state of primary education in plan intervention areas

State of Primary Education in Plan Intervention Areas

May 10, 2012

Goutam RoyMonitoring, Evaluation and ResearchPlan Bangladesh

ObjectivesMain objective• To explore the present status of primary education in

Plan intervention areas

Specific objectives• To know the situation of children's access to primary

education• To know the existing school facilities and teaching-

learning provisions• To explore the socioeconomic characters of primary

school learners• To explore the role of school managing committee • To describes the views, awareness and participation

of parents and community

MethodologyStudy areas: Four program units: Gazipur, Lalmonirhat,

Nilphamari, Dinajpur and a project area: Barguna sadar

Sampling• Quantitative: Schools, Students and Households• Qualitative: Parents, Students, Teachers, Community

people, SMC chairs, UP Chairs

Sample: Quantitative• 30 schools from each upazila 30 x 6 = 180 schools• 10 x 30 = 300 students from each upazila; total 300 x 6

= 1800 students for interview• 250 x 6 = 1500 households

• Quality control in data collection process is ensured• Data collection: April, 2011

Scope to primary education

Rate of primary enrolled children (6-10) by PUs

School facilitiesSome basic information by PUs (%)

Indicators GP

U

LPU NP

U

Dinajpur BP

U

All

K. C. DPU

Play ground 96.7 96.7 100 100 96.7 98.3 90.0 96.

7

Electricity 50.0 26.7 30.0 13.

3

23.3 18.3 6.7 25.

0

Tube well

/supply

water

96.7 100.

0

36.7 83.3 86.7 85.0 76.7 90.

0

Toilet 86.2 96.3 90.0 63.

3

70.0 66.7 75.9 80.

3

Girls toilet 23.

3

50.0 40.0 33.3 56.7 45.0 16.

7

36.

7

School facilities

School having library facility by PUs (%)

Program/Project Unit

Separate library

No separate library but have some books

Gazipur 6.7 86.7Lalmonirhat 3.3 93.3Nilphamari 6.7 53.3Dinajpur 3.3 73.3

Khansama 3.3 83.3

Chirirbandar3.3 63.3

Barguna 0.0 56.7All 3.9 72.8

Teaching-learning provisions

Promotion rate of the students by PUs (%)Program/Project Unit

Boys Girls total

Gazipur 76.6 80.4 78.7Lalmonirhat 86.7 88.0 87.5Nilphamari 80.7 80.6 80.3Dinajpur 86.8 88.5 87.6

Khansama89.0 90.0 89.3

Chirirbandar84.6 87.0 85.8

Barguna 83.9 86.4 85.2All 83.6 85.4 84.5


Repetition rate of the students by PUs (%)Program/Project Unit

Boys Girls total


Khansama 4.2 3.9 4.0Chirirbandar 5.2 4.0 4.6

Barguna 4.0 3.3 3.5All 7.0 6.3 6.6


Students’ attendance rate in school by PUs (%)


Pass rate of the students’ in school completion examination by PUs (%)


School offered additional tutorial support by PUs (%)


Any type of coaching

Gazipur 86.2Lalmonirhat 33.3Nilphamari 31.0Dinajpur 61.7

Khansama 70.0

Chirirbandar53.3

Barguna 76.7All 57.8


Teacher and students’ ration by PUs


Teacher student ratio

Gazipur 1:63Lalmonirhat 1:49Nilphamari 1:58Dinajpur 1:48

Khansama 1:54

Chirirbandar1:42

Barguna 1:62All 1:54


Teacher with different trainings by PUs (%)


Have any education related training

Subject-based

No training


Khansama58.4 36.5 9.6

Chirirbandar80.6 53.7 6.7

Barguna 49.4 42.3 39.3All 63.7 44.7 14.8

School managing committee

• 70% of the head teachers said that they were happy with the performance of SMC.

• Among the members, SMC chairperson was active comparatively. SMC chairs of SIP schools visit school regularly

• Most of the female members were not active.

• Community people were not happy with the performance of SMC members. No communication between SMC members and community people.

• Most of the SMC members did not know their specific roles and responsibilities.

Socioeconomic characters of learners

Mean age of the grade 5 learners by PUs


Older-aged and younger-aged students by PUs (%)


Student with income deficit household by PUs (%)

Views, awareness & participation of parents and community• Main intention to send children to school was to be

grown up as a good person and to get a good job

• Some of the parents thought that the age fixed for primary education was too low.

• Most of the parents sent their children regularly but their participate was low except mother gathering.

• Community people did not participate in school activities but if they were asked for to do some tasks, they did it with interest. However, teacher, generally, did not call for community people to participate school related activities.

• Views to education is generally positive but rate of participation is low.

Recommendations• SMC members should be accountable to the community. A

yearly meeting should be held where SMC members present last year activities to the community people. Mothers’ participation should be increased and meaningful.

• School teachers should be trained on documentation.

• All the teachers should get at least one subject based training. UEO should take responsibility in the regard.

Thank You