| Literature DB >> 22347147 |
Hedwig Acham1, Joyce K Kikafunda, Marian K Malde, Wilna H Oldewage-Theron, Abdulkadir A Egal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Underachievement in schools is a global problem and is especially prevalent in developing countries. Indicators of educational performance show that Uganda has done remarkably well on education access-related targets since the introduction of universal primary education in 1997. However, educational outcomes remain disappointing. The absence of school feeding schemes, one of the leading causes of scholastic underachievement, has not been given attention by the Ugandan authorities. Instead, as a national policy, parents are expected to provide meals even though many, especially in the rural areas, cannot afford to provide even the minimal daily bowl of maize porridge.Entities:
Keywords: Uganda; academic achievement; education; primary schools; school health policy
Year: 2012 PMID: 22347147 PMCID: PMC3280795 DOI: 10.3402/fnr.v56i0.11217
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Nutr Res ISSN: 1654-661X Impact factor: 3.894
Fig. 1Study profile showing how the 645 participating children were selected from 230 public schools. ‘Complete data’ means data on demographic and socio-economic variables, academic achievement and anthropometry.
distributions of socio-demographic variables among the participants in the study (n=645)
| Variable | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Demographic variables | ||
| Girls | 348 | 54 |
| Boys | 297 | 46 |
| Age | ||
| 9–10 years | 119 | 18.4 |
| 11–12 years | 308 | 47.8 |
| 13–16 years | 218 | 33.8 |
| Male headed | 526 | 81.6 |
| Female headed | 119 | 18.4 |
| No | 114 | 17.7 |
| Yes | 530 | 82.3 |
| No formal education/primary incomplete | 383 | 59.4 |
| Primary complete/secondary incomplete | 211 | 32.7 |
| Secondary complete and above | 51 | 7.9 |
| Five people or less | 45 | 7 |
| More than 5 people | 600 | 93 |
| Socio-economic variables | ||
| Firewood | 639 | 99.1 |
| Others | 6 | 0.9 |
| Yes | 17 | 2.6 |
| No | 628 | 97.4 |
| Traditional (well) only | 238 | 36.9 |
| Traditional+borehole/tap | 50 | 7.8 |
| Borehole/tap only | 357 | 55.3 |
| Two animals or less | 267 | 41.4 |
| More than two animals | 378 | 58.6 |
| Yes | 507 | 78.6 |
| No | 138 | 21.4 |
| Yes | 526 | 81.6 |
| No | 119 | 18.4 |
| Temporary house | 32 | 5 |
| Light materials (grass-thatched, mud-wall, earth-floor) | 114 | 17.7 |
| Semi-permanent (un-baked bricks, grass-thatched roof) | 374 | 58.0 |
| Single rented apartment in trading centre/town | 15 | 2.3 |
| Solid materials/permanent (baked-bricks, iron-roof & cement-floor) | 110 | 17.1 |
| 0–1.1 ha | 228 | 35.3 |
| 1.2–4.0 ha | 367 | 56.9 |
| More than 4.0 ha | 50 | 7.8 |
| First tercile (lowest wealth category) | 259 | 40.2 |
| Second tercile (middle wealth category) | 367 | 39.8 |
| Third tercile (highest wealth category) | 50 | 20.0 |
| Nutritional status | ||
| Normal | 580 | 89.9 |
| Thin/wasted | 65 | 10.1 |
| Normal | 589 | 91.3 |
| Stunted | 56 | 8.7 |
| Normal | 561 | 87.0 |
| Underweight | 84 | 13.0 |
| School factors | ||
| Less than 70% | 113 | 24.5 |
| More than 70% | 348 | 75.5 |
| No | 478 | 74.1 |
| Yes | 167 | 25.9 |
| No | 286 | 44.3 |
| Yes | 359 | 55.7 |
| Has no meal at all | 251 | 38.9 |
| Has breakfast, lunch or both | 394 | 61.1 |
Achievement test scores for the combined group (n=645)
| Subjects | Combined ( | Girls (n=348) Mean±SD 95% CI) | Boys (n=297) Mean±SD (95% CI) | Mean difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELA | 21.9±16.3(20.6, 23.1) | 22.5±16.1 (20.8, 24.2) | 21.1±16.5 (19.2, 23.0) | 1.4 | 0.27 |
| MA | 12.5±7.8 (11.9, 13.1) | 11.4±7.3 (10.6, 12.1) | 13.9±8.2 (13.0, 14.8) | −2.5 | <0.001 |
| LSA | 27.9±14.4 (26.8, 29.0) | 27.0±14.4 (25.5, 28.5) | 29.0±14.3 (27.3, 30.6) | −1.9 | 0.09 |
| ORA | 37.7±21.0 (36.0, 39.3) | 38.1±20.7 (35.9, 40.3) | 37.1±21.4 (34.7, 39.6) | 1.0 | 0.56 |
| Grand mean | 254.0±11.8 (24.1, 25.9) | 24.8±11.4 (23.6, 26.0) | 25.3±12.2 (23.9, 26.7) | −0.5 | 0.58 |
| Grand total score | 100.0±47.1 (96.3, 103.6) | 99.0±45.6 (94.2, 103.8) | 101.1±48.8 (95.5, 106.6) | −2.1 | 0.58 |
Note: Scores are presented as means±SD, with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses.
Multiple comparisons of breakfast and lunch intake and academic achievement levels between wealth groups (n=645)
| 95% Confidence interval | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | procedure | (I) groups of wealth | (J) groups of wealth | Mean Difference (I –J) | Upper bound | Lower bound | |
| Meals at school (0, 1) | Tukey HSD | Most poor | Poor | 0.1 | .082 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| Less poor | −0.3( | .000 | −0.3 | −0.1 | |||
| Poor | Most poor | −0.1 | .082 | −0.2 | 0.0 | ||
| Less poor | −0.4( | .000 | −0.5 | −0.2 | |||
| Less poor | Most poor | 0.4( | .000 | 0.1 | 0.4 | ||
| Poor | 0.4( | .000 | 0.2 | 0.5 | |||
| Bonferroni | Most poor | Poor | 0.1 | .098 | 0.0 | 0.2 | |
| Less poor | −0.3( | .000 | −0.4 | −0.1 | |||
| Poor | Most poor | −0.1 | .098 | −0.2 | 0.0 | ||
| Less poor | −0.4( | .000 | −0.5 | −0.2 | |||
| Less poor | Most poor | 0.3( | .000 | 0.1 | 0.4 | ||
| Poor | 0.4( | .000 | 0.2 | 0.5 | |||
| Tamhane | Most poor | poor | 0.1 | .123 | 0.0 | 0.2 | |
| Less poor | −0.3( | .000 | −0.4 | −0.2 | |||
| Poor | Most poor | −0.1 | .123 | −0.2 | 0.0 | ||
| Less poor | −0.4( | .000 | −0.5 | −0.2 | |||
| Less poor | Most poor | 0.3( | .000 | 0.2 | 0.4 | ||
| poor | 0.4( | .000 | 0.2 | 0.5 | |||
| Total score | Tukey HSD | Most poor | poor | 5.4 | .377 | −4.1 | 14.8 |
| Less poor | −26.3( | .000 | −37.8 | −14.8 | |||
| Poor | Most poor | −5.4 | .377 | −14.8 | 4.1 | ||
| Less poor | −31.7( | .000 | −43.2 | −20.1 | |||
| Less poor | Most poor | 26.3( | .000 | 14.8 | 37.8 | ||
| poor | 31.7( | .000 | 20.1 | 43.2 | |||
| Bonferroni | Most poor | Poor | 5.4 | .549 | −4.3 | 15.0 | |
| Less poor | −26.3( | .000 | −38.1 | −14.5 | |||
| Poor | Most poor | −5.4 | .549 | −15.0 | 4.3 | ||
| Less poor | −31.7( | .000 | −43.5 | −19.8 | |||
| Less poor | Most poor | 26.3( | .000 | 14.5 | 38.1 | ||
| poor | 31.7( | .000 | 19.8 | 43.5 | |||
| Tamhane | Most poor | Poor | 5.4 | .411 | −3.8 | 14.5 | |
| Less poor | −26.3( | .000 | −39.5 | −13.1 | |||
| Poor | Most poor | −5.4 | .411 | −14.5 | 3.8 | ||
| Less poor | −31.7( | .000 | −44.7 | −18.6 | |||
| Less poor | Most poor | 26.3( | .000 | 13.1 | 39.5 | ||
| poor | 31.7( | .000 | 18.6 | 44.7 | |||
Notes: 0, None; 1, Yes (breakfast, lunch or both are provided to the child).
Differences are significant at p<0.05.
Logistic regression model between academic achievement and its covariates
| Variables | EXP (B), 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined ( | Girls ( | Boys ( | |
| Feeding (1=Breakfast) | 1.20 (0.8–1.8) | 1.16 (0.7–2.0) | 1.52 (0.7–3.1) |
| Household size (1=<5 people) | 0.40 (0.2–0.9) | 0.51 (0.2–1.5) | 0.31 (0.1–1.3) |
| Age category (1=<11 years) | 1.05 (0.6–1.7) | 0.95 (0.5–1.8) | 1.28 (0.6–2.8) |
| Mother's education (1=primary complete and above) | 1.411.0–2.1) | 1.41 (0.8–2.4) | 1.33 (0.7–2.5) |
| Land (1=1.21 or more ha) | 0.59 (0.4–0.8) | 0.96 (0.6–1.6) | 0.32 (0.2–0.6) |
| Attendance level (70% rate or more) | 1.52 (1.0–2.3) | 1.15 (0.7–2.0) | 2.25 (1.2–4.2) |
| Household head (1=male headed) | 0.44 (0.3–0.7) | 0.40 (0.2–0.7) | 0.48 0.2–0.9) |
| Feeding (1=midday meals) | 1.25 (0.8–1.8) | 1.06 (0.6–1.8) | 1.79 (0.9–3.4) |
| Household size (1=<5 people) | 0.39 (0.2–0.9) | 0.52 (0.2–1.5) | 0.28 (0.1–1.2) |
| Age category (1=<11 years) | 1.05 (0.6–1.7) | 0.96 (0.5–1.8) | 1.29 (0.6–2.9) |
| Mother's education (1=primary complete and above) | 1.40 (0.9–2.1) | 1.41 (0.8–2.4) | 1.36 (0.7–2.5) |
| Land (1=1.21 or more ha) | 0.58 (0.4–0.8) | 0.95 (0.6–1.6) | 0.31 (0.2–0.6) |
| Attendance level (70% rate or more) | 1.46 (1.0–2.2) | 1.15 (0.6–2.1) | 2.05 (1.1–3.9) |
| Household head (1=male headed) | 0.42 (0.3–0.6) | 0.40 (0.2–0.7) | 0.40 (0.2–0.8) |
| Feeding (1=both breakfast and midday meals) | 1.28 (0.9–2.0) | 1.07 (0.7–1.9) | 1.99 (1.0–3.9) |
| Household size (1=<5 people) | 0.38 (0.2–0.9) | 0.52 (0.2–1.6) | 0.26 (0.1–1.1) |
| Age category (1=<11 years) | 1.05 (0.7–1.7) | 0.96 (0.5–1.8) | 1.30 (0.6–2.9) |
| Mother's education (1=primary complete and above) | 1.39(1.0–2.1) | 1.41 (0.9–2.5) | 1.26 (0.7–2.4) |
| Land (1=1.21 or more ha) | 0.58 (0.4–0.9) | 0.95 (0.6–1.6) | 0.29 (0.2–0.5) |
| Attendance level (70% rate or more) | 1.44 (1.0–2.3) | 1.15 (0.6–2.1) | 2.00 (1.1–3.9) |
| Household head (1=male headed) | 0.42 (0.3–0.7) | 0.40 (0.2–0.8) | 0.41 (0.2–0.8) |
Notes: Values presented are parameter estimates, with 95% confidence intervals. Dependent variable; 1=≥120.0 points, 0=<120.0 points.
Significant at p <0.05.
Significant at p <0.01.
Significant at p<0.001.
Significant at p<0.1.
A logistic regression between covariates and achievement among boys, based on different levels of nutritional status (n=297).
| Variables | EXP (B) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI-for-age | Height-for-age | Weight-for-age | ||||
| a | b | a | b | a | b | |
| Feeding (1=both breakfast and midday meals) | 2.1 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Household size (1=<5 people) | 7.3E9 | 0.2 | 1.2E9 | 0.2 | 3.1E9 | 0.2 |
| Age category (1=<11 years) | – | 1.3 | 1.7E10 | 1.1 | 5.4E10 | 1.1 |
| Mother's education (1=primary complete and above) | 1.5 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.5 |
| Land (1=1.21 or more ha) | 0.3 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Attendance level (70% or more) | 1.1 | 2.3 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 2.0 |
| Household head (1=male headed) | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Notes: Values indicated in the table are parameter estimates. a, undernourished; b, normal. Dependent variable; 1=≥120.0 points, 0=<120.0 points.
Significant at p<0.05.
Significant at p<0.01.
Significant at p<0.001.
Significant at p<0.1.
E9=(×109)
E10=(×1010)