AM shift Mathematics, control Mathematics, treatment - PM shift
Female Male Female Male Female Male
100 100 100 100 100 100
75 75 75 75 75 75
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
50 50 50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1 LEVEL 5 4 3 2 1
Source: Pilot data
62 World Bank
Fig A5.2. Mean Scores Across Subjects and Treatment Status Among AM Shift Students in Grade 3
(Baseline and Endline)
Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics
Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control
5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
3.46 3.36
2.86
3 3 2.66 3 2.73 3 3 3
2.52
SCORE
SCORE
2.31 1.85 SCORE 2.31
1.99
2 2 2 2 2 2
1.55 1.61
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Source: Pilot data
Fig A5.3. Mean Scores Across Subjects and Treatment Status Among AM Shift Students in Grade 4
(Baseline and Endline)
Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics
Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control Treatment - AM shift Control
5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
3.27 3.27
3 3 3 3 3 3
2.49 2.63 2.59
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
2.20
2.06 2.08 2.12
2 2 2 2
1.82 2 2
1.46 1.43
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Source: Pilot data
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 63
PM shift
The differences between Grade 3 and Grade 4 in the PM shift improvements are relatively
small across all subjects. As stated in the main report, the PM shift students improved less
between baseline and endline than AM shift students.
Grade 3 students had slightly higher improvements in Arabic and Foreign Language, while
Grade 4 students improved more in Mathematics. The variations in improvement levels
suggest that both grades benefited, though the extent of the benefit varied slightly depending
on the subject.
Fig A5.4. Mean Scores Across Subjects Among PM Fig A5.5. Mean Scores Across Subjects Among PM
Shift Students in Grade 3 (Baseline and Endline) Shift Students in Grade 4 (Baseline and Endline)
Across subjects Across subjects
Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics Arabic Foreign Language Mathematics
5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
2.85 3 3 2.73
2.44 2.39
SCORE
SCORE
2.11 2.19 2.13
1.93 1.99
2 2 2 2 2 2
1.51 1.42
1.30
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Source: Pilot data
64 World Bank
Annex 6. Classroom Observation Results
Breakdown
The findings from classroom observations across all regions for all subjects are presented below.
Arabic Literacy
Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and South
► Pre-session preparation: All teachers fully met the criteria for session material
preparation, but only 50 percent managed an appropriate classroom environment due
to high student numbers. Literacy charts were prominently displayed by all teachers.
► Session activities: Teachers had their lesson plans open to the correct page and
started sessions with an SEL activity. Teachers effectively grouped children by level
and employed various techniques to engage students actively.
► Children’s experience: Four teachers had more than 80 percent of students actively
engaged and enjoying activities. Teachers assessed children’s comprehension
effectively, though group work and direction clarity needed improvement.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Teachers demonstrated positive interaction and discipline
management, with most creating a safe, motivational environment. Individualized
support and formative assessments were integrated effectively by four teachers.
Tripoli and Akkar
► Pre-session preparation: All six teachers were well-prepared with session materials.
Four teachers maintained an adequate classroom environment, and five had well-
displayed literacy charts.
► Session activities: Five teachers had lesson plans correctly open and stated lesson
objectives. SEL activities were integrated by all teachers, and grouping by level was
achieved effectively by most.
► Children’s experience: The majority of teachers engaged students well, though group
work effectiveness and direction clarity varied. Equal participation between boys and
girls was largely achieved.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Teachers generally interacted positively with students,
managed discipline effectively, and created a motivational environment. However,
some teachers needed to improve individualized support and formative assessments.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 65
Bekaa, Baalback, and Hermel
► Pre-session preparation: Eight out of eleven teachers met material preparation
standards. Overcrowded classrooms affected environment quality for two teachers.
Literacy charts were displayed effectively by ten teachers.
► Session activities: Most teachers had lesson plans open correctly and integrated SEL
activities. Activities followed the lesson plan sequence well, though some teachers
struggled with group work and varied engagement techniques.
► Children’s experience: Most teachers kept students engaged, though space
constraints hindered group work. Teachers generally assessed comprehension well.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Teachers used positive discipline, created motivational
environments, and provided equitable support across different levels. Formative
assessments and fun innovations were successfully integrated by most teachers.
Foreign Language Literacy
Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and South
► Pre-session preparation: All teachers were well-prepared, with five maintaining an
appropriate environment. Literacy charts were displayed by all teachers.
► Session activities: Lesson plans were used correctly, and most teachers started
sessions with SEL activities. Grouping by level and using various engagement
techniques were partially met by some teachers.
► Children’s experience: Teachers engaged students well, though direction clarity and
group work effectiveness needed improvement. Equal participation was mostly achieved.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Positive interaction and discipline management were
common. Teachers created motivational environments and integrated formative
assessments effectively.
Tripoli and Akkar
► Pre-session preparation: Teachers were well-prepared, though classroom environments
varied. Literacy charts were displayed effectively by most teachers.
► Session activities: Lesson plans were used correctly, and SEL activities were integrated
by most teachers. Grouping by level and engagement techniques varied in effectiveness.
► Children’s experience: Most teachers engaged students well, though group work
needed improvement. Equal participation was largely achieved.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Teachers managed discipline effectively, created moti-
vational environments, and provided individualized support, and formative assessments.
66 World Bank
Bekaa, Baalback, and Hermel
► Pre-session preparation: Preparation standards were mostly met, though classroom
environment quality varied. Literacy charts were displayed effectively.
► Session activities: Lesson plans and SEL activities were used correctly by most teachers.
Grouping by level and using various engagement techniques varied in effectiveness.
► Children’s experience: Teachers engaged students well, though group work needed
improvement. Equal participation was common.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Positive interaction and discipline management were
common. Teachers created motivational environments and provided equitable support
and formative assessments.
Mathematics
Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and South
► Pre-session preparation: Most teachers were well-prepared, with an appropriate
environment and displayed numeracy charts.
► Session activities: Lesson plans were used correctly, and SEL activities were integrated.
Grouping by level and engagement techniques were generally effective.
► Children’s experience: Students were engaged and enjoyed activities. Group work
and direction clarity varied.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Teachers interacted positively, managed discipline, and
created motivational environments. Individualized support and formative assessments
were integrated effectively.
Tripoli and Akkar
► Pre-session preparation: Preparation standards were met, though classroom
environments varied. Numeracy charts were displayed effectively.
► Session activities: Lesson plans and SEL activities were used correctly. Grouping by
level and using various engagement techniques varied in effectiveness.
► Children’s experience: Students were engaged and enjoyed activities. Group work
and direction clarity varied.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Positive interaction and discipline management were
common. Teachers created motivational environments and provided individualized
support and formative assessments.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 67
Bekaa, Baalback, and Hermel
► Pre-session preparation: Preparation standards were mostly met, though classroom
environments varied. Numeracy charts were displayed effectively.
► Session activities: Lesson plans and SEL activities were used correctly. Grouping by
level and engagement techniques varied in effectiveness.
► Children’s experience: Students were engaged and enjoyed activities. Group work
and direction clarity varied.
► Teacher attitude and practice: Positive interaction and discipline management were
common. Teachers created motivational environments and provided individualized
support and formative assessments.
Summary and Recommendations
Successes
► Effective use of SEL activities and engaging lesson plans.
► Positive teacher-student interactions and discipline management.
► Successful integration of formative assessments and individualized support.
Challenges
► Overcrowded classrooms in the North governorate affected group work and
individualized attention.
► Varying effectiveness in using engagement techniques and grouping by level.
► Need for more resources and improved classroom environments.
Recommendations
► Enhance Training: Focus on classroom management, engagement techniques, and
individualized support.
► Improve Infrastructure: Address overcrowded classrooms and improve learning
environments.
► Continuous Monitoring: Implement regular monitoring and provide feedback to
support teacher development.
68 World Bank
Annex 7. Costing Methodology
The annex below provides further details on the data used for the pilot costing analysis.
Cost data
This cost analysis is based upon “General Ledger” spending data from “Agresso” , SCI’s financial
management system of record, exported from Agresso in July 2024. The analysis includes
actual spending data from January 2022 through June 2024. It uses an “ingredients based
approach” to cost efficiency analysis and includes both direct costs of the program (materials,
activities, program staff, travel, etc., which are specific to the project being costed) as well
as shared costs (operating costs of the SCI Lebanon country office which are shared across
projects), and the standard cost categories utilized by the Dioptra Cost Analysis Platform. The
cost data was extensively reviewed by Lebanon Country Office staff familiar with the project
to ensure accuracy and reliability.
This analysis does not include societal costs such as the opportunity cost of participation in
the program or the cost to government partners (Ministry of Education and Higher Education)
beyond those allocated for in the project budget. This analysis does not include indirect cost
recovery (ICR) by the implementer (SCI).
Program data
Data on the number of students enrolled in the AM and PM shifts, as well as the number
of schools and teachers participating in each part of the program were provided by
the monitoring evaluation and learning (MEAL) staff of SCI-Lebanon using the project’s
participant enrollment databases. The average number of hours of instructional time per
subject was provided by the project management team, using the project design and
curriculum planning documents.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 69
References
Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). 2018. “Teaching at the Right Level to Improve
Learning.” J-PAL Evidence to Policy Case Study. Last modified August 2022. https://www.
povertyactionlab.org/case-study/teaching-right-level-improve-learning.
Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). n.d. “Disrupting Education: Experimental
Evidence on Technology-Aided Instruction in India.” Accessed October 2024. https://www.
povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/disrupting-education-evidence-technology-aided-
instruction-india.
Banerjee, A., R. Banerji, J. Berry, E. Duflo, H. Kannan, S. Mukherji, M. Shotland, and M. Walton. 2016.
“Mainstreaming an effective intervention: Evidence from randomized evaluations of “Teaching
at the Right Level” in India.” Working Paper 22746, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, MA.
Beg, S., A. Fitzpatrick, and A.M. Lucas. 2023. “How Much Learning Loss Was Mitigated during
COVID-19? Evidence from Kenya.” Working Paper 31757, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, MA.
Binaoui, A., M. Moubtassime, and L. Belfakir. 2023. “The Effectiveness of the TaRL Approach on
Moroccan Pupils’ Mathematics, Arabic, and French Reading Competencies.” International Journal
of Education and Management Engineering 13 (3): 1–10.
Brookings Institution. 2024. “Increasing Math Skills in 5 Countries: Key Factors in Scaling a Low-
Tech Education Intervention from Botswana.” Accessed October 2024.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/increasing-Mathematics-skills-in-5-countries-key-
factors-in-scaling-a-low-tech-education-intervention-from-botswana/.
Evans, D. K., and A. Mendez Acosta. 2021. “Cost-Effective Approaches to Improve Global Learning:
What Does Recent Evidence Tell Us Are Smart Buys for Improving Learning in Low- and Middle-
Income Countries?” World Bank, Washington, DC.
Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel. 2023. “Cost-Effective Approaches to Improve Global
Learning: What Does Recent Evidence Tell Us Are ‘Smart Buys’ for Improving Learning in Low-
and Middle-Income Countries?” Department for International Development, World Bank,
UNICEF, and USAID. London, Washington DC, New York.
Ibrahim, R., A. de Barros, P. Deschênes, and P. Glewwe. 2024. “The Best Buy? Prospective Evidence
on Successful Remediation in Morocco’s Public Primary Schools (Preliminary Report).” Abdul Latif
Jameel Poverty Action Lab. Accessed October 2024.
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/Prospective%20evidence%20on%20
successful%20remediation%20in%20Morocco%20%28Preliminary%20Report%29.pdf.
70 World Bank
Kheyfets, I., and A. Pushparatnam. 2023. “Another Lost Year? Estimating the Educational and
Economic Costs of Lebanon’s Public School Closures in 2022-23.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
Lipovsek, V., D. Kabutha Nyaga, T. Vinithkumar, and N. Awiti. 2023. “Reflections on Systems
Practice: Implementing Teaching at the Right Level in Zambia.” In Implementing Teaching at the
Right Level: Insights from Inside Government Systems, edited by M. Gandolfi and J. Rossiter.
NORRAG Special Issue 08. Geneva: NORRAG. https://teachingattherightlevel.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/05/NORRAG_Book_04_TaRL_Reflections_on_systems_practice.pdf.
Pratham Education Foundation. n.d. “Teaching at the Right Level.” Accessed October 2024.
https://www.pratham.org/about/teaching-at-the-right-level/.
Steponavičius, M., C. Gress-Wright, and A. Linzarini. 2023. “Social and Emotional Skills: Latest
Evidence on Teachability and Impact on Life Outcomes.” OECD Education Working Papers 304,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
Teaching at the Right Level. n.d. “Classroom Methodology.” Accessed October 2024.
https://teachingattherightlevel.org/classroom-methodology/.
Teaching at the Right Level. n.d.a. “Kenya.” Accessed October 2024.
https://teachingattherightlevel.org/kenya/.
Teaching at the Right Level. n.d.b. “Nigeria.” Accessed October 2024.
https://teachingattherightlevel.org/nigeria/.
UNICEF. 2024. “The Benefits of Investing in School-Based Mental Health Support.” UNICEF, New
York.
UNICEF Lebanon. 2024. “Lebanon Humanitarian Situation Report #3.” UNICEF Lebanon Country
Office, Beirut.
World Bank. 2018. “Lebanon PISA 2018.” Accessed October 2024.
https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/435071580399593024-0280022020/original/
LEBANONPISABrief2018.pdf
World Bank. 2019. “Ghana Accountability for Learning Outcomes Project.” Project Appraisal
Document, World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2020. “The Human Capital Index 2020 Update: Human Capital in the Time of
COVID-19.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2023. “Lebanon Economic Monitor: The Normalization of Crisis Is No Road for
Stabilization.” World Bank, Beirut.
World Bank. 2024. “Lebanon Poverty and Equity Assessment 2024: Weathering a Protracted Crisis.”
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Pilot of a Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)-Based Approach in Lebanon 71