Table 9: Effect sizes across the main summary variables distribution

|<br>Dependent variable||<br>(Quartile 1)|<br>(Quartile 2)|<br>(Quartile 3)|<br>(Quartile 4)|<br>p-value|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Quartile|0.00- 0.50|0.56- 0.70|0.70- 0.80|0.80- 1.00||
|A. Instructional activities||0.046**<br>[0.018]|0.084***<br>[0.017]|0.043***<br>[0.016]|0.036*<br>[0.019]|0.059|
||~~N~~|~~850~~|~~737~~|~~879~~|~~655~~||
||Quartile|0.00- 0.10|0.11- 0.20|0.22- 0.30|0.33- 1.00||
|B. Classroom management activities||-0.023*<br>[0.012]|-0.028**<br>[0.013]|-0.032**<br>[0.014]|-0.030**<br>[0.014]|0.946|
||~~N~~|~~1045~~|~~754~~|~~610~~|~~712~~||
||Quartile|0.00- 0.00|0.10- 0.10|0.11- 0.11|0.20- 1.00||
|C. Off-task activities||-0.026***<br>[0.008]|-0.023***<br>[0.008]|-0.006<br>[0.042]|-0.025**<br>[0.011]|0.963|
||N|1422|912|14|773||
||Quartile|0.00- 0.00|0.10- 0.11|0.12- 0.33|0.38- 1.00||
|D. Instructional activities all students<br>engaged||-0.017<br>[0.024]|-0.040<br>[0.059]|-0.009<br>[0.027]|0.007<br>[0.031]|0.825|
||N|1490|129|746|720||
||Quartile|0.00- 0.00|0.10- 0.12|0.14- 0.38|0.40- 1.00||
|E. Big group (>6) of student off-task||-0.020<br>[0.016]|0.013<br>[0.032]|-0.025<br>[0.024]|-0.072**<br>[0.031]|0.138|
||N|1393|250|714|728||
|Control for baseline||x|x|x|x||
|Student, teacher and classroom covari|ates|x|x|x|x||
|School covariates<br>_Note_: total sample size 3121. Robust s<br>the time teacher was instructing. Thes<br>value tests if Quartile 1=Quartile 2=Qu|tandard er<br>e variables <br>artile 3=Qu|x<br>rors in brakets,<br>assumes missin<br>artile 4. * p<0.|x<br>clustered at the s<br>g values if the tea<br>10 ** p<0.05 **|x<br>chool level. Varia<br>cher did not spen<br>* p<0.01|x<br>bles D and E onl<br>d any time instr|y consider<br>ucting. P-|

_f. Compliance effects_ The treatment relied on teachers’ ability to adopt changes in their practice in response to the feedback and supports provided. Most crucially, it relied on the pedagogical coordinator in each school, who was the interface between his or her school’s teachers and the external coaches. The pedagogical coordinators were responsible for observing the teachers in their school, sharing their assessments with their assigned coach via Skype calls, and conveying recommended strategies and techniques back to the teachers in their school. The pedagogical coordinators were required to upload videos of themselves working with individual teachers in order to get feedback on these from their coach.

The evaluation team placed substantial emphasis on gathering monitoring data on the coordinators’ and teachers’ participation in the scheduled activities as well as direct measures of the skills they acquired, since both are critical issues for the effectiveness of the intervention. The coaching team kept records of all schoollevel activities that were reported as well as their own log of Skype conferences conducted, videos uploaded and reviewed, and feedback shared. They also asked coordinators to take an exam at the end of the program, offering certification to coordinators who had participated in at least 80% of the face to face and online activities and who achieved a score of 80% or higher on the exam. As Table 10 shows, of the 156 pedagogical coordinators in treatment schools, 138 achieved certification. The average attendance rate at the four face-to-face workshops was 86% and 68% of the coordinators achieved scores of “good” or “excellent” on the final test. Although these participation rates are reasonably high, there was clearly scope for partial compliance to hamper the impact of the program in some treatment schools (Glennerster, Takavarasha, 2013).

Table 10: Participation and certification rates for Pedagogical Coordinators (treatment schools only), 2015 19