Presentation for donor mission 2007 December

Formative Research Project for EFA 2004-09

Major Findings of the Major Findings of the Longitudinal Study on System

Indicators(based on 62 sample schools from

16 districts

Major Achievements

• Systematic primary education database of 62

sampled schools established.

• Computer software (MS Access) developed for data

management, analysis and reporting—can be

adapted by schools, RCs, ETCs and DEOs.

• 5-year cohort data of the individual student

available with 2002 as the base year.

• School-specific compilation of data made available

to each of the 62 sampled schools

• Critical issues of EFA diagnosed—areas of further

research for in-depth qualitative study identified

Key Outcomes

1. Cohort Analysis (student tracking of all grade-

one new-entrants except school leavers)—

complete primary cycle for 2002 cohort

2. Indicator specific trend analysis of school data

(overall data of students, teachers and

schools)

Promotion flow of first grade new enrollees by cohorts

Cohort Year

Students Grade 1 new intake

Grade 2 in year 2

Grade 3 in year 3

Grade 4 in year 4

Grade 5 in year 5

2002Total 2589 1327 (51.3) 819 (31.6) 657 (25.4) 544 (21.0)

Girls 1318 702 (53.3) 449 (34.1) 364 (27.6) 296 (22.5)

2003Total 2260 957 (42.3) 724 (32.0) 644 (28.8)

Girls 1136 481 (42.3) 364 (32.0) 327 (28.5)Girls 1136 481 (42.3) 364 (32.0) 327 (28.5)

2004Total 2702 1375 (50.9) 1116 (41.3)

Girls 1375 730 (53.1) 597 (43.4)

2005Total 3653 2341 (64.0)

Girls 1885 1221 (64.8)

2006Total 2674

Girls 1328

Grade 1

B G T

1271 1318 2589

Grade 2

B G T

624 703 1327

Grade 3

B G T

370 449 819

Grade 4

B G T

293 364 657

Grade 5

B G T

248 296 544

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Rep. Y2 (2003)

356 373 729

Grade 2 (2004)

65 70 135

210 201 411P

Grade 3 (2005)

43 51 94

173 184 357

Grade 4 (2006)

30 35 65

185 196 386P

RR R

P

Student Cohort of Fresh Enrollees of Grade 1 in 2002 through to 2006 (62 Sample Schools of 16 districts)

Rep. Y3 (2004)

78 95 173

Rep. Y4 (2005)

25 17 42

Rep. Y5 (2006)

4 1 5

P

Grade 2 (2005)

41 36 77

43 77 120

Grade 2 (2006)

13 12 25

19 13 32

173 184 357

Grade 3 (2006)

25 32 57

69 94 163

185 196 386P

P

R

P

R

R

P

P

G V

544

Where are the 2589 Grade One Fresh Enrollees of

2002 in 2006?

In School Total

1273(49%)G IV

447G III

220G II

57G I

5

G V

296Girls

682 (54%)G IV

231G III

126G II

25G I

4

G V

248Boys

591 (46%)G IV

216G III

94G II

32G I

1

School Leavers

1316

(51%)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cohort 2002-2006 of Students with ECD Background

(62 Schools from 16 sample districts)

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Source: FRP Longitudinal Study on System Indicators

Grade 1

B G T

170 170 340

100% 100% 100%

Grade 2

B G T

108 115 223

64% 68% 65%

Grade 3

B G Tot

65 77 142

38% 45% 42%

Grade 4

B G T

55 66 121

32% 39% 35%

Grade 5

B G T

50 55 105

29% 32% 31%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cohort 2002-2006 of Students without ECD Background

(62 Schools from 16 sample districts)



Grade 1

B G T

1101 1148 2249

100% 100% 100%

Grade 2

B G T

516 588 1104

47% 51% 49%

Grade 3

B G Tot

305 372 677

28% 32% 30%

Grade 4

B G T

238 298 536

22% 26% 24%

Grade 5

B G T

198 241 439

18% 21% 20%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Dalit Student Cohort 2002-2006(62 Schools from 16 sample districts)



Grade 1

B G T

218 218 436

100% 100% 100%

Grade 2

B G T

104 114 218

48% 52% 50%

Grade 3

B G Tot

59 68 127

27% 31% 29%

Grade 4

B G T

45 57 102

21% 26% 23%

Grade 5

B G T

34 39 73

16% 18% 17%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Tharu Student Cohort 2002-2006(62 Schools from 16 sample districts)



Grade 1

B G T

189 180 369

100% 100% 100%

Grade 2

B G T

87 95 182

46% 53% 49%

Grade 3

B G Tot

53 68 121

28% 38% 33%

Grade 4

B G T

38 52 90

20% 29% 24%

Grade 5

B G T

34 43 77

18% 24% 21%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Tamang Student Cohort 2002-2006(62 Schools from 16 sample districts)



Grade 1

B G T

111 83 194

100% 100% 100%

Grade 2

B G T

52 38 90

47% 45% 46%

Grade 3

B G Tot

36 24 60

33% 29% 31%

Grade 4

B G T

31 19 50

28% 23% 26%

Grade 5

B G T

25 16 41

23% 19% 21%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Muslim Student Cohort 2002-2006(62 Schools from 16 sample districts)



Grade 1

B G T

64 55 119

100% 100% 100%

Grade 2

B G T

28 20 48

44% 36% 40%

Grade 3

B G Tot

13 10 23

20% 18% 19%

Grade 4

B G T

9 8 17

14% 15% 14%

Grade 5

B G T

8 7 15

13% 13% 13%

Region Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Overall

Total 2589 1327(51.3)819(31.6)

657 (25.4) 544 (21.0)

Girls 1318 702 (53.3) 449 (34.1) 364 (27.6) 296 (22.5)

EasternTotal 718 329 (45.8) 201 (28.0) 180(25.1) 167 (23.3)

Girls 358 176 (49.2) 109 (30.4) 98 (27.4) 94(26.3)

Promotion flow of 2002 first grade new enrollees through the primary cycle by region

CentralTotal 532 223 (41.9) 157 (29.5) 125 (23.5) 103(19.4)

Girls 270 117 (43.3) 87 (32.2) 68 (25.2) 56 (20.7)

WesternTotal 397 203 (51.1) 134 (33.8) 113 (28.5) 84 (21.2)

Girls 212 116 (54.7) 72 (34.0) 61 (28.8) 44 (20.8)

Mid-westTotal 379 146 (38.5) 86(22.7) 66 (17.4) 52 (13.7)

Girls 191 71 (37.2) 44 (23.0) 34 (17.8) 30 (15.7)

Far-WestTotal 506 202 (39.9) 148 (29.2) 108 (21.5) 95 (18.8)

Girls 259 110 (42.5) 86 (33.2) 59 (22.8) 52 (20.1)

Year Students Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Total Repeater

2003Total 729 (28.2) 729 (28.2)

Girls 373 (28.3) 373 (28.3)

2004Total 135 (6.0) 173 (7.7) 308 (11.9)

Girls 70 (6.2) 95 (8.4) 165 (12.5)

Repetition flow of 2589 first grade new enrollees of 2002 through the first 5-year

2005Total 42 (1.6) 77 (2.8) 94 (3.5) 213 (8.2)

Girls 17 (1.2) 36 (2.6) 51 (3.7) 104 (7.9)

2006Total 5 (0.1) 25 (0.7) 57 (1.7) 65 (2.0) 152 (5.9)

Girls 1 (0.1) 12 (0.7) 32 (2.0) 35 (2.2) 80 (6.1)

Overall Total 911 (35.2) 275 (10.6) 151 (5.8) 65 (2.0) 1402(54.2)

Girls 461 (35.0) 143 (10.8) 83 (6.3) 35 (2.0) 722 (54.8)

Year Students Grade 1 Grades 1 & 2

Grades 1, 2 & 3

Grades 1, 2, 3 & 4

Total School Leavers

2003Total 533 (20.6) 533

Girls 242 (18.4) 242

2004Total 518 (25.2) 518

Girls 261 (24.3) 261

Flow of school-leavers from among the 2589

first grade new enrollees of 2002 through the first 5-year primary cycle

2005Total 191 (12.0) 191

Girls 86 (11.0) 86

2006Total 74 (5.5) 74

Girls 50 (6.9) 50

Overall

Total 1316 (51%)

Girls 639 (48.5%)

Boys 677 (53.3 %)

50

60

70

80

90

Su

rviv

al

perc

en

t

Boys

Girls

Total

School-wise percentage distribution of students

surviving up to grade 5 (2002 cohort)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61

School rank

Su

rviv

al

perc

en

t

Caste/ethnic group

Students

Grade 1

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

OverallTotal 2589 1327(51.3) 819(31.6) 657 (25.4) 544 (21.0)

Girls 1318 702 (53.3) 449 (34.1) 364 (27.6) 296 (22.5)

Highly Total 20 9 (45.0) 7 (35.0) 5 (25.3) 5 (25.0)

Promotion flow of 2002 first grade new enrollees

through the primary cycle by ethnic/caste groups

Highly marginalized ethnic

Total 20 9 (45.0) 7 (35.0) 5 (25.3) 5 (25.0)

Girls 8 3 (37.5) 2 (25.0) 2 (25.0) 2 (25.0)

DalitTotal 436 218 (50.0) 127 (29.1) 102 (23.4) 73 (16.7)

Girls 218 114 (52.3) 68 (31.2) 57 (26.1) 39 (17.9)

Chamar, Harijan & Ram

Total 10 5 (50.0) 5 (50.0) 3 (30.0) 2 (20.0)

Girls 4 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0) 1 (25.0)

MuslimTotal 119 39 (32.8) 17 (14.3) 15 (12.6) 14 (11.8)

Girls 54 17 (31.5) 8 (14.8) 7 (13.0) 7 (13.0)

Cohort year

Girlsn=5441

Boysn=5250

With ECD

Without ECD

Difference With ECD

Without ECD

Difference

2002 67.6 51.2 16.4 63.5 46.9 16.6

Promotion flow (in %) of grade-one students

by cohort year and ECD background

2002NE=2589

67.6(115)

51.2(588)

16.4 63.5(108)

46.9(516)

16.6

2003NE=2260

43.7(107)

42.0(374)

1.7 41.6(87)

42.5(389)

-0.9

2004NE=2702

62.4(143)

51.2(587)

11.2 65.1(114)

46.1(531)

19.0

2005NE=3653

77.0(231)

62.5(990)

14.5 76.5(218)

60.8(902)

15.7

Students with

2002Grade I

2003Grade II

2004Grade III

2005Grade IV

2006Grade V

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys

Girls

Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total

Cohort flow of 2002 grade one enrollees by ECD background

ECD

170(100)

170(100)

340(100)

108(64)

115(68)

223(65)

65(38)

77(45)

142(42)

55(32)

66(39)

121(35)

50(29)

55(32)

105(31)

No ECD

1101(100)

1148(100)

2249(100)

516(47)

588(51)

1104(49)

305(28)

372(32)

677(30)

238(22)

298(26)

536(24)

198(18)

241(21)

439(20)

Total

1271(100)

1318(100)

2589(100)

624(49)

703(53)

1327(51)

370(29)

449(34)

819(32)

293(23)

364(28)

657(25)

248(20)

296(22)

544(21)

Enrollment Growth Pattern

100.00

110.00

120.00

130.00

140.00

150.00

160.00

170.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total

There is a steady growth in enrolment of primary students since 1999.

The growth observed in 2006 from 2005 is sudden except in grade 1 in

which the growth has been negative

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Percentage of New Entrants with ECD in

Grade 1

0.0

5.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Boys Girls Total

A steady growth till 2001.

A steep growth from 2001 to 2003. (about 3% points more in the case of girls).

A decreasing trend fro 2003 to 2005 and again a growth in 2006

Student Teacher Ratio

Region /Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mountain 19.1 18.4 20.5 19.7 18.7

Hill 29.4 28.2 35.2 37.7 35.4

Terai 42.5 42.9 53.2 53.0 48.8Terai 42.5 42.9 53.2 53.0 48.8

Valley 24.7 22.8 31.4 26.6 21.6

Total 31.7 31.0 38.4 40.3 37.2

The ratio is consistently lowest in mountain belt in all the five years.

Highest in Terai (with an increase in 2004 and 2005)

The average STR is 37.2 which is less than national STR 45.2 in primary level

Per student classroom space (sq. ft.)

Year Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Primary

2002 5.8 6.4 6.8 6.8 8.1 6.7

2003 5.9 7.0 6.7 6.3 7.1 6.5

2004 5.4 6.9 7.6 7.8 7.2 7.8

2005 8.0 8.2 9.4 9.2 8.9 8.6

2006 6.8 7.7 7.5 7.7 8.1 7.5

The average per student classroom space at primary level remained less than

nationally set norm of 8.1 sq.ft. (0.75 sq. m) for the past five years.

Only in grade 5 it has almost been at par with the national norm in all five years.

Gender parity index of students of primary grade

Gender Parity

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Enrolment of girls in primary schools has out numbered that of boys after 2004.

Effect of ECD on student promotion in grade 1 (2002-2006)

Pass

Percent

with ECD

Pass

Percent

without

Pass

Percent

with ECD

Pass

Percent

without

Year

Boys

Changes in

Pass

Percent

Girls

Changes

in Pass

Percentwith ECD

without

ECDwith ECD

without

ECD

2002 74.50 48.66 26 75.00 53.50 21.50

2003 56.38 53.41 3 50.00 52.20 -2.20

2004 67.60 54.47 13 66.35 58.14 8.21

2005 74.85 61.07 14 74.16 60.07 14.09

Percent Percent

No of student enrolled with ECD background (all cohort 2002-2006)

| ecd |

region | 0 1 | Total

---------+----------------------------+----------------

1 | 11,680 1,973 | 13,653

(85.5) (14.5) (100)

2 | 5,875 2,519 | 8,394 2 | 5,875 2,519 | 8,394 (70.0) (30.0) (100)

3 | 10,312 1,172 | 11,484 (89.8) (10.2) (100)

4 | 6,243 1,371 | 7,614 (82.0) (18.0) (100)

5 | 7,764 0 | 7,764 (100) (0) (100)

---------+----------------------------+----------------

Total | 41,874 7,035 | 48,909 (85.6) (14.4) (100)

Effect of Scholarship on student promotion in grade 1 (2002-2006)

With

Scholarship

Without

Scholarship

With

Scholarship

Without

Scholarship

Boys GirlsYear

Changes

in Pass

Percent

Changes

in Pass

PercentScholarship Scholarship Scholarship Scholarship

2002 67.90 49.91 17.99 63.75 54.66 9.09

2003 47.86 54.44 -6.58 50.61 51.97 -1.36

2004 60.17 55.39 4.78 62.48 57.81 4.67

2005 69.93 61.44 8.49 69.95 56.73 13.22

2006 64.37 55.04 9.33 67.97 54.42 13.55

Primary school promotion rate extrapolated beyond 2006 based on past trend

50

75

100

Girls are expected to achieve 100% promotion rate by 2012

Boys are expected to achieve 100% promotion rate by 2014

0

25

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Boys Girls

Recommendations

1. Diagnose further the issues of access, quality

and efficiency focusing on excluded children

and devise necessary policy and program

responses. (who are the children who will not

Improving Student Promotion

2. Policy and program interventions for improved

learning achievement and reduced wastage in

Mid and Far West.

responses. (who are the children who will not

make it up to grade 5 in 5 years after their entry

into grade one and why they will not do so?)

3. Teacher and head teacher training

curriculum and programs should include

participatory school and classroom

context analysis.

Recommendations

context analysis.

4. Review and redressing of the existing

policy and strategy on ECD and

incentives programs and prioritize

targeting the deprived groups.

1. The MOES/DOE should urgently address the problem of

repetition in grade one if quality, access and efficiency

of PE system are to be improved.

RecommendationsSchool-specific Recommendations

2. The 62 sample school show gender parity in primary

education. But it needs to be further investigated with

the DOE initiative

1. The MOES/DOE should urgently address the

problem of repetition in grade one if quality,

access and efficiency of PE system are to be

improved.

Recommendations

2. The 62 sample school show gender parity in

primary education. But it needs to be further

investigated with the DOE initiative

3. MOES/DOE should take initiatives for

developing data processing and

analyzing skills at district, RC and

school level.

Recommendations

4. MOES/DOE should take initiatives on

student tracking by assigning official

ID code

5. The Flash Report publishing should

eventually be based on student tracking

database so that it will be helpful to

ensure data quality [e.g., calculation of

dropout rates can be more accurate].

Recommendations

dropout rates can be more accurate].

6. Special program initiatives deems

necessary to address the access issue

for Harizan/Ram/Chamar (Terai dalit

groups) and Muslim group

7. Stake holders such as INGOs, NGO, local

stakeholders should be mobilized to

increase the ECD centers. DOE should

coordinate with different agencies to

increase ECD centers rapidly.

Recommendations

increase ECD centers rapidly.

8. Student teacher ratio (STR) of individual

school should be considered and the

teacher deployment should be based

on the context of the individual school

Thank you

Presentation for donor mission 2007 December

Documents

Transcript of Presentation for donor mission 2007 December