These items are grouped into three dimensions and seven sub-dimensions in the QAS:

- Infrastructure and materials (sub-dimensions: Infrastructure; Materials)

- Teaching and Pedagogy 2.0 (sub-dimensions: Teacher’s supports; Pedagogy 2.0)

- Child learning and development (sub-dimensions: life skills; foundational skills; multidisciplinary)

The KG quality standards include specific details on how dimensions, sub-dimensions, and classes and schools overall are classified into four levels of performance.<sup>15</sup> For example, for materials, a class is considered (1) below minimum if missing or not using writing and drawing tools; (2) minimum if using writing and drawing tools; (3) developing if using writing and drawing tools and classroom management tools; and (4) achieved if using writing and drawing tools, classroom management tools, and manipulatives. The full standards, including classification into levels of performance, are presented in Appendix 1.

There are also specific procedures related to aggregating scores from the class to school level. To translate classroom scores to school-level scores, the average (1=below minimum, 2=minimum, 3=developing, 4=achieved) across classrooms is taken, and scores then can be rounded to the school level for each sub-dimension. To translate across sub-dimensions to an overall score, levels of performance on each dimension are averaged, equally weighted, and rounded to a school-level score.

# **_4.4 Covariates_**

Consistency of responses can depend on differences in natural variability, but also can depend on the characteristics of the observer and the observed. The models (discussed above) include controls for MoETE enumerators versus data collection firm enumerators for the QAS tool. We are particularly interested in this dimension of consistency because, while data collection firm enumerators may offer an expert and independent perspective, such an approach is not financially sustainable for governments to implement on a periodic basis. The models also control for whether it is a public or private school, the region, and whether it is a high-poverty school (poverty rate 50% or more from the national poverty map).

From teacher and classroom observations, based on the (more detailed) diagnostic research tool data, our controls include class size, class level, having a second teacher, primary teacher age, primary teacher years teaching, primary teacher years taught at this school, and primary teacher professional status. From classroom observations, we also control for the differences between QAS tool and diagnostic research tool in the start time (in [fractional] days), to capture whether the same period is observed. From child data, our controls include, based on the (more detailed) diagnostic research tool data, child sex, child age (in months), and class level.

We estimate some models with additional controls, specifically socioeconomic status (SES) controls. For school and classroom level outcomes, we take the average asset score, the percentage of mothers (and likewise fathers) with secondary education, and similarly for higher

> 15 The dimensions do not simply average indicators within the dimension.

13