1

Universal Primary Education (UPE) in Bangladesh

Recent Evidence on Efficiency and Equity

Mahmudul Alam Bangladesh Development

Researchers Forum (BDREF), October 05, 2006

BIDS, Dhaka

2

Salients Aspects of the Presentation

Section 1. Major Issues and the Country ContextSection 2: Recent Evidence on Systemic Efficiency

and Equity Systemic Efficiency Internal Efficiency Indicator Participation and Equity by SES Categories and RegionsSection 3: Factors Behind Low UPE-Performance School-based Variables Non-school VariablesSection 4:Challenges and Way Forward

3

Section 1. Major Issues and the Country Context

• Analytical issues: How policy decision-making takes place in a developing country such as Bangladesh [e.g. (i) rational problem-solving approach with organizational control based on adequate information/estimates( Mann, 1975), (ii) Critical policy approach, a multiplex function of socio-political and economic contestations among different power-wielders such as politicians,state-functionaries, civil society activists and donors, (iii) refined critical approach- the last mentioned approach but significantly influenced by some specific social actors, their hegemonic and historical roles (Gale, 2001)]

4

More close to the refined critical approach- the historical importance of the Liberation War of 1971- A mixture of techno-economic and refined critical approach

• Bangladesh has reached a bipartisan consensus (between two major political parties i..e. AL and BNP) on the envisaged development path for the country in 1991- a capitalist development strategy with social justice for the poor/disadvantaged

• Naomi Hossain’s ( 2005) thesis is relevant here to note that the national (capital Dhaka-based) élite class in general does not consider the state-interventionist attempts to alleviate the poverty and other related aspects of the disadvantaged any more viable and urgent; the danger of insurrection by the poor is gone (or can be handled)

Section 1. Major Issues …( Contd.)

5

• Mechanism for drawing up of state-interventionist primary educational plan/programmes in Bangladesh (see Figures 1.1 and Figure 1.2)- multisectoral and aggregative planning mechanism-top-down-smacks of Soviet-type centralized planning

• Highly centralized implementation mechanism for UPE with the Directorate ( DPE) headquatered in Dhaka, district-level ( N=64) and upazila or sub-district level (N= 491) offices

Section 1. Major Issues ….(Contd.)

6

National EconomicCouncil

Ministry of Finance(Finance Division, ERD)

ECNEC

Other Line –Ministries (outside MoE/ MoPME)

Ministry of Planning

Planning Commission

Planning Division

MoPME/MoE

DPE/DSHE

BNFE

PODNRCNAPE/NAEM

National-level

(policy making)

National-level

(admin, research and training related)

Fig 1.1 Bangladesh: Organisation of Educational Planning

8

Section 2 :Recent Evidence on Systemic Efficiency and Equity

Systemic Efficiency

• GER has gone up from 96.6 percent in 1997 to 104.8 percent in 2003 ; it has fallen to 93.7 percent in 2005; See Table 3.1

• NER has grown from 82 percent in 2004 ;it has fallen to 87 percent in 2005; See Table 3.2• Whether we consider GER or NER as the performance indicator (KPI) , Bangladesh has

attained gender-parity in UPE around 2000 ; since then it has been sustained• Overtime, 1997-2005, the male enrollment in absolute term has fallen and the rate of growth is

statistically significant

Internal Efficiency Indicators

• Average promotion rate (gr.1-5) for 2005, varies between 77 to 85; GPS fares better than RNGPS; Madrassas are not far off.

• Considering rural and urban divide, as expected urban pupils do a bit better ; when we compare male-female performance, the female are a few percent-points ahead of the female promotion rates.

• On the flip-side, the average (per grade) repetition rate is 10-11 percent in GPS and RNGPS. Urban schools are with lower repetition rates. No significant gender-differential in repetition rate

• Dropout rate varies between four percent (for urban female-GPS) to 12 percent ( male rural- RNGPS); Dropout rates are high with Madrassas

9

Section 2: Recent Evidence…( Contd.)• As we move from grade 1 to grade 5, there is a pattern for promotion rate and its

opposites indexes of repetition rate and dropout rate. Let us consider the internal efficiency estimates for 2005. The highest estimate of promotion rate i.e., 87 percent is observed for grade 2. And the lowest promotion rates of 74-76 are for grades 4,3 and 2.

• As a mirror image, the highest dropout rate is for grade 4 (it is 15 percent), followed by 13 percent for grade 1; the lower dropout rates are for grades 5,2 and 3.

• Considering internal efficiency indicators in mainstream schools overtime, 1997-2005 : the internal efficiency indicator of dropout rate show some small improvement. It is observed that in 1997, the average (for grade 1-5) dropout rate was around 12 percent This level is maintained up to 2003; but in the recent years of 2004 and 2005, the average dropout rate is estimated to be 10 percent. The average (for grade 1to 5) repetition has risen from five percent in 1997 to around 10 percent in 2005.

• Time trends of survival rates (1997-2005) and coefficient of efficiency (1997-2005),point to quite serious deficiencies in the mainstream school sub-system; survival rate has fallen from 60-65 percent in 1997 to 53-55 in 2003-2005; coefficient of efficiency has fallen from 64 percent in 1998 to around 55 percent in 2006.

• Primary school annual scholarship exams reflect the overall performance of the country; Model GPS and NGO run schools perform the best, followed by PTI- experimental schools: overtime (1997-20005), both the participation rate and the pass-rate have gone up.

10

Table 3.1Bangladesh Primary Education: Overall Gross Enrollment and Gross Enrollment Rates (GERs),

in 1997-2006

Years (1)

Total population age (6-10) years (2) Gross enrollment in grade I-V (3) (in million)

(a)Both sex (b)Male (c)Female (a)Both sex (b)Male (c)Female

1997 18,861,583 9,675,992 9,185,591 18.031(95.60) 9.364(96.78) 8.666(94.35)

1998 19,079,888 9,760,550 9,319,338 18.337(96.11) 9.564(97.99) 8.772(94.13)

1999 18,307,265 9,294,826 9,012,439 17.621(96.26) 9.065(97,53) 8.556(94.94)

2000 18,296,312 9,351,062 8,945,250 17.667(96.57) 9.032(96.60) 8.635(96.53)

2001 18,114,201 9,236,432 8,877,769 17.659(97.49) 8.989(97.33) 8.669(97.65)

2002 18,040,023 9,154,846 8,885,177 17.561(97.35) 8.841(96.58) 8720(98.14)

2003 17,592,292 9,222,030 8,370,262 18.431(104.77) 9.358(101.48) 9.072(108.39)

2004 17,671,087 9,232,740 8,438,347 17.953(101.60) 9.046(97.98) 8.906(105.55)

2005 17,315,296 8,868,810 8,446,486 16.219(93.67) 8.089(91.21) 8.130(96.25)n

Note : Parentheses show GERs

11

Years(1)

Total population age (6-10) years (2) Net enrollment in grade I-V (3)( in million)

(a)Both sex (b)Male (c)Female (a)Both sex (b)Male (c)Female

1997 18,861,583 9,675,992 9,185,591 15.485(82.10) 8.035(83.04) 7.567(82.39)

1998 19,079,888 9,760,550 9,319,338 15.836(83.00) 8.196(83.97) 7.678(82.39)

1999 18,307,265 9,294,826 9,012,439 15.213(83.10) 7.809(83.97) 7.530(83.55)

2000 18,296,312 9,351,062 8,945,250 15.368(84.00) 7.765(83.04) 7.682(85.88)

2001 18,114,201 9,236,432 8,877,769 15.397(85.00) 7.670(83.04) 7.727(87.04)

2002 18,040,023 9,154,846 8,885,177 15.334(85.00) 7.602(83.04) 7.733(87.04)

2003 17,592,292 9,222,030 8,370,262 16.255(92.40) 8.001(86.76) 8.259(98.68)

2004 17,671,087 9,232,740 8,438,347 16.257(92.00) 8.096(87.70) 8.130(96.35)

2005 17,315,296 8,868,810 8,446,486 15.098(87.20) 7.505(84.63) 7.610(90.10)

Table-3.2Bangladesh Primary Education: Net Enrollment in Mainstream and

other*institutions by Gender, 1997-2005

Note: Parentheses show NERs

12

Table-3.3 Bangladesh: Average promotion rates** (per grade) in primary education by major

delivery mechanisms, gender and broad regions, 2005

Region (strata) Government Schools (N=37,672)

Registered Non-government Schools

(N=19,635)

Ebtedaiye Madrassas (N=3,488)

Male Female Male Female Male Female

A. Rural Bangladesh (N=56,829) 82 85 77 79 80 81

B. Urban Bangladesh* (N=3,960) 86 89 81 84 88 81

1. Metropolitan Cities (N=538) 86 89 82 86 88 85

2. Municipalities (N= 3422 ) 86 89 81 83 80 81

C. All Bangladesh (N=60,705) 82 85 77 80 80 81

Source: DPE, Dhaka, August 12, 2006.Notes: * Out of 3,966 urban schools, 3,064 are GPS, 840 are RNGPS and 62 are Ebtedaiye

Madrashas.Number promoted from jth class to (j+1) th

** Promotion rate (%) in ith year = ------------------------------------------------------x 100

Total students enrolled in the ith year

13

Table-3.4 Bangladesh: Average repetition** rates (per grade) in primary education by

major delivery mechanisms, gender and broad region, 2005

Region (strata) Government Schools

(N=37,672)

Registered Non-government

Schools (N=19,635)

Ebtedaiye Madrassas (N=3,488)

Male Female Male Female Male Female

A. Rural Bangladesh (N=56,829) 11 11 11 10 9 9

B. Urban Bangladesh* (N=3,960) 10 9 9 8 10 10

1. Metropolitan Cities (N=538 ) 8 8 9 5 7 6

2.Municipalities (N=3422) 10 9 9 9 9 9

C. All Bangladesh (N=60,705) 11 11 11 10 9 9

Source: personal communications with DPE, Dhaka, August 12,Dhaka Note: * Out of 3,966 urban schools, 3,064 are GPS, 840 are RNGPS and 62 are Ebtedaiye

Madrassas. Number remained in same grade in (i+1) th year

** Repetition rate (%) in ith year in jth grade = -------------------------------------------------------- x 100

Total students enrolled in the ith year

14

Table-3.5 Bangladesh: Average Dropout** Rates (per grade) in primary education major

delivery mechanisms, gender and broad region, 2005

Region (strata) Government Schools

(N=37,672)

Registered Non-government

Schools (N=19,635)

Ebtedaiye Madrassas (N=3,488)

Male Female

Male Female Male Female

A. Rural Bangladesh (N=56,829) 7 4 12 10 12 11

B. Urban Bangladesh* (N=3,960) 4 2 10 8 2 9

1. Metropolitan Cities (N=538 ) 6 3 13 9 5 9

2. Municipalities (N= 3422 ) 4 2 10 8 11 10

C. All Bangladesh (N=60,705) 6 4 12 10 11 11

Source: Personal Communications with DPE, Dhaka, August 12, 2006. Note: * Out of 3,966 urban schools, 3,064 are GPS, 840 are RNGPS and 62 are Ebtedaiye Madrassas.

Number dropping out in jth grade by end of ith year ** Dropout (%) in ith year in jth grade = ------------------------------------------------------------- x 100

Total students enrolled in jth grade in ith year

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005year

as %

of t

otal

enr

ollm

ent

Promotion Rates

Repetition Rates

Dropout Rates

Source: DPE, Dhaka; personal communications on August 12, 2006.

Figure-3.1 Bangladesh Primary Mainstream Schools:

Average (grade 1 to 5) Rates (as percent of total) of Promotion, Repetition, and Dropout, 1997-2005

16

Figure-3.2Bangladesh: Survival Rates (%) of Student Cohorts in Mainstream

Primary Schools, 1997-2005

Survival rates in Primary Education (1997-2005)

44%

48%

52%

56%

60%

64%

68%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Rat

e

Source: DPE, Dhaka; personal communications on August 12, 2006. Note: No. of students from the cohort surviving upto grade 5 Survival rate (%) of a cohort of students = ----------------------------------------------------------------- x 100 No. of students enrolling in grade 1 in ith year

17

Figure-3.3 Bangladesh: Coefficient of Efficiency (in percent) in Mainstream Primary

Schools (GPS and RNGPS), 1997-2005

Coefficient of efficient in Primary Education (1997-2005)

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year

Rat

e

Source: DPE, Dhaka; personal communications on August 12, 2006. Note: Total of ideal-years for a pupil to complete Coefficient of efficiency (%) for primary education cycle = --------------------------------------------------- x 100

Total of pupil-years actually required

18

Table-3.6 Bangladesh: Primary Scholarship Examination Results

by Different Types of Mainstream Schools, 2005Sl. No.

School Type(1)

No. Appeared (2)

Pass-rate (%) (3)

A. GPS

1 (i) Govt. Model Primary School (N=463) 12,200 (89.0)

2 (ii) PTI experimental (N=53) 1,274 (83.7)

3 (iii) Government Primary School (N=37,339)

363,066 (69.2)

4 (iv) Community (N=2056) 10,445 (44.7)

B. Non-government

5 (i) RNGPS (N=19,890) 120,853 (53.9)

6 (ii) BRAC Schools (N=2695) 11,230 (89.1)

7 (iii) Other (N=1386) 28,924 (89.0)

Source: DPE, Dhaka; personal communications on August 12, 2006.Note: Parentheses give percentages.

19

Table-3.7 Bangladesh: Primary Scholarship Examination Results for Mainstream

School (GPS and RNGPS) Participation Rates, Pas-rates by Gender, 2002-05

1) Year (2) Participants ( (3) Pass-rate (%)

(a)Number (b)As % of

enrolment in class 5

(A) Both sexes (b) Girls

2002 451,033 (21.57) (44.19) (41.19)

2003 452,415 (21.89) (51.94) (48.83)

2004 487,400 (23.53) (54.21) (51.02)

2005 604,359 (31.57) (67.25) (65.05)

Source: DPE, Dhaka; personal communications on August 12, 2006.Note: Parentheses give percentages.

20

Table-3.8 Bangladesh Mainstream Primary Schools: Distribution (Percent-share) Of

Institutions with Basic Physical Facilities, 2005

Major Aspect Distribution by School-types

(a) GPS (N=37672) (b) RNGPS (N=19682)

1. Useable classroom Pucca**, Semi-pucca

(58) [38] (92) [04]

2. Potable water (91) (89)

3. Separate Toilets (a) Girls (b) Boys

(37)(32)

(35)(29)

(c) Teacher (49) (35)

Source: DPE, Dhaka; personal communications on August 12, 2006.Note: * Parentheses give percentages. ** [ ] show classroom which are in semi-pucca structures.

21

Section 2: Recent Evidence…… (contd.)

Participation and Equity by SES -Categories and Regions

• See Table 3.10- enrollment rate is positively related with better SES, dropout rate is inversely related with higher SES.

• Similar situation in terms of NER, see Annex 3.5 ( of Education Watch-2000 Report).

22

Table 3.10 Bangladesh: Children (age 6-10) by Enrollment Status and Socio-economic Status1 (SES), 2004

Source:

CAMPE, Quality with Equity: The Primary Education Agenda, Education Watch Report 2003/4, Dhaka 2005

  

SES category

Enrollment Status (%) No. of total children(6-10 yrs)

  (a) Enrolled

 (b) Dropout

 Never enrolled

1. Always in deficit 

67.6 

7.1 25.2 100 (210)

2. Sometimes in deficit 

87.4 3.1 9.4 100 (1178)

3. Break even 

90.8 2.8 6.4 100 (2299)

4. Surplus 

95.3 1.3 3.5 100 (1506)

5. All types       100 (5193)

Notes: 1, Here SES-categories are defined following the World Food Programme (WFP) categories, where the degree of food insecurity (or otherwise) has been taken as the determining criterion.

2. The estimates presented here are based on non-random sample survey of 10 upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh by CAMPE’s research team (2005). Purposively, the survey covered 4 upazilas of high food insecurity areas, 3 each from moderately food insecure and low food insecure areas. The estimates are based on household surveyor (N = 8212); covered all the administrative divisions, mainly rural areas (with some urban areas), proportionately more of food-deficit areas

23

24

Section 2: Recent Evidence…..(contd.)

• There is a clear regional pattern in UPE-performance- Metropolitan areas of Dhaka,Chittagong ,Khulna and other district-towns doing better when compared with the rural areas.

• Administrative divisions of Sylhet,Rajshahi and Chittagong (in that order) lag behind in terms of quatitative and qualitative indicators of performance; the leading adminstrative areas are Khulna,Barisal and Dhaka. Per capita GDP-wise Chittagong and Sylhet do so well but it is not reflected in UPE-performance.On the contrary, Barisal in general a deficit area, does perform significantly better in UPE

25

26

Section 2: Recent Evidence…..(contd.)

Figure-3.4Bangladesh Rural Enrollment Rate of 6-10 years old by Poverty-Status

and Regions

0102030405060708090

100

Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi

Rural Area

GER

(% o

f elig

ible

chi

ldre

n )

Poor Male

Poor Female

Non-Poor Male

Non-PoorFemale

Source: BBS 2005, Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2000

27

Figure-3.5Bangladesh Urban Enrollment Rate of 6-10 years old by Poverty-Status

and Regions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi

Urban Area

GER

(% o

f elig

ible

chi

ldre

n) Poor Male

PoorFemale

Non-PoorMale

Non-PoorFemale

Source: BBS 2005, Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2000

28

Section 3: Factors Behind Low UPE Performance

School-based variables

• Inadequate contact hours and in optimal teaching-learning materials. See Table 3.11

• Unattractive school environment (little games/music/art-works; dull pedagogy, low teacher-student ratio; lack of subject-based and class-room-based teacher training; lack of academic supervision. See Table 3.13

29

Table 3.11Bangladesh Mainstream Primary Schools: Contact Hours Availability of Free Textbooks and

Instructional Materials, 2005

Major Aspect Distribution by School-types

(a) GPS (N= 37672 ) (b) RNGPS (N= 19682)

1. Yearly contact hours 600 600

Double shift** (88) (91)

2. Timely availability of free textbooks (98) (98)

3. Availability of teaching aid and learning materials

(51) (48)

Source: DPE, Dhaka; August 12, 2006. Note: * Parentheses give percentages. ** Single shift schools are 12 percent of the total GPS-type and nine percent of the RNGPS-type. The single shift-school runs on average (yearly) for about 900 hours.

30

Table-3.12Bangladesh Mainstream Primary Schools: Distribution of Teachers

by Some Salient Features, 2005

Major Aspects Distribution by School-types

(a) GPS (N= ) (b) RNGPS (N= )

1. Teacher-student ratio 1:58 1:46

2. Initial Teacher-training** [C-in-Ed] (in %)

(73) (73)

3. Subject-based training*** (27) (30)

4. Sub-cluster training (80) (80)

5. Class-room-based training (35) (35)

6. Head-teacher training in teacher support & academic supervision

(34) (38)

Source: DPE, Dhaka; August 12, 2006.Note: * Parentheses give percentages.** 76 percent of the male-teachers got trained and 69 percent of the female-teachers got trained.*** Subject-based trained teachers are lower by one percent point among GPS-female teachers andby four percent points among RNGPS-female teachers.

31

Non-school variables

• Low income, poor households not interested to send their children to even free primary school- questions of direct costs (about US S 19/year) plus opportunity costs e.g. at home helping the family in farming,other income-generating activities

• To encourage the poor children to enrol and sustain in the school in rural areas the state has started ( from July,2002) demand-side financing (Tk.100/month per child) under Primary Education Stipend Project (PESP); significant leakages (faulty targeting, asking for premium) of PESP-money have been reported (CAMPE,2004)

• First generation learners (about 45 percent of the total students) do not get optimal support from the school/teachers; teacher-student ratio is one of the highest in the world (1:60)

Section 3. Factors Behind Low UPE Performance (contd)

32

Table-3.14Bangladesh: Yearly Public Recurrent Expenditure of Primary

Education by Delivery Mechanisms, Rural-Urban Locations, 2000

Areas Yearly Public Expenditure Per Pupil (in current Taka)

GPS (N= ) RNGPS (N= ) Ebtedaiye (N= )

(a) Rural (N= ) 828 535 1173

(b) Urban (N= ) 1144 1548 1863

All Bangladesh

Note: 1 US$ = 53.65 Taka in 2000.Source: CAMPE-UPL, Renewed Hope-Daunting Challenges Education Watch-2001, Chapter 7, Dhaka 2002.

33

Table-3.15Bangladesh: Yearly Private Cost of Primary Education by Rural-urban Locations, Socio-economic (Food-consumption) Status and

Gender, 2000Areas Annual Private Cost of Primary Education of household/Socio-economic

Status

(A) Always Deficit

(b) Sometime in deficit

(c) Balance (d) Surplus

(a) Rural (i) Male

514 600 769 1066

(ii) Female 510 517 674 924

(b) Urban

(i) Male 1280 1902 2557 5699

(ii) Female 1184 1302 2310 5397

Note: 1 US$ = Tk. 53.65 in 2000.Source: CAMPE-UPL, op.cit. Education on Watch-2001, Chapter 6.

34

Section 3 : Factor Behind…. (contd.)

• BIDS-World Bank study (2004) finds a positive relationship between (in a household) adult male educational level and children’s primary enrolment, also primary completion rate; for ‘ first generation learners’ the school has to supply the complete answer (no home-work, domestic support/private tutor)

• Last but not the least, lack of community involvement [ School Management Committee (SMC),Parent Teacher Association (PTA), are not given due roles]; highly centralised primary education system in the country. From the capital Dhaka, the Directorate of Primary Education( DPE) virtually regulates about 70,000 schools and about 300,000 teachers in the country.The Upazila (Sub-district) and District level DPE-functionaries are it seems mere post-boxes passing on any major decision-making to DPE,Dhaka.

35

Challenges Way Forward

1. How to increase overall enrolment ( in relative and absolute terms)

Make the mainstream schools ( GPS+ RNGPS) more attractive in terms of teaching learning transactions, better ( interactive) pedagogy; improved academic supervision by AUEOs and Head teachers

2. How to enrol and sustain the poor children in the school

(a)Effective enforcement of Compulsory Primary Education Act of 1990; School Management Committee( SMC) and the local government body of Union Parishad( UP) must be made answerable for non-enrolment of the poor( or any) children in its catchments area, and for not sustaining in the school(b) SMC/concerned teachers will be involved in the social mobilization and follow-up activities for enrolment/sustaining the poor children in the school

3. How to devolve activities related to planning, implementation,M&E to local groups/ultimate beneficiaries ( participatory development)

Without causing any major headache/alarm to the national ( well-entrenched) elite, it may be possible to empower the local elite ( e.g. UP-members), District-level educationists, technocrats, CPE-committees ( in line the autocratic Ershad ‘s attempt) may be formed for social mobilization, M&E and so on.

4. More resources required for quality education

State decision-makers ( whether political, technocratic or administrative) should know that US $ 19/pupil per year is not adequate for quality primary education in the country; parents are willing to pay money for quality education. Some innovative ways [ e.g. tax-exempt endowment funds at the local levels ( UP, District)] to mobilize resources may be tried. Public recognition of these philanthropies should encourage potential donors.

Section 4: Challenges and Way Forward