Source:

Statistical Year Books, MOE, 1996/97 and 1997/98.

Table PR10 contains three blocks, each comprising 4 rows. In each block the first row gives the total survival rate to each grade. The second row gives the survival rate with repetitions, the third row gives survival rate without repetitions, and the fourth row shows the dropout rate.

Of the three blocks, the top block contains the combined data for both males and females; the middle block contains the survival rates for girls while the bottom block contains the survival rates for boys.

The graphic illustration of each one of these three blocks is presented by Figures PR10a, PR10b, and PR10c respectively, for the overall, female and male dropout rates, survival rates with repetition and survival rates without repetition.

As can be seen from Table PR10 (top block), the gender-aggregated total survival rate to Grade 5 is 95%, the survival rate with repetition is 31.1%, whereas the survival rate excluding repeaters is 63.9%; the remaining 5% of the total dropped out of the schooling system.

Nearly two-thirds of the children who entered the formal education system completed Grade 4 without a hitch, a little over 30% reached the destination after some jolts. Altogether, 95% of them successfully crossed the boundary line of sustainable literacy (Grade 4).

Moreover, 92% graduated from the primary cycle and entered the preparatory cycle. Ultimately, a good 78% of the cohort population reached the final grade of basic education (Grade 9), and 74% of the original cohort successfully completed Grade 9 and graduated from the basic cycle, thus earning eligibility to enter the secondary stage of education.

As shown by Table PR 10 and Figures PR 10b and PR 10c there are gender differences in survival and drop out rates.

The boys’ survival rate to Grade 5 as well as to Grade 7 is better than that of the girls (95.6% against 94.5% up to Grade 5, and 93.3% against 90.9% in Grade 7), while it is quite heartening to note that in the upper preparatory grades girls not only caught up with the boys, but also out-survived their male cohort by a significant margin. Up to Grade 9, for instance, the girls’ survival rate was 82.5% against the 74% survival rate of the boys. Moreover, girls outperformed the boys in graduation from the basic cycle by a still wider margin (a pass rate of about 80% against that of about 69% for boys). The superiority of the girls’ performance and their persistence in schooling is clearly evident from a comparison between Figure PR10b (female) and Figure PR10c (male). It can be clearly seen that the girls’ dropout and repetition rates are lower than those of the boys, particularly at the end of Grade 9, and their rate of graduation from the basic education cycle is substantially higher than that of their male cohort group.

When considered altogether, the survival rates with and without repetition, supplemented by the dropout rates, can provide reasonably good information about the student-holding power of an education system. The problem is that they are different indicators, each signifying a specific aspect of efficiency of the education system. Ideally, it would be preferable and parsimonious to have a single composite index of efficiency of an education system. The coefficient of efficiency is, more or less, an integrated index of the general efficiency of the education system.

The coefficient of efficiency is defined as the ratio of the ideal number of pupil-years required for a pupil cohort to complete primary education to the actual number of pupil-years spent on producing that particular group of graduates. The actual number of pupil-years takes into consideration the number of years pupils repeated the grades, as well as the number of years spent by dropouts in the schooling system. If there were no dropouts and no repetitions, then the coefficient of efficiency would be 1, or 100%, because the actual number of pupil-years would be identical to the ideal number of pupil-years.

To the extent that there is wastage due to dropout and repetition, the coefficient of efficiency will have values less than 1, or 100 if the ratio has been transformed into a percentage by multiplying it by 100.

For the Omani system of general education, the coefficient of efficiency at Grades 4 to 9 is given in the following Table PR11.

The coefficient of efficiency for the combined cohort of male and female pupils is 87.1% at Grade 4, 85.8% at Grade 5, and 86.5% at Grade 6, the final grade of the primary cycle. Then in the preparatory cycle, it starts at 77.3% at Grade 7 and declines to 71.7% at Grade 9, which is the final grade of the preparatory as well as of the basic education cycle.

As it happens, the coefficient of efficiency for female pupils is consistently higher than that of their male counterparts at each grade level. Moreover, the gender gap (in favour of girls) monotonically increases at each successive grade. This phenomenon is exhibited in Figure PR11.

Source:

Statistical Year Books, MOE, 1996/97 and 1997/98.

Ideally, a graduate should take only 9 years to complete the 9 grades of basic education. Thus, the school input in pupil-years should amount to 9 times the number of graduates. In reality, however the education system has spent extra pupil-years on repeaters and dropouts. Thus the total number of actual pupil-years expended by the system to produce the given group of graduates divided by the number of graduates gives the average number of pupil-years devoted by the education system to producing one graduate.

This is yet another measure of efficiency, or more accurately a measure of inefficiency, of an education system.

The Omani general education system has expended resources enough for 12.6 pupil-years instead of the ideally required 9 pupil-years to produce a basic education graduate.

In the following, we present an overview of the gamut of the measures of efficiency in a graphic form.

Figure PR12a displays the coefficient of efficiency at Grade 5 and at Grade 9 (the final grade of basic education in Oman). At Grade 5, it is 86% for all, 87% for females, and 85% for males. At Grade 9, which is the last grade of basic education, the coefficient of efficiency is 72%, 79% and 65%, respectively for the total, females, and males; the gender difference in favour of females is obvious.

Figure PR12b shows the average input of resources expressed as input year units per basic graduate (Grade 9).

For both males and females (total) it is 12.6 years, for females alone it is 11.3 years, and for males alone it is 13.9 years. Expressed as percentage inefficiency, these figures are 40%, 25.5%, and 48%, respectively.

Figure PR12c displays three types of student-flow rates averaged over the first five primary grades. The flow rates include: promotion rate, repetition rate, and dropout rate; each taken as average over Grades 1–5.

The mean promotion rate in the first 5 grades of the primary cycle is 89%, 91%, and 88% for the total, female pupils, and male pupils, respectively.

The average repetition rate up to Grade 5 is 9% for all students – 8% for females and 11% for males. The average dropout rate in the first five primary grades is only 1%, the same for both male and female students.

The survival rate to Grade 5 is 95%, 94.5%, and 95.6% respectively for total (male + female), females and males. The survival rate to Grade 9, which is the final grade of the basic education cycle, is 78.2%, 82.5%, and 74.0%, respectively for the total, females, and males. The gender disparity in favour of female pupils, which was only about 1% at Grade 5, is more obvious at Grade 9, with a sizeable gap of 8.5% in favour of girls. This gives a gender gap ratio of 0.897, which means that the male survival rate to Grade 9 is 89.7%, or roughly 90%, of the female survival rate to Grade 9.

Interpreting the coefficient of efficiency should be done with caution. If there were no dropouts and no repetitions, then the coefficient of efficiency would be 100%. Inefficiency is caused by repetitions and dropouts. This means that a student who drops out of Grade 4 has caused 4 times more inefficiency than one who drops out of Grade 1. This is because the former has consumed 4 pupil-years with zero output (where output is measured in graduate units). Thus efficiency is used purely as an economic concept, where efficient utilization of resource inputs is measured strictly in terms of tangible outputs, with no consideration whatsoever for real acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and the development of various types of cognitive, affective and social competencies and values which are, of course, the ultimate expected outcomes of schooling.

In computing the coefficient of efficiency, a pupil who drops out of a lower grade has contributed proportionately less to inefficiency than one who drops out of a higher grade. In terms of achieving the learning objectives, however, a pupil who completes more grades, or studies in school for more years before dropping out of school has naturally learnt more and achieved more of the expected learning outcomes than one who drops out of a lower grade.

The point here is that the concept of economic efficiency as used in the context of educational efficiency conflicts with the goals of education and the policies devised to achieve these goals. In order to achieve the objectives of education, nearly all education systems and schools strive to keep pupils in schools as long as they can, or until the students reach higher grades and graduate.

In the case of dropouts, educational objectives and moral considerations all dictate a policy to retain pupils in schools at least until they have reached the upper primary grades and have acquired sustainable basic education skills and competencies. The economic efficiency principle, contrary to educational goals, dictates that efficiency would increase to the extent students drop out of the lower grades rather than the higher grades. This poses a dilemma for those who plan for efficiency and cost effectiveness and aim to achieve the goal of education for all at the same time.

The main objective of primary education in the Omani general education system is to build a solid broad-based foundation of basic knowledge, skills, concepts and experiences required for successful completion of the basic education at the end of Grade 9, and subsequently for further education at secondary and higher levels.

The primary and preparatory cycle curriculum encompasses almost all school subjects including: Islamic Studies, Arabic Language, Maths, General Science, Social Studies, English Language, Physical Education, Music, and Fine Arts. Starting from Grade 4, students are formally tested in all subjects except Physical Education and Music. In order to be promoted to the next grade, a student has to pass all six of the academic subjects. The pass mark is 40% for Maths, Science, Social Studies and English, but for Arabic and Islamic Studies it is 50%. Thus, learning achievement is assessed in terms of the acquisition of a minimum level of knowledge and skills as measured through formally set examination in each subject matter.

According to the Ministry of Education rules, students in the upper three grades of the primary cycle are administered tests prepared by the teachers for their own classes. Promotion is determined by a weighted cumulative average of these tests, in which the final examination carries a weight of 60%.

The rules for the preparatory cycle (Grades 7–9) are slightly different. Students are tested four times a year, twice in each semester. The mid-semester test is set by the subject teacher who teaches the class. The end of semester test is set by a team of three subject supervisors selected for the task by the Director General in each regional General Directorate of Education. Each of the three test-setters designated for a subject independently sets a test. A directorate-level examination committee then randomly selects one of the three test forms independently prepared by the three examiners.

The pass mark is 50% for Arabic and Islamic Studies, but 40% for Maths, Science, English, and Social Studies. The mid-semester test carries 25% weight (20% for the test and 5% for activities), while the end of semester test carries 75% weight. The average of the two semesters forms the annual achievement score of a student.

In this respect, the promotion rate for each grade can be taken as a reasonable proxy measure of learning achievement.

Since Grade 6 is the final grade of the primary cycle, we discuss here the promotion rate from Grade 6, i.e. the primary school graduation rate as a measure of acquisition of the minimum level of knowledge, skills and competencies in all the six school subjects incorporated in the basic education curricula.

If we refer to Table PR8 and Figure PR8, we can see that the primary cycle (Grade 6) graduation rate is nearly 93% for all students – 95% for females and 91% for males. These figures, interpreted in relation to gross and net primary enrolment ratios (GER, NER) and the average age of students in Grade 6, give a reasonably good account of the percentage of the primary age population cohort that has mastered a set of nationally-defined basic learning competencies in all school subjects. The pertinent statistics derived from the available data for the year 1997/98 are presented in Table LA1.

With a primary gross enrolment rate of 100%, a net enrolment rate of 88.1%, a survival to Grade 6 rate of 92.6%, and a primary stage graduation rate of 92.8%, it seems quite reassuring that over 90% of primary school age children must have attained a sustainable level of basic competencies in education. Apart from the regular examinations that keep track of student achievement in every grade, the MOE has implemented the UNESCO/UNICEF sponsored MLA4 study, the results of which are discussed in the following sections.

The Sultanate of Oman was among the first group of six selected countries who participated in the UNESCO/UNICEF-sponsored study Monitoring Learning Achievement of the Goal of Education For All. The Ministry of Education initiated a sample-based approach to the national assessment of learning achievement in 1993. Since then, in cooperation with UNICEF MUSCAT, the MOE has conducted four national studies and gained valuable experience in the field of the design and implementation of sample-based national assessment of educational progress.

The first study was the national assessment of instructional quality study, which measured the achievement of 8^th Grade students in Arabic, Maths and Science, and related the student achievement to a number of classroom practice and family background variables using an Omanized version of IAEPII instruments. The results of that study created a stir, and in turn triggered the interest of the education authorities in the usefulness of sample-based assessment of learning achievement.

Further motivated by the experience, the MOE to date has implemented three MLA studies, MLA4, MLA6, and MLA9, measuring respectively the achievement of Grade 4, Grade 6, and Grade 9 students in Arabic, Maths, Science and Life Skills.

The results of the MLA4 study, which have been widely discussed and disseminated, are pertinent to this report.

The study used a two-stage, stratified random sample of 71 schools and 2,210 students, selected from national population of 658 schools with Grade 4 classes and 44,409 Grade 4 students.

The instruments were designed and developed by national teams, and the study was implemented with the technical assistance of foreign expertise financed by UNICEF.

Without going into further detail on the technical or academic features of the study, the following section describes the levels of students’ achievement in the four subjects and variations due to student gender, school location (urban/rural), and geographical (administrative) regions.

Table LA2 presents the percent correct mean score, its standard deviation, standard error and minimum and maximum scores of the lowest 10% and the highest 10% groups of students, in the Arabic, Science, Maths and Life Skills tests.

In the Arabic Language test, the average Grade 4 pupil obtained 57.3%. Equivalently one can say that the national average score on the Arabic test was 57.3 out of 100. There were students who got a zero mark on the test because they did not answer any test question correctly, while at the other extreme there were students who answered each and every question in the test correctly and obtained a full score of 100%.

Among the bottom 10% of the Grade 4 students, the test score ranged from 0% to 31.3%, while among the top scoring 10% students, the score ranged from 86% to 100%.

The national average on the Science test was 48.5%, with the bottom 10% scores ranging from 10.4% to 22.9%, and the top 10% scores ranging from 75% to 98%.

The average score on the Maths test was 54.3%. The bottom 10% scores ranged from 10% to 32.5%, and the top 10% ranged from 77.5% to 100%.

In the Life Skills test, the average student scored 48.3%. Among the lowest scoring 10% students, the Life Skills test score ranged from 10.2% to 28.6%, while among the highest scoring 10% it ranged from 71.4% to 93.9%.

The Grade 4 students test performance was lower than expected. Having mulled over the conditions surrounding the study, the concerned educationists put forth the following plausible reasons contributing to the pupils’ poor performance.

2. Pupils were not used to taking the objective multiple-choice tests.

The mean percent correct score of male and female students, the standard deviation and standard error of the mean, along with 95% Confidence Interval for the mean for each subject are presented in Table LA3.

From the ‘mean’ column of Table LA3, it is evident that girls outperformed the boys in all four of the subjects. The differences, however, were statistically significant only in Arabic Language and Life Skills. The statistical significance of the difference is judged here by the non-overlapping 95% Confidence Intervals. In both Maths and Science as well, the girls’ performance tends to supercede the performance of their male cohort; the difference, however, remains only marginal.

The main reasons for girls scoring higher than boys are generally embedded in social, cultural and Islamic traditions and the values of Omani society. Some developmental factors commonly known to affect girls and boys differentially might have played some role too. Girls’ linguistic superiority at about this age is well established in the relevant body of educational and psychological research. The social and cultural practices, which allow more freedom to boys than to girls, may be working in favour of girls in the sense that girls, being homebound, have more time and motivation to devote to their studies.

The mean performance scores of urban and rural school students and their respective 95% Confidence Intervals for the means on the four subjects are presented in Table LA4.

It is evident from the ‘mean’ column in Table LA4 that in each subject, the urban school students’ mean is consistently higher than that of the rural school students.

The differences, however, are statistically significant – when significance is based upon non-overlapping 95% Confidence Intervals – only in the Arabic and Science tests.

Reasons for the urban/rural school differences are not difficult to find. It is common knowledge that urban community schools and students enjoy several advantages over their rural counterparts, particularly in the field of a more enriched educational environment, educational facilities, and opportunities, with supportive family and community value systems and attitudes.