education, the percentage of mothers who work, and the percentage of fathers who have professional/managerial jobs as well as the percentage who work in sales/service.

# **5 Results**

# **_5.1 Measures of consistency_**

In Table 1 we present mean proportions from the QAS tool and diagnostic research tool for each indicator. We also present mean class level and school level categorical and overall ratings, ranging from 1-4 (below minimum to achieved). An important initial finding is that, on a national level, the tools are generally showing similar results about quality for items, levels, and overall, based on similar means. Items with the exact same question in both tools tend to be more similar, as well as items that are easy to observe, such as inadequate light (10.9% in both tools), and class size below 36 (57.5% in the QAS tool, 56.7% in the diagnostic research tool). More subjective measures as well as measures based on different questions vary more, such as pedagogy or some infrastructure questions, for instance the different questions for adequate outdoor space (66.7% meet standard using data from the QAS tool and 80.1% in the diagnostic research tool).

Questions about children’s life skills do not yield similar means, but this may be because a different scale of responses was used for the two tools, even with the same questions. Foundational and multi-disciplinary skill questions, which are identical (questions and responses), do yield similar means. Differences in pedagogy and materials may also be related to observation time. For instance, the QAS tool captures a much lower level of having and using writing utensils (63.9% meet standard versus 84.6% for the diagnostic research tool data) and classroom management tools (41.6% meet standard versus 77.1% for diagnostic research tool data).

Turning now to the measures of agreement; it is important to keep in mind that exact agreement is often high by chance when items are rare or universal (e.g. desks, 90.2% exact agreement, as desks are 94.8% at standard in the QAS tool and 91.9% in the diagnostic research tool). We therefore focus our discussion of the agreement results on the kappa.

Kappa is substantial (0.6 to <0.8) or almost perfect (0.8-1.00) for a limited number of specific items and only among overall and the sub-dimensions for teacher supports at the school level (0.625) and classroom level (0.636). The only items with almost perfect agreement are the class size and the student-teacher ratio. The items with substantial agreement were other hazards, being trained on the curriculum, and the three foundational skills (letter recognition, name writing, and counting to 10).

On the other end of the spectrum were the items with poor kappa (indoor space, kappa=-0.043), and slight (0 to <.0.2) strength of agreement (writing utensils and manipulatives; individualized teaching, correcting misbehavior, discussion, open-ended, relevant pedagogy, and hardworking children). These items were all based on the classroom observation except for children being hardworking, and also would have been potentially time variable (unlike hazards) and subjective. There was fair (0.2 to <0.4) strength of agreement for desks, seating, washing, light, ventilation, 14