Evaluation of Karnataka Model School Pathways Program (KMSPP)

Sambodhi > Education & skills > Evaluation of Karnataka Model School Pathways Program (KMSPP)

Evaluation of Karnataka Model School Pathways Program (KMSPP)

Sattva Media and Consulting, with the support of the Karnataka government, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and Young India Philanthropic Pledge (YIPP), aimed to launch Karnataka Model Schools Pathways Program (KMSPP). This program aimed to transform 105 schools and their co-located anganwadis across districts and provide a replicable blueprint for National Education Policy (NEP) adoption in Karnataka. 

The current project will collaborate with multiple partners, including India Literacy Project (ILP), Sikshana Foundation, Yuva Unstoppable, Quest Alliance, Udhyam, and Ernst & Young (EY) to create a replicable and scalable approach to NEP adoption in Karnataka. 

Sambodhi was engaged as an evaluation and knowledge partner to conduct an overarching program evaluation involving process and summative evaluation rounds at different points. 

The program comprised the following components: 

(i) Capacity building,

(ii) Holistic learning support,

(iii) Community Engagement, and

(iv) Infrastructure Augmentation

The program adopted “Sattva’s School Maturity Model” (S2M2) as Model School Pathway to graduate schools to different levels.

Sambodhi was responsible for designing methodology, actual data collection, and analysis of primary insights from key stakeholders, including students, teachers, principals, SMC/SDMC members, and government officials. It was also responsible for contributing to report writing and communicating the findings to Sattva. The evaluation was divided into three summative evaluation rounds (baseline, midline, and endline) and two process evaluation rounds. Sambodhi administered three quantitative surveys – one with the students, one with the teachers, and one with HMs in each evaluation round. 

The first type of survey helped identify the present learning characteristics of the program students and compared them with the features of the matched non-program students in each evaluation round. The second and third types of surveys captured the perception of HMs and teachers in the program regarding their professional and capacity development. They helped identify the scope for scaling up some of these interventions. 

In addition, the qualitative assessment was administered through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews of various stakeholders like teachers, HMs, and government officials. The focus was on data collection, and the insights from the primary surveys and qualitative rounds were synthesized into detailed evaluation reports. In addition to these evaluation rounds, process evaluation rounds involving school observations and qualitative interactions were done with 20 non-sampled schools.