Guatemala - Education

Activity 1:

We will estimate Activity 1's causal impacts using a randomized controlled trial. The Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) grouped all eligible schools within the five study departments into school districts-clusters of neighboring schools with eight schools each, on average. We randomly assigned 80 percent of those districts to a treatment group, in which schools would be invited to participate in Activity 1. We assigned the remaining 20 percent of districts to a control group, in which the implementer would not intervene.

We will gather baseline and endline data from a randomly selected sample of schools from the treatment and control groups. We will estimate Activity 1's causal effects by comparing outcomes from the two groups at endline and controlling for chance differences observed at baseline. We will report two types of estimates: intent-to-treat estimates, which reflect differences between treatment and control schools regardless of their participation in treatment, and local average treatment effects, which are adjusted to account for participation rates in both groups. We describe our sample selection, randomization, and data collection methods elsewhere in sampling and data collection methods sections.

We will describe the implementation of the activity and identify its facilitators and barriers via an implementation study. We describe our sample selection and data collection methods in the sampling and data collection methods sections.

Activity 3:

We will conduct a trend analysis to understand changes in key outcomes related to this activity. This approach will not show the activity's causal impacts, but we will combine the trend analysis with an analysis of related concurrent events to see the potential relationship between the activity and outcomes of interest.

We will also conduct a qualitative analysis, relying on focus groups, interviews, and implementation documentation. We will use the drivers-of-change (DOC) framework and political economy methods to structure the qualitative component. The DOC framework is an analytic framework for applying political economy analysis, which enables evaluators to systematically assess how project design and implementation decisions addressed contextual factors that may affect whether project goals are met. Specifically, the DOC framework calls for an analysis of the relationship between structural features (such as the structure and history of education in Guatemala and social and demographic trends), institutions (such as the legal framework, government policies, and informal rules that affect behavior), and agents (such as organizations and people who influence and participate in lower-secondary education).

Note: Under Evaluation Methodology, we selected Randomization, which is the method for the impact evaluation of Activity 1. We will also conduct implementation evaluations of Activities 1 and 3 and political economy analyses of Activity 3.

Under data type, we selected Sample Survey Data, which is the main method for the impact evaluation of Activity 1. For both activities, we will also use administrative data, monitoring and evaluation data from the implementer, and qualitative data.

Data and Resources

Field	Value
accessLevel	public
bureauCode	{184:03}
catalog_@context	https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.jsonld
catalog_conformsTo	https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema
catalog_describedBy	https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.json
identifier	DDI-MCC-GTM-MPR-EDU-2018-v01
landingPage	https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/216
license	https://data.mcc.gov/terms-and-conditions.php
modified	2018-06-26
programCode	{184:000}
publisher	Millennium Challenge Corporation
resource-type	Dataset
source_datajson_identifier	true
source_hash	bc5b153b78621a339fd0e8ba6120a9eae50c9f6a
source_schema_version	1.1
Groups	AmeriGEOSS National Provider North America
Tags	amerigeo amerigeoss ckan exito-escolar gender-and-social-inclusion geo geoss impact-evaluation lower-secondary-education management-information-systems national north-america parent-councils pedagogic-support performance-evaluation political-economy-analysis randomized-controlled-trial school-networks strengthening-of-institutional-and-planning-capacity student-learning student-retention-and-promotion teacher-diagnostics united-states
isopen	False
license_id	other-license-specified
license_title	other-license-specified
maintainer	Monitoring & Evaluation Division of the Millennium Challenge Corporation
maintainer_email	impact-eval@mcc.gov
metadata_created	2025-11-21T00:47:14.916067
metadata_modified	2025-11-21T00:47:14.916071
notes	Activity 1: We will estimate Activity 1's causal impacts using a randomized controlled trial. The Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) grouped all eligible schools within the five study departments into school districts-clusters of neighboring schools with eight schools each, on average. We randomly assigned 80 percent of those districts to a treatment group, in which schools would be invited to participate in Activity 1. We assigned the remaining 20 percent of districts to a control group, in which the implementer would not intervene. We will gather baseline and endline data from a randomly selected sample of schools from the treatment and control groups. We will estimate Activity 1's causal effects by comparing outcomes from the two groups at endline and controlling for chance differences observed at baseline. We will report two types of estimates: intent-to-treat estimates, which reflect differences between treatment and control schools regardless of their participation in treatment, and local average treatment effects, which are adjusted to account for participation rates in both groups. We describe our sample selection, randomization, and data collection methods elsewhere in sampling and data collection methods sections. We will describe the implementation of the activity and identify its facilitators and barriers via an implementation study. We describe our sample selection and data collection methods in the sampling and data collection methods sections. Activity 3: We will conduct a trend analysis to understand changes in key outcomes related to this activity. This approach will not show the activity's causal impacts, but we will combine the trend analysis with an analysis of related concurrent events to see the potential relationship between the activity and outcomes of interest. We will also conduct a qualitative analysis, relying on focus groups, interviews, and implementation documentation. We will use the drivers-of-change (DOC) framework and political economy methods to structure the qualitative component. The DOC framework is an analytic framework for applying political economy analysis, which enables evaluators to systematically assess how project design and implementation decisions addressed contextual factors that may affect whether project goals are met. Specifically, the DOC framework calls for an analysis of the relationship between structural features (such as the structure and history of education in Guatemala and social and demographic trends), institutions (such as the legal framework, government policies, and informal rules that affect behavior), and agents (such as organizations and people who influence and participate in lower-secondary education). Note: Under Evaluation Methodology, we selected Randomization, which is the method for the impact evaluation of Activity 1. We will also conduct implementation evaluations of Activities 1 and 3 and political economy analyses of Activity 3. Under data type, we selected Sample Survey Data, which is the main method for the impact evaluation of Activity 1. For both activities, we will also use administrative data, monitoring and evaluation data from the implementer, and qualitative data.
num_resources	3
num_tags	23
title	Guatemala - Education