Training, funding and infrastructure remain the backbone of quality improvement in early childhood development (ECD). But a pilot project run by IMBE and DataDrive2030 suggests there may be something else worth adding to that mix: honest, personalised feedback, delivered directly to the practitioners who need it most. 

One young principal who took part in the pilot captured the experience simply. She told researchers the project had changed the way she thought about support, saying that information and data could be just as helpful, if not more helpful, than receiving tangible resources, particularly because it helped her make informed decisions and take practical action.  

Quality as a business imperative 

IMBE’s Accelerator Programme equips ECD entrepreneurs with the financial and operational capabilities they need to build sustainable businesses and central to that has always been the understanding that business sustainability and programme quality are inseparable. 

Parents don’t simply choose an early learning programme (ELP) because it exists. They choose centres they believe will give their children the strongest start in life. As Samantha Maasdorp, IMBE’s Managing Director, explains: “The higher the quality of education is perceived to be by a parent, the more likely they are to send their child to that programme, but also the more likely they are to be willing to pay a meaningful fee.” In other words, a quality programme is one of an ECD entrepreneur’s strongest value propositions.  

Recognising that programme quality measurement sat outside its core expertise, IMBE partnered with DataDrive2030, coordinators of the Thrive by Five Index, South Africa’s largest survey of preschool child outcomes. Together, the two organisations set out to explore whether structured assessment and personalised feedback could improve quality among ELPs operating without ongoing external support from NGOs or specialist training organisations.   

The results  

DataDrive2030’s Learning Programme Quality Assessment (LPQA) measures quality across five domains: materials and equipment, planning and assessment, learning programme, teaching strategies, and relationships and interactions. Trained assessors spend several hours observing classroom practice, scoring each domain on a three-point scale, Inadequate, Basic or Good, where Inadequate signals that significant improvement is needed, Basic indicates some things are working well but room for improvement remains and Good means the programme is meeting the criteria for quality in that area. Assessors returned the following week to hand over a personalised report and discuss the findings with each principal. Approximately five months later, the centres were assessed again. 

Across 147 participating centres, 78% improved their overall LPQA score. The proportion rated “Good” almost doubled, rising from 32% to 59%, while centres rated “Inadequate” dropped from 24 to just nine. Average programme quality improved by 9% across all five domains, with the greatest gains seen in planning and assessment and materials and equipment. 

Percentage of ELPs per LPQA rating category between baseline and endline 

What made it work 

So what drove the change? According to Caylee Cook, Senior Researcher at DataDrive2030, it wasn’t one factor alone. Principals described having an external person observe them as something that “sparked a feeling of accountability and served as a reminder of their work’s importance,” she notes. Equally important was the in-person report handover, a second trusted interaction where principals could ask questions rather than simply receiving results via WhatsApp or email. 

The report itself was designed to be practical and easy to understand. Rather than highlighting weaknesses, it showed principals where they were performing well, where improvement was needed and what steps they could take. At the second visit, a “Then and Now” comparison helped each principal see the progress they had already made.  

Perhaps most telling, this accountability was entirely unplanned. Principals had no idea a second assessment would take place until shortly beforehand. Whatever changed in these classrooms happened because principals chose to act on the feedback, not because they were preparing for another inspection.  

On the ground, meaningful engagement looked like reports covered in handwritten notes, photocopies shared with teaching staff and principals returning to the second visit with pages of questions ready. Those who approached the process as an opportunity to learn were consistently the ones most likely to improve. 

For both organisations, this reinforced an important lesson: data becomes most valuable when it moves beyond measurement and into the hands of people who can act on it.   

As Samantha reflects: “Sometimes the greatest value of support that an ELP can receive isn’t necessarily a monetary good or attendance at a certain kind of training. It’s that building of a competency or capability that can live and breathe beyond any other organisation.” 

Feedback works best within a system 

The results also highlighted that while feedback can tell practitioners what needs to change, the means to make those changes are often out of reach.  

For many principals, the biggest barrier was financial. They left the assessment with a clearer understanding of how to strengthen their programmes, but improvements such as buying new learning materials, upgrading infrastructure or accessing additional support often required resources they simply didn’t have. 

The findings also suggest that some centres need more than feedback alone. Centres that were already rated “Basic” at the start of the pilot were generally more likely to improve than those rated “Inadequate”. Where stronger foundations were already in place, principals were better positioned to act on the recommendations. Centres facing deeper structural and resource challenges are likely to require more intensive support alongside assessment if they are to make similar gains.  

It also remains unknown whether the improvements observed during the pilot will be sustained over time. As Caylee notes: “A report can only move the needle so far. We should not expect principals to deal with these challenges alone.” 

Assessment can be more powerful as part of a broader support system that combines quality measurement with mentoring, enterprise development and practical assistance. Feedback identifies opportunities for improvement. Sustained support helps practitioners act on them.  

Beyond the pilot 

This pilot involved a small number of centres over five months. But it points to a much bigger opportunity. Improving programme quality isn’t only about providing more resources. It’s also about equipping entrepreneurs with meaningful information they can use to strengthen their own practice. For those operating outside formal support networks, that information can be a powerful catalyst for change. 

The collaboration between IMBE and DataDrive2030 also demonstrates what becomes possible when organisations bring different strengths to a shared challenge. Enterprise development, programme quality measurement and practitioner support each play distinct roles, but together they create something more powerful than any single organisation could achieve alone. As Samantha puts it, partnerships like this push organisations “to be exposed to a different kind of thinking and a different kind of lens, to enable cross-learning to fully flourish.” 

The broader lesson from this pilot is that ECD entrepreneurs respond when they are trusted with meaningful information and supported to act on it. As South Africa works towards universal access to quality early learning, that trust, and the investment it requires, may prove to be one of the most valuable contributions the sector can make.