december, 1988 · planning primary educational facilities in bangladesh i a case study of tangail...

371. 9045~1988 i-ABU )

PLANNING PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN BANGLADESH:A CASE STUDY OF TANGAIL AND MANIKGONJ POURASHAVA

MOHAMMADABU EUSUF

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING,BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY ,DHAKA.

December, 1988

PLANNING PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN BANGLADESH I

A CASE STUDY OF TANGAIL AND MANIKGONJ POURASHAVA

BYMOHAMMAD ABU EUSUF

MASTER'S THESISSubmitted to the Department of Urban & Regional Planning,Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology,Dhaka inpartial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNING

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING,BANGLADESH'UBIVERSITY OF,ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,DHAKA.

DECEMBER,1988

mIESIS ACCEPTANCE FORM

PLANNING PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN BANGLADESH:. A CASE STUDY OF TANGAIL AND MANIKGONJ POURASHAVAf3

BY

MD. ABU IDSUF

THESIS

APPROVED AS TO THE STYLE AND CONTENT BY

(Dr. Golam Rahman)Chairman of the Committee (Supervisor)

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNINGBANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND 'rECHNOLOGY, DHAKA.

THESIS

PLANNING PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN BANGLADESH:A CASE STUDY OF TANGAIL AND MANIKGONJ POURASHAVA

BYMd.Abu Eusuf

Approved as to style and.content by the board of examineers :1. Chairman of the committe

Dr.Golam RahmanProfessor,Department of Urban & Regional PlanningBangladesh University of Engineering & TechnologyDhaka.

2. Head of the DepartmentDr.Golam RahmanProfessor and HeadDepartment of Urban & Regional PlanningBangladesh University of Engineering & TechnologyDhaka.

3. Member(External)Engr. Md.Anwarul AlamDirector,Faoilities DepartmentMinistry of Education16,Abdul Ghani RoadDhaka •.

4; MemberMr. A.S.M. Abdul QuiUIDAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Urban & Regional PlanningBangladesh University of Engineering & TechnologyDhaka~'

5. MemberDr. M.A. MohitAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Urban & Regional PlanningBangladesh University of Engineering & TechnologyDhaka.

ABSTRACT \Dropping of school age children, particularly the primary schoolgoing boys and girls in different pourashava poses an acuteproblem with no sign. Obviously, number of school in the poura-shavas donot correspond with the requirement, but worse stillis the unplanned and so improper location of those school.

The present study, through e empirical approach, attempts todevelop optimum location criteria for primary school in consi~deration of educational facilities, accessibility factors andtravel distance by the students. The study based on comprehen-sive socio-economic survey on the different aspects of schoolingproblem as well as the geo-demographic condition of the students,their guardians and teachers. All the Government primary schoolof two pourashavas were selected for this investigation coverin",.information of about ten variables •.,/

Using through a near-neighbourhood technioue, it has beenfound that the distribution pattern of Government. primaryschool in ~angail and Manikgonj pourashava are not uniformlydispersed rather they are clustered over the space. The totaldemand for Government primary school in Tangail by 2000 has beenestimated to be about 43 on the basis of potential schoolgoing popu19tion and in Mani1cgon,iabout 20. _ The averege servicearea of the Government primary schoo~ has beentound-to. 1.79 kmin Tangail aridto 1.96km in Manikgonj (approximately)~

ii.

Finally, two potential location criteria have been identified;1) Lower level optima or residential location based on thedistance and 2) top-level optima \or centrai location) basedon income. An application of those two criteria has been demo-nstrated in the thesis, taking a sample area of pourashava.Bugr8stions for further reasearch covering other important0irnensions of the 10cational problems of Government.primaryschools have also been put forward for .thosewho may takeinterest.

In this stUQY, it was found the actual causes of dropout. Itwas found that poverty is the main causes of dropout in thesurrounding area of different pourashava. A fruitful sugges-tion/recommendation is given in the last pages of this study.

iii.

ACKNO l'iLEDG:EI1ENT

A considerable number of persons have contributed to the successfulcompletion of this study and to them the author would like to ex-tend his sincerest thanks. The author express his indebtednessand deep gratitude to Dr. Golam Hahman, Professor and Head of theDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, Bangladesh Universityof Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, under whose invaluable gui-dance and constant supervision this study has been completed.

The author also benefited from the inte~lectual curiosity andinsights of Dr. M.A. Mohit, Assistant Professor, Department ofUrban and Regional Planning, BUET, Dhaka, Dr. Z.I. Bhuiyan, "Ex-Director General of Directorate of Primary Education, Bangladeshand Mr. A. Quium, Associate Professor, Department of Urban andRegional Planning, BUET.

Special thanks are due to Engr. Anwarul Alam, Director, FacilitiesDepartment for his continuous encouragement and appreciation thisstudy has been completed.

The author gr"tefully express his sincre acknowledgement to Dr.Mir Shahidul Islam, Professor and Dean, Faculty of Architectureand Planning, BUET, who has given constant encouragement andoffered valuable suggestions for completing this work.

The author would like to express his ~ratitude to all the tea-chers and fellow students who helped to carryout the researchwork fruitfully. A number of persons of different agencies like

, 'J

iv

as World Bank, Unesco, Banbeis, DPE, Directorate of secondaryand higher education, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, District

fstatistics office of Tangail and~Manikgonj deserve thsnks fortheir help and assistance during the study and field survey.

The author is grateful to Mr. Giash Uddin and Mr. Abdul Malekfor typing the final and draft thesi s.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER - 1: - INTRODUCTION

v.

1.11.2

BackgroundPlanning the location ofgovernment primary schoolGeneral objective of the studyProblem specificationStructure of the thesis

14246

7

CHAPTER - 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Appr08ch to the study2.2 -Selection of the representative

pourashava2.3 Selection of sample household2.4 Method of data collection2.5 Selection of base map2.6 Data analysis2.7 Limitations

911

1214151517

vi.

CHAPTER _ 3: THE STUDY AREAS

4.2 Household income and number of primary 43school students with distance ofprimary schools

4.4

4.10

3033

39

1919222526

41

52525557

58

49

4547

60

Household income and number ofprimary school going populationCharacteristics of household byincome and size of the familyOccupational status and primaryschool going populationTeacher-student ratioPhysical facilities in schoolPattern of school attendance.Teachers opinion regarding facto~sof drop outRequirement of.Class Roomfacilities

4.11 Summary of findings

le.6l~.74.8li.9

4.1. Travel characteristics of primaryschool goin~ population4.1.1 Mode of transportption

3.1 Location of the study areas3.1.1 Tangail Pourashava3.1.2 Manikganj Pourashava

3.2 Population characteristics3.3 Historical growth of primary

school in study aree3.4 Urban populption gro~~h3.5 Literac;)'and educational Institution3.6' Distribution of potential nump,er ofprimary school going population in

in the study areaCHAPTER - 4: ANALYSIS OF FIELD DATA

CHAPTER - 5 DISTRIllU:rIONPAT1'ERN OF GOVERNMEN'r PRIMARYSCIiOOljAND SERVICE AREA

Distribution pattern of Governmentprimary schoolService area of the school

vii.

61

73

CHAPTER - 6: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION,RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

6.1 .Findings and discussh'n6.2 Planning the location of government

primary school at poursshava level

6.2.1 Location of lower leveloptima government primaryschool

6.3 Recommendations6.3.1. Administrative measures6.3.2. Planning the sites of

primary school6.3.3. Area specified for the

primary school6.3.4. Improvement of the ancilliaryfacilities planning .6.3.5. Improvement of school desi~n

criteria, maintenance andmanagement

78

83

83

888889

92

92

93

6.3.6. Improvement of teaching system, 94eliminating the dropout andincrease literacy

6.4. Conclusion 95

vii:!.

APPENDICESAPPENDIX - I. QUES'rIONNAIRE - A 98

APPENDIX - II. QUESTIONNAIRE - B 103

APPENDIX - III. QUESTIONNAIRE - C 108

APPENDIX - IV. LIST OF GOVERNMENT 109PRIMARY SCHOOLS

APPENDIX - V. Census charge wise 111Government primary schoolstudent and number ofschool

APPEN DIX- VI" Census charge wise popu- 112lation, area and densityof population

APPENDIX- VII. Ward wise government 113primary school studentand number of primaryschool

APPENDIX- VIII. Bibliography 114

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description

2.1 Ward wise percentage of sample household3.1 Variation of populption in the pourashava

by the area

Growth of.primary school against populationup to age - 11 in the pourashavaDistribution of educational InstitutionsPourashava wise ratio of total populationand .educational Institutions

1324

34

36

ix.

3.54.1

4.1.1

4.2

4.4

4.8

4.9

Area, population and density of population

Distribution of primary school goingchildren by distance travelled to schoolPrimary school going children by mode oftransportSchool going student distributed by annualincome of guardians and distance of schoolDistribution of households by income andnumber of school going populationDistribution of household by income andsize of the familyDistribution of household by occupationand primary school going populationPrimary teacher - student ratio -Ratio of primary school student andtheir school class room facility.Distribution of household by income rangeagainst school going age t6-10 years)children and actual school attendanceTeachers opinion regarding the factors tobe considered for dropout

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

53

54

56

59

Table No Description

5.1 R9tio of population and governmentprimary school in Tangail and Manikgonj

5.2 Number of government primary school ineach circle

5.3 Nearness statistics

5.4 Service area of government primaryschool in Manikgonj and TangailPourashava

64

68

72

75

x.

6.1 Ward wise (Census Charges) areapopulation and density ofpopulation

97

LIST OF MAPS'

3.0 Bangladesh3.1 ~anikgonj pourashavas by ward and mouza3.2 Tangail pourashavas by ward and mouza5.1 Ward wise location of government primary

school Manikgonj pourashava5.2 Wardwise location Tangail pourashava5.3 Government primary school from pourashava

centre Tangail5.4 Government primary school from pourashava

centre Manikgonj6.1 School catchment area map, Tangail6.2 School catchment area map, Manikgonj6.3 Land use map, Manikgonj6.4 Land use map, Tangail6.5 Density of population, Manikgonj6.6 Density of population, Tangail

xi.

20

2123

62

6366

67

8081

84858687

LIST OF FIGURES

xii.

3.1 (e) Ward ~lisepopulation density, Tangail Z1

3.1 (b) Ward wise population density, Manikgonj 28

3.2 Trend of population grovrthof poureshava 31

3.3 Establishment of government primary school 32(1900-1988)

5.1 Histogram shows the primary school from 70poureshava centre, Manikgonj

5.2 Histogram shows the primary school from 71pourashava centre, Tangail

LIST OF ABHREVIATION

BBS - Bane:ladesh Bureau of StatisticsBGD - Banr-ladeshBDG - Ban~ladesh district gazetteDS - District statisticsGPS - Government primary schoolDPE - Directorate of primary educationUPE - Universal primary educationIDA - International development agency

./

C H APT E R -'1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background .1.2 Planning the location of government

priml3ry school1.3 General objective of the study1.4 Problem specification1.5 Btructure of the thesis

1. INTRODUCTION

1~1. Background:

Bangladesh with a largea small area of 1.43,598 square kilometers is 'one of thedensly populated countries in the world. The literacy rateof the people has increased from 19 percent in 1947 to 23percent in 1981 (BBS, 1981). The change however does notappea~ significant when considering the number of years, i.e,34 years has taken place for the increase. Infact,Bangladesh-has one of the highest percentage of illiteracy in the Southand South-East Asian cDuntries. For 100 million population,there are only 44,224 schools for formal education upto,primary level (Haque, 1987)~; Seventy to eighty percentstudents at the primary level dropout for a number of rea~onsincluding socio-economic.physical and cultural factors(World Bank, 1985):'

Education is the backbone of a nation. The fundamental objec-tiveof education is to foster the sense of dignity,moralityand social responsibility leading to the fulfilment of socio-economic aspirations of a nation.' It gives knowledge andskill and raise the spirit of patriotism and social conscio-usness, motivating individuals and groups to perform their'roles in the society at large.

2

Food, clothing and shelter are the basic human needs. Meetingthese three basic human needs in the hierarchy of advancedform of social services, education ~ets top most priority. Tomake it accessible to all,physical planners mustrole in the development planning.

play their

Inbroad~sense, education can be divided into two groups:formal and informal. Formal education is that type of educa-tion which is planned to arrange in the institutions forschooling and coaching under the guidance of teachers. Withthe development of civilization ,schools have become the centresfor formal education. It is a system for transmission of anessential core of subject matters, skills and values to allwho come to the school. In-form8l education is a type ofeducation which one can achieve from his surrounding envir-onment. It is not a process of learning or attending an institu-tion. Its effect are permanent. The social institutions fromwhich one can receive in-formaT education are home, society,club, library, mosque and the surrounding environment theperson come in contact with.

Bangladesh has inherited a system of education introduced bythe British during their long rule in the subcontinent. Thesystem of education prevalent in the subcontinent before 1947

\was not geared to the needs of an independent nation or of agrowing economy. The educational curriculum was prepared toeducate a class of people who could not understand the Englishand sympathetic with their culture (Faruque, 1984).

r

3

Education is synonymous with schooling. In Bangladesh, thereare two stages in schooling-(i) Primary and (ii) Secondary.The present research deals with the planning of primary edu-cational facilities.

Eight out of ten (UPE, 1986) children in Bangladesh todaydo not enjoy the benefit of completing five full yearsof pri-mary schooling (UPE, 1986). Four out of ten never enroll inprimary school and of those six who do, four dropoutbe-'fore completing fifth class (UPE, 1986). ' As 11 consenuenceamong the adult population, only about',two in ten (one inseven women) can claim to be a literate (DPE, 1983). One ofthe main reasons for this situlltionmay be identified as theshortage of formal educational institutions at primary levelspecially in municipal district towns (pourashava). Moreover,the locational efficiency of the existing primary schools arenot beyond ,question in addition to poor structural condition.

Primary schools with very poor physica1 fBQilities are commonthroughout Bangladesh. Seventy percent ~World Bank, 1985) haveno drinking water sources,seating facilities are simply inade-quate. Many of these schools can provide seating accommodation onlyto a helf of the total need. Most schools ere overcrowded andunhygenic and for ~,hichthe fluardianmay not be blamed if theydo not like to send their wards to these schools under the exis-ting physical condition.

""

4

In this situation, there is a need for a scientific study onthe locational planning of primary schools considering numberof potential school going population at present with a,projec-tion for the future.

1.2. Planning the location of government primary schools:Government primary school is one of the public facilities. Theexisting location of the primary schools in Bangladesh are in-~fficient in every sense. Location theory has come a longwayfrom Von ~.'hunen(1826 & 1962) Webber (1909) Losch (1971) andChistaller (1966). Its main concern has been and still in thelocation of economic activity at private sector, it howevermention urban facilities in the context of discussion of urbanscale of economics. Location theory has yet to consider thelocation of public facilities which are so essential for goodand satisfying urban life.

Urban planners, ,in their own way have recognised the problemin practices. but"lack of theoretical basis for action has beenleft. Their responses is ina(ieolll'lte.In this research one

\

problem:- plannin(" of primary education facilities in Bangladesh,has been taken up.

1.3. General Objective of the Btudy:Primary school is the ground level of our common school systemand should be planned in such a manner that will.ensure itscontinuing usefulness for the welfare of the community. 1~e

5

distribution pattern of these schools are distinctive from thepoint of academic standard, in take capacity and physical lo-

cation. Primary schools are of immense functional value to theinstitutional programme and therefore, there is a strong casefor re-locating them at convenient site from the communityjudgement, or in the other words, at optimal location. Theobjectives of the study are:

- to evaluate the present locetional aspect of priml)ryeducation facilities within sample pourashavas;

- to determine the present and future need (upto" 2000)

of primary education facilities for these pourashl)vss;

- to determine locational criteria of future primaryschools in these pourashavas;

- to rationalize IDA's physical target for improvingprimary education facilities such as land requirementfor school, class room requirements and other facili-ties;and

- to provide a [';uideline for future spatial distributionof primary education facilities over time, so that itbecome complementary to the qualitative improvement bythe IDA.

Hence, the present research is an attempt:- Firstly, to collect the available information about the

establishment of the existing government primary schoolsat the present location and to put their location on map;

6

- Secondly, to determine the limits of the service area ofthe sample primary schools;

- Thirdly, to develop a tentative picture of present day.demand for more new government primary schools in diffe-rent localities of these pourashava:S;

- Fourthly to analyse the socio-economic variables thatoperate in the process of schooling and also to showcorrelations between and among these variables; .and

- Finally, to draw up conclusions from the above investi-gationsreleting to the criteria for location of futuregovernment primary school in these Pourashava s;

1.~. Problem Specification:The problems in our present educational system are of mani-folds. At present more emphasis has been given for the edu-cation of the few than of the mass. In the present studyefforts have been made to .s'tudyprimary educational facili-ties in two selected pourashavasin Bangladesh.

The participation rate in primary schools is considered to bevery lO~I.It is very striking that, due to various socio-economic reasons only fifty percent children attend primllryschools.

7

Most of the,primary schools are housed in temporary struc-tures. In many cases the quality of struc'tures, the layoutplanning, the arrangement of spaces, the environment createdare not suitable for school premises, at least from the loca-tional point of view.

Most of the primary schools are either located near theCBDor by the busy roads which are very unsafe for the primaryschool going children. Some of the schools are located insuch a site which are far beyond walking distance. Thesechildren have to avail a kind of transport but in the absenceof a smooth transportation network system it becomes inconve-nient and unsafe as well as economically unavailable. In thisprevailing situation, planning for the location of primaryschools are of utmost important in every respect and there-fore this study has been undertaken.

1.5. Structure of the Thesis:

The present study has been arranged in six chapters. Chapterone discuss beck ~round of the study, planning the locationof government primary school, problem specification andgeneral objectives. Chapter two deals ~~th the selectionof the study area"selection of sample households, processof data collection, data analysis and limitation •.Chapterthree has been concerned ~lithlocation, population, literacyeducational institutions, population growth and growth of

8

primary school in study area. Chapter four deals with the ana-lysis of field data. Distri~ution pattern of government primaryschool and its service area has been discussed in chapter five.Chapter six provides summary of findings on the basis of whichpolicies "heve been suggest~d.

CHAPTER 2

METHOroLOGY

2.1. Approach to the study2.2. Selection of the representative

Pourashava2.3. Selection of sample household2.4. Method of data collection.2.5. Selection of base map -2.6. Data analysis2.7. Limitations - \

./.L',.

9

2. METHODOLOGY:

2.1. Approach to the Study:Traditional location theory is based on the emperical approach(Losch, 1971) as stated earlier by famous planner. The questionof actual location must be distinguished from that of rational

. ,I

location. The two need not coincide (Losch, 1971).

Based on this, one might characterise these two approaches asone rationality approach and actuality approach. The two term"rationality and actuality" may be used as normative and des-criptive. respectively. The difficulty with the term normativeand descriptive, is that they have been interpreted in a varietyof different ways_

Hagget and Chorley ~1967) feel that descriptive models are con-cerned ~dth some stylistic description of reality and that nor-~

mative model deal" with what might be expective to occur undercertain stated conditions" .(Hagp:et1967). As they define theseterm 'descriptive' does not necessarily mean systematisationor have any ability to predict and 'normative' does not imply

that the models outcomes is what ought to occur in the real

However, considering advantages and drawbacks of these twoapproaches; it was decided to employ the normative, ratherthan descriptive type of approach to the presentsthdyi

(" (, ,

10

There is no such study available on the very problem of the.locations of government primary schools. However, some relatedstudies were found useful. Haq (1974) carried out a systematicstudy on the "Distributional patterns of bank in Dhaka city".Her study was of analytical approach and showed that the lo-cation of Banks in Dhaka City were clustered near the CBD andthe number of banks decreases with the increase of distancefrom the CBD. Islam (1972) studied. '~theplanning aspects ofthe shopping centres for greater Dhaka city". Sis study wasof a normative type and recommended for more new shoppingcentres. Hossain (1978) studied •."the optimum locationalcriteria of Rifh School.in Dhaka city". His study "las ofnormative type and recommended more new High Schools withtheir ideal locations.

A more general study was carried out by Hoque and Schemeding(1970) who were engaged in the research project on the "Edu-cation in East Pakistan". Their study was also of normativeapproach and gave some impetus in rating the physical loca-tion of schools with respect to accessibility, environment,distance~sanitation and health as well as the compound areaand play field.

There is no short cut method for a particular study becauseof the magnitude of aspects influenced for carryinf'"ont theentire study. But considering all its pros and cons IMPERI_CAL APPROACH" was followed to the present study.

11

Research of the normative survey type is concerned with surve-ying of a given population through appropriate samples. Itneeds gathering of facts and statistics which are concernedwith stated problem. A considerable quantity of data concerningprimary school system of Tangail Pourashava* and ManikgonjPourashava relevant for the present study have been colleoted.It may be mentioned that all the data collected may not befully used to the present study, but the researoher has everyexpectation that many of these information may be useful tothe future researohers.

2.2. Seleotion of the representative pourashava:Out of all pourashavasin Bangladesh two namely, Tangail andManikgonj have been purpoefyely. selected for the present study,so that one can assess a comparative development of primaryeducational faoilities in these two old sub-divisions which atpresent, oonstitute district towns. These two pourashavaswere selected, because these two municipal towns are in closeproximity from the researcher's place of living, better knownto the researchers and transportation to these towns are moreoonvenient to the researcher. Besides these, the researcherhas got ready access to d~fferent offices including districtprimary education office, municipality office, district sta-tistical office.

* Pourashava is Bengali version of municipality

,,

12

Tangail Pourashava was under IDA while Manikganj was not, whichmay reflect a comparative scenario of primary education faci-lities in two different context.

Besides these, time, cost, source and resource constraint. Theresearch had to be kept confined ~~thin these two sample to~ns.

2.3. Selections of sample household:For collection of data from the field, the ward boundaries ofthese Pourashavashave been taken into consideration. From eachof the wards of these two Pourashava 2.9 percent to ~.5percentsample households were selected using stratified random samplingmethod. In selecting household samples after stratificationthrough occupational status and income range, voterlist/ration card supplied by the respective Pourashava havebeen used. Table 2.1 shows the actual household surveyed forthe study with the wardwise breakup.

Table 2.1WABD WISE PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLD

13

rTangail , ManikgonjIIIItems *W-1 W.•2 W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 Total: W-1 W-2 W-3 ..TotalI

Sample 93 83 61 72 63 33 405 78 103 89 250H/H**

***(2.95) (2.95) (3.05) (3.03) (2.9) (2.95) (2.97) (3.85) (3.34) (4.6) (3.78)

Total 3150House-hold

2844 1999 2377. 2172 1117 13659 2027 3085 1499 6611

* W mean~ ward** H/B means Household

*** Figure shown in the parenthesis indicates the percentage of the total HIH

Source: "Mauza Characteristics and their Geo-Code 1981". BBS

•

14

2.~. Method of data collection:

Three sets of questionnaires have been used for the collectionof data from the field one each for socio-economic condition ofhouseholds by municipality (appendix-1), primary schools foreducational facilities including locational efficiency (appen-dix-II) and for hierarchy of settlements (appendix-III).

For the fruitful and rational planning, mapping technique hasbeen used here which seems appropriate to the dynamic processof planning the distribution, size and spacing of schools andphysical facilities reouirements in order to optimise utilityand function. All t:hegovernment primary schools in these twopourashavas'have been taken into account. For this purpose, asurvey was made of the existing primary schools in order toobtain all information about the spatial distribution inthese pourashava and their physical resources and means, aswell as relevant environmental, demographic and economic fac-tors. Environmental factors include natural and man madefeatures.

On the basis of the field survey, the service area and thecorrespondings location of the goveITment primary schoolswere determined. Service area refers to the specific territorywhich is served by each school of the pourashava based onthe environmental, demographic and economic data obtainedfrom the survey. The service area of each school has beenplotted on the map no. 5.5 and 5.6.

15

In determining location criteria, variables like settlement

,/

concentration, geographical feature and availability of space havebeen considered. This helped in assessing present and futureneeds of the number of schocls and their efficient spatial dis-tribution within these pourashavas.

Data from the secondary sources have been used for supportingthe relevant information collected from the field and rationa-lize the analysis of the collected data from the field.

2.5. Selection of base map:

The base map selected for the present study corresponds to, ----1 centimeter to a ~36 meter. This map is a sort of guide map

,for Tangail and Manikgonj pourashava published by the Bureauof statistics, government of Bangladesh. This scale has beenselected as it covers the study area with all the necessary

-details 0/

2.6. Data analysis:

Data collected from the field have been analysed statisticallyfor the prepentption in tabular forms; projection and other datamanipulation have been carried out using empirical formula. Manyof the information have been plotted onunderstanding.

maps for better

16

Infact, information of more than 100 variables on 15 itemsviz. demographic, travel distance, mode of transportation,monthly income of guardians, opinion of the respondents refar-ding various integration were collected. However, it becameessential to reduce the number of variebles for statisticalanalysis and also because all the variables were not equallyimportant. The data on the variables were processed and thefacts were analysed using statistical techniques.The informa-tion which were collected from the field were analysed in simpletwo ••my tables.

In order to give a quantitative expression to the pattern ofdistribution of government primary schools in the pourashavasnearness analysis technique has been employed.

The nearness analysis indicates the degree to which any obser-ved distribution of points deviates from what might be expectedif the points were distributed in a random manner within thesame area. From the law of mathematical probability, it canbe demonstrated that the mean expected distance (rE) between

r

each point and its nearness which could be expected in such arandom-distribution is equal to 1/2 p - i, where p is the ob-served density of points in the area under consideration. Theratio of observed mean distance trA) to its expected valuetrE) is termed nearness statistics (R). The ratio has a rangeof value from zero, when there is maximum aggregation (orcluster) of all points in one location, through (one) which

17

represents a random distribution, upto 2.15 which is expressiveof a pattern of maximum spacing analysis tor uniform). The meandistance between nearness is maxised in hexagonal distri~tionwhere each point has six equidistance from the nearest.

The scope and objectives of the study have been kept limitedto the following aspects.

i) There is hardly any published or unpublished materialsavailable related to the ..locational problem of govern-ment primary schools in Tangail and in Manikgonjpourashavas.

ii) Absence of reliable information about the presentschooling system is formidable.

18

iii) The whole work has to be based on actual field studyon account of the above two facts.

In this study, issue of locational aspect is of ~reat impor-tance. But there is no such study of Government Primary Schoolfor pourashava in our country's school planning literature.The study has to be based to examine the problem in its realperspective leading to some degree of right kind of solution.

C HAP T E R - 3

THE STUDY AREA

3.1 Location of the Study area

3.1.1 Tangail Pourashava3.1.2 Manikganj Pourashava

3.2 Population Characteristics3.3 Historical growth of primary school

in study area3.4 Urban populption growth3.5 Literacy and educational institutions

3. THE STUDY AREAS

3.1 Location of the study area:The present study has been based on two pourashavas under twodistrict Tangail and Manikgonj.

3.1.1 Tangail:Previously Tangail was one of the subdivisions in Mymensirighdistrict and emerged as a full-fledged district on the 1st dayof December 1969. The latitudinal location of the district isbetween 89.450 in the north and 90.180 in the east (BBS, 1981).The district is elori'gatednorth and south and tapering towardsthe north with its base in the north. The north-south lengthvaries from 112.63 to 120.68 km (BDG, Tangail, 1983), whileeast west breadth ranges between 48.27 and 56.32 kms. (BDG,Tangail, 1983). The district is bounded on the north by thedistrict of Jamalpur and Mymensingh and on the South by the newlycreated district of Manikgonj and Dhaka Sadar and on the eastby the Dhaka north-Gazipur and the -mighty river the ,famuna on thewest. The district is comprising of ten police stations andhas an area of 3390.29 sauare kilometl9rs(DB, Tangail 1983) •••' ee

Tangail pourashava was established in July 1887 (BDG, Tangail,1983). The total area of pourashava comprising one policestation is 32.38 square kilometres(Field survey, 1988)~ Thenorth south length of pourashava ranges between 6.5 kilometersand 6.75 kilometer, while its east- west length ranges between

BENGAL

n'

20

\:.

INDIA

00 " ••••LEGEND

''tTE~N •••TIOll.l 1l0UIlO.RY

DlVlSIOIl 1I0ur<O.AYDin RtCT 1l0000AIlYUPU •. "1TH.uu. 1l0Ul'lll0lln

e 10 10 110 100 .0 70__ '", 1

INDIA

OF

",'

";~fWf.""Jt .~ I '"O!~I vt'n: .

".) :

BAY

INDIA

INDIA

n'

,.'

...

I•

I,,. •. i ••• .".

__ -'-_.__ '-'- -"- .-'-_. . ....."..__._~~======___~ _h

t:1AN!K~6'9__l?..DllJ7.6..5Jl~'"

Sca\..E....::o~':J'-:3(,

21

•'"\s... .;'-"

.~.....\

/

.<.

fII1

I .

I. "f- ....T"' I It. .• .

: • f." : '/,'m' ,:.~" I •I '{I ",,,w.t'"''''

I I ,... ,., ~_"'"I'"t'

\,I,

-t>US¥~AV..A

;;.;. "t!....'- -~

•

'. /' .• 1.

••..(VIN :-:.A;'~n~"tl<_.APylA)A,RI::. P!,'t~r.,)'l.~,....,f1;;

Pt'0P..J\i.~I..••~.,..I I~ t'l',",'f:'f-"Y .,

Ll;;~r:I\.'b '. _

?'001':~"".":;~A~'•••~.

n,LI ~.~0/:",1'.' ~'. fv1A~.'II'~G.:.."~.,'"' .,", -" . -. '- I..,

201),~.~,.,5J\;~~,;y~-'-.__..~ 7-.-6!-\~_..f(tQ.;).?'C>~._'....'

_.--~~~..~~_..-'~~~-._-- .__:~:L_._.._. ...:... .._._

*

22

4.50 and 5.0 km (Field survey, 1988). The pourashava is boundedon the north by the Gala Union and on the south by the SilimpurUnion and on the east by the union of Gh~rinda and Koratia union

*and on the west by the.Donia Union of the Tangail Upa~ila. Thereare six wards under the pourashava and fiftyoneMouza~'s.Map 3.2shows the wards and mouzas of Tangail pourashava.

3.1.2. Manikgonj:Manikgonj was a sub-division of Dhaka district and emerged asa full-fledged district in 1985. It is located at a distance

**of 64.36 km from Dhaka city (National capital). It liesbetween 23.420 and 23.550 north latitude and 89.580 and 90.070

east longitude (BBS, 1981).

It is bounded on the north by Tangail district, in the east bythe capital city, Dhaka and by the rivers Jamuna and Padma inthe south and in the east respectively. The district is elon-gated east and west. The total area of the district comprisingof seven upazilas is 138~s}square kilometer7(sq.km). The pou-rashava of Manikgonj was established in 1958 as a town committee.The total physical area of pourashava is 21.65 sq.km.

Upazila is synonymous to former police station jurisdiction.** km means kilometer and sq.km means square kilometer.

.,•

IIi

• J

j

I,

...l'.',.II

23

tv\our.", l'!tOtl~D.-"y t.- •.. _

Po~•••••Sll•••••:~bL.l'-t;. S..,.A"t!1t,\_

--.-----_. _.__ ...l.._

-- --WARD NO

I".

".',"

k "r,ANGAIL.

, '\

Table No. 3.1

CENSUSPOPULATIONANDINTER-CENSALVARIA'rIONOF POPULATIONIN THEPOURASHAVAOF TANGAIL

AND MANIKGONJ

24

Population VariationPoura- ,i

as % II

~1974 as %shava ; 1961 : 1974 198111981 1981 as %I

I over,1961 lover 19741 over 1961III I

Tangail 23688 51863 84,672 118.94 63.78 258.59

Manikganj 11676 26649 37,035 128.24 38.97 217.19

Sources:Census of East Pakistan, 61 Vol. II.

Bangladesh Popu18tion Census 1981 part-II.

25

The east-west length of pourashava ranges between 5.0 and5.20 kms (Field survey, 1988), while north south breadthranges between 4.0 and 4.15 kms (Field survey 1988). Thepourashava is bounded on the north by the dighi and Jaigirunion and on the south by the river Kaligonga and on the eastby the union of Betila-mitora and on the.",estby the union ofNabagram under Manikgonj upazila. There are three wards and32 Mouzas under the pourashava. Map 3.1 shows the wards andmouzas of Tangail pourashava.

3.2 Population characteristics:According to the Census of 1981, the totel population of theTangail pourashava was 84,672 and out of which 44,225 weremales and 40 ,417 were females (BBS, 1981). The population in1974 as variation of 1961 is118.94 percent, in 1981 as varia-tion of 1974 is 63.78 percent as pourashava expanded ,.1.thanother ward in 1981 and the total variation in 1981 over 1961is 258.59 percent (BBS, 1981). Table 3.1 shows the Censuspopulation and inter-cenBal variation of population in thepourashavaB of Tangail and Manikgonj 0

The population of Manikgonj pourashava in 1981 was 37,035and of which 19,485 were !lialesand 17,550were females. In .Manikgonj population variations in 1974 over 1961 was 128.24percent, which was substantially high. This mighthappenddue to the fact that after the countr,1's independance in1971, there was an expansion of town boundary and population

26

shifted in town to a large extent. The variation in 1981 aspercentage over 1974 was 38.97 percent (BBS, 1981).

The same trend was also seen in respect of Tangail pourashava .The density of population in Tangail pourashava and in Manik-gonj pourashava have been calculated and was found 2591 persq. kms and 1711 per sq. kms respectively, in 1981 (BBS, 1981).Graph 3.1 (a) for Tangail and 3.1(b) for Manikgonj haveshown the density of population.

3.3 Historical growth of primary schools in the study area:Tangail is a historical tOM1. It came into existence as ato~mship in the 19th century. Upto 1860 when the 1st primaryschool was established at the present location in ward no. 3"Sakrail primary school" by name there was no primary schoolin this town. The school was initieted by one Gabinda Nigoyat his own premises and since then it holds it's existence.Itis now a government primary school. The second one also wasestablished in ward no. 3 in 1879 near by Kagmari bridgeand was name.d"kalipur primary school"Surja kanta Saha and Moti1al Karmakar.

jointly initiated bySubsequent1Y,it has

also become a government primary school.

In Manikgonj pourashava the first primary school was estab-lished in 1927 and loceted in ward no. 2 (Field surveY,1988).It was named '~atta boys primary school", initiated by thethen Zamindar at his own residence. The second one was

,ODC>

2o

'2.000

1000

,

27

VVAl': D \AI 166 PD P~I.-AIIOI\:l DION'111t,/'.. ~G:.A-iL POUI":.A.6HAI/A'

.

.

-4~"A--. p:.O

Gc. fZ'A 1714 '2:>0 :1. (COL) , I , I,

28

Y'lAI<.t> \1\11'11: POf"O l-A'IIOI':\ Dr.:~f?l'11 .MAl\)' L<&-A~

Q.

'V'J"AfZ. 0,

&f<Af"~ ~,.1(b); : , '

and was named "Bandutia primary school" initiated by BadshaMiah and in the same year, another school named Nabagramprimary school was established by Poulu Bepari located inward No.1 (Field survey, 1981).

Table No. 3.2GROWTH. OF PRIMAH~ SCHOOL WI~H POPULATION UP TO AGE

11 IN THE POURASHAVA

,: Tangail

Year I No .of :Popula~I GPS I tion II I I

f ' :I ,I I

Popula-tion /schoolratio

No. of :GPS :

ManikgonjPopula-: POPUI.L/l-tion : tion I

: school: ratio

19001930194719551971197419811988

03

0914

162325

27

27

* NA NANA NANA NANA NA

11336 1:494.NA NA

37859 1:1402NA NA

NA01

04

0609121313

NANANA

NA5351

NA

25024NA

NANA

NANA

1:595NA

1:1925NA

Source: Field survey 1988, BBS 1981 and census, 1961.* NA - Not applicable

30

Table 3.2 shows the growth of government primary schoolagainst school going population upto age 11 years. Due tononavailability of required data the t~le is confined up-to year 1981. In 1971 there was one school for every 494~Field survey, 1988 and BBS 61,74,81) school going popu-lation and the ratio decreases to 1402 in Tangail in 1981.

On the otherhand, there was one school for every 595 in1971 in Manikgonj pourashava against 49~ in Tangail poura-shava. It has been found one school for every 1925 schoolgoing population in Manikgonj pourashava against 1402 inTangail pourashava in 1981. It indicates that the numberof school going population is increasing day by day withoutthe proportionate increase in the number of schools. Thisshows acute problem of schooling of children in Manikgonjthan in Tangail. Growth of population has been shown ingraph 3.2 and the establishment of the number of govern-ment primary school for both pourashava in graph 3.3.

3.4. Urban population growth:

Urban population in Tangail Upazila in 1961,1974 and 1981was 236,88 51683 and 84672 respectively, while the ruralpopulation was 222436, 300841 and 330869 respectively andthe percentages of urban population being 9.62 in 1961,14.70 in 1974 and 19.3 in 1981 (BES, 1981 and census1961). It"is obvious that the

TJZ:'END OF FOp-UL-AT\O~of PO l) lZ..A. s 1+....••••.VA.. .

31

.<;110aCo

"';0000 '= , .

~ T.....•..N&AIL.'*' MA N\ •••6::A"D

./

/

/

I

I

I/

(/

. ,

/

,I

9130

YEA.RG: iZAt14. ~; 2.;'t .

000.

es~A 13\;.L-;.l\Me.t\l"t" 01" Gr::.6VToRf\J IV\EfI:l-r 'FR IMA-f/:.Y 6CHeJCl- (..1900- 19Q~)

@ T..••.~ftAdI- ~O\l~.Ae>~,..iWA'

$." MAN\~) PDUl':A.N\A1A

" '

, :

32

\

1900 1915 1'160------'-------- .._•....

yeA~s~ ••..•••.PII-I',:5.~

1990

! .!

2.00() ,

urban population increased at hi~her rate than the ruralpopulation and indicates the extent of rural-urban migrationof the population. Table 3.1 shows the urban areas of thedistrict of ~he Tangail. The reasons of migration was thegreater opportunities for education and employment in urbanareas.

In Manikgonj pourashava the same trend has also been noticedthat is, the percentage of urban population has increased ata higher rate than the rur~l population. It increased from9.68 percent in 1961 to 16.54 percent in 1974 and to 19.09percent in 1981 (BBS, 1981).

3.5 Literacy and Educational Institution:The rate of economic growth is related to the Quality of man-power. Education is an essential pre-requisite of socio-economicdevelopment. Statistical data on education are, therefore, in-dispensible to assess the qualities of manpower of the nation.Table 3.3 represent pourashava wise information on the numberof primary schools, secondary schools,colleges in Tangail andManikgonj. It is found that there are 30 primary schools inTangail pourashava against 15 in Manikgonj. There are 11 secon-dary schools, 6 colleges and 3 Madrashas in Tangail pourashava,while there are.2 colleges, 8 schools and 2 Madrashas inManikgonj pourashava. One university has been named "Islamic

•Table No. 3.3

DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATIONA~ INSTITUTIONS

I Educational InstitutionPoura- :shava Pri- Secon- i Col- Madra- Kinter-i Uni- I, Totalmary dary I lege sha garten I versity ,.I

, I

Tan-gail 30 11 6 3 6 1 57

Menik-gonj 15 8 2 ? 3 30

Source: Field survey,1988

35

University at sontash(Ward no. 4) has been established underTangail pourashavaf Table 3.4 presents school going populationper educational institution in these pourashavast

It appears that there is one primary school for 2822 persons inTangail pourashava against 2469 in Manikgonj pourashava:Fromthis it seems that school population ratio in Tangail pourashavais higher than Manikgonj pourashava~

The literacy rate in urban areas of Manikgonj, for age-group of5 years and over is 37.4 peroent for both sex, 45160 percent formale and 28.'1 peroent for female(BBS, 1981)t The literacy ratesfor age including rural and urban areas of the uPazila were 11.8peroent, 1n'7 percent and 19~'4 percent for 1961.1974 and 1981

,

respeotively,while it was 16.8 percent in 1961, 18"~1percent in1974 and 22.6 percent in 1981 in Tangail uPaziLa. The literacyrate of urban areas in 1981 was 40.77 percent~:There were twooolleges, 34 high and junior High schools, 92 Madrashas and 73Government primary schools in the upazila of Manikgonj against6 oolleges, 37 High schools, 18 Junior high schools and 157Government primary schools in the upazila of Tangail in 1981(UPazila statistics, BBS 1982-83).

The teacher stUdent ratio in college is 39, for high school itis 25, for junior high school it is 18 and government primaryschool it is 53 in Manikgonj upazila against 15 for college,28for high school, 25 for junior highschool and 55 for governmentprimary school in Tangail upazila.,

:::)

TABLENo. 3.4POURASHAVA\HSERATIOOF TOTALPOPULATIONANDEDUCATIONALINSTITUTION

Tangail Manikganj

Kind of Total No. of Educational Tetal No. of Educationaleducational population educational "Institution. population educational institutioninstitution insti tution of population institution of population

r1l.t~o rat~o

Primary 84,672 30 1:2822 37,035 15 1:2469

Secondary 11 1:7697 08 1 :4630

College 06 1:14112 02 1:18518

Madrasha 03 1:28224 02 1:18518

Kintergarden 06 1 :14112 03 1:12346

University 01 1:84672

Total 57 1:1485 (Av.) 30 1 i234(AV.)

Source: BBS 1981 and re~pective pourashava office.

~()'I

•.... 4f

37

3.6 Distribution of potential number of primary school goingpopulation in the study area:

The total population of two pourashava according to the censusreport of 1981 is 84672 for Tangail (GEO-code 1981, BBS) and37035 for Manikgonj pourashava against total area of 32.68square kilometers and 21.61 square kilometers respectively.The density of population per square kilometer 1s 2614 inTangail and 1710 in Manikgonj pourashava (Table 3.5). From Table3.5 it is seen that the dens~ty of population in the oldpart is higher than in new part comprising of the peripheryof the pourashava (Graph 3.1(a) and 3.1(b).

To understand the locational aspects of primary schools, it isessential to know the potential primary school going populationon an small area basis. Since the primary school going popula-tion comprises of age-group of 6-10 years is available ionsmall area basis.~stimRte of ,the population of this age-grouphas been done for projection of required number of primaryschools in the future.

TABLE No. 3.5

AREAPOPULATIONANDDENSITYOF POPULATION

-

..

Tangail Manikganj

Items \-1-1 \-1-2 1,1-3 1,1-4 \,- 5 1,1-6 Total 101-1 W-2 1.,-3 Total

Area in 1162 548 1119 2230 1680 1266 8005 1985 1392 1974 5351Acres

Area in 4.7 2.22 4.53 9.01 6.80 5.12 32.38 8.03 5.63 7.99 21.65sq.km

Population 19479 16985 13420 12764 15077 6947 84672 11693 16677 8665 37035

Dens. ofpopulation 4142 7650 2962 1416 2217 1356 2614 1456 2962 1084 1710per sq.km.

Source: BBS 1981 and GEO-CODE,1981.

•••

\)j())

..•fj

CHAPTER-4

ANALYSIS OF FIELD DATA

4.1. Travel characteristics of primary school goingpopulation4.1.1. Mode of.transportation

4.2. Household income and number of primary schoolstudent with distance of primary schools

4.3. Household income and number of primary schoolgoing population

4.4. Characteristics of household by income andsize of the family

4.5. Occupational status and primary schoolgoing population

4.6. Teacher student ratio.4.7. Physical facilities in school4.8. Pattern of school attendance4.9. Teachers opinion regarding factors of drop-out

39

4. ANALYSIS OF FIELD DATA:•

This chapter is based upon the findings of a thorough investi-gation into the locational aspects of government primary schoolin study pourashava of Tangail and Manikgonj. The informationwere collected on school going population, school attendingchildren of the family, income range of guardian and mode oftransport etc•

••4.1. Travel characteristics of primary school going population:

The distribution of primary school students travelling variousdistances (one way to school) shows that in Tangail pourashava.43.7~ travel upto 0.402 km and 24.5% upto 0.804 km which seemsto be of high side. 49.4~ students travel upto 0.402 km and29.50% travel upto 0.804 km in Manikgonj pourashava. From this,it can be said that majority ofprima~y-scho6i students travel

.(

short distance (0.402 km) in a small town like Manikgonj (totalpopulation is below 50,000) than medium sized town like Tangailpourashava (population lies within 100,000).

,\

From the Table 4.1, it is also found that in Tangail~ourashava68.~ children travel on an average upto 0.804km of whom43.7~ live within a distance less than 0.402 km and that78.9~ travel up to a 0.804 km of whom 49.4% live withindistance of less than 0.402 km in

•

41

Manikgonj pourashava~ Two major trends are evident from thefindings of Table 4.1.

i) There is a group, consisting of 68.2% of the totalschool going student, who travel around 0.804 km •in Tangeil pourashava and 78.9% in Manikgonj poura-shava.

ii) Another group, 21.0 % travel nearly upto 3.22 kmin Tangail and 11.60% in Manikgonj pourashava.The school goin,.,.children travelling for an inter-mediate range between 0.804 to 1.2 km of distanceconstitute only 10.9% in Tangail and 9.5% in Manik-gonj pourashava and may be called the take-off groupwho are in between long and short distance of travel'In case of .the higher travel distance to school,

welr~Off parents usually avail transport •

From Pable 4.1 it is also seen that the majority of primaryschool going population walk upto 0.402 km in central to~mthan those who live in peripheral areas. This trend has beenfound in both Manikgonj and Tangail pourashavas.

4.1.1 Mode of Transportation:The two major trends which have been found through section 4.1and also Table 4.1. It has also been found from Table 4.1.1that 73.51 percent primary school going population travel on

42

foot and the rest avail private mode of transport in Tangailpourashava and 78.21 percent primary school going populationtravel on foot and the rest avail private mode of transportin Manikgonj pourashava.

Table No. 4.1.1PRIMARY SCHOOL GOING POPULATION AND MODE OF TRANSPORT

Mode of transport

FootRickshawScooterBusB}cyclePrivateBoat»and others

Source: Field surveY,198B.

Tangail()IS)

73.5123.312.181.00

Manikgonj()IS)

78.2117.63

2.061.00

1.00

It is found that from table 4.1.1 that the maximum number ofprimary school going children travel on foot and they desireprimary school should be located within walking distance fromthe residence. It is also found that a higher percentage ofprim8ry school going children travel on foot for attendingschools in Manikgonj than in Tangail. On the other hand,percentage of children attending in the school by availingprivate transport is more in Tangail than in Manikgonj. It

43

appears that the size of urban area influences school attendancethrough the use of transport.

4.2. Household income and number of primary school stuoents ~~thdistance of primary schools:The rationale behind the two trends (which have been found in4.1) is because of the income difference of guardians. Thosewho can not afford travel cost are reluctant to send theirwards to a school beyond walking distance (Table No. 4.2).This has been testified by the degree of correlation betweenthe variables" short distance travelled by the students" andthe guardian belonging to low income group". The trend hasbeen further testified by the strong correlation between thevariables "distance upto 1.2 km" and "students travelling onfoot" •

The primary school going children of the second and third cate-gory hormally come from families who can afford travel cost.They travel either by public transport or by private means.

The low and middle income group seems to incur transport costnot commensurate ~~th their level of income in two towns.However, the majority of primary school going populationfrom the upper middle and high income groups (Table 4.2)depend on public transport (Table 4.1.1) and the reason maybe identified as insignificant percentage of primary schoolgoing children can afford private transportation cost.

Table D.o. 4.2SCHOOL GQDlG STUDENT DI.3TRHlUTEDBYANNUAL INCGl'IE OF \;UARDLu'l -Arm DISTAJ.'lCEOF SCHOOL

(Tangail (trovelling distance in km) }hnikgonj (travelling distance in km)Income (1000) H/H Within .4 .4 .-.8 0.8-1.2 1.2-1.6 1.6-2.4 2.4-3.2 HlH '.iilhin.4 .4-88 .8_1.2 1.2-1.6 1.6-2.4 2.4-3.2Upto 20 60 (60.0 17.0 8.33 3.00 6.67 5.0 120 50.83 23.33 13.33 5.0 2.52Q-40 343 46.65 24.49 11.95 13.41 2.33 1.17 3 55.40 34.27 6.57 3.7640- 60 141 36.88 24.82 12.77 .14.18 6.38 4.96 87 43.68 27.58 11.49 11.49 4.6 1.1560-80 89 37.08 25.84 5.61 14.60 8.99 15.60 30 43.33 . 20.•00 10.00 13.33 6.67 6.6780 - 100 26 34.603 19.23 11.53 7.69 15.38 - 17 17.65 17.65 11.76 29.41 11.76 11.76

100 aDd above 25 24.00 32.00 8.0 8.0 2.0 - 8 12.5 - - 37.5 25.00 25.00Total 684 41.96 24.15 11.69 12.39 7.03 2.78 475 41.26 29.47 9.47 7.62 2.74 9.44Source: Field survey 1988.

."."

45

4.3 Household income and number of primary school going population:

In Tangail, 1.76 percent on an average (50.59 percent of thetotal school going population) of the students from the incomegroup of Tk. 20,000.00 - 40,000.00. 1.73 percent on an average(3.83 percent of the total school going population) from the. ,

income group of Tk. 80,000.00 - 100,000.00, 1.68 percent on anaverage (13.13 percent of the total school going population)from the income group of Tk. 60,000.00 - 80,000.00, 1.67 percent on an average (20.94 percent of the total school goingpopulation) from income group of Tk. 40,000.00 - 60,000.00,1.53 percent on an average (S.S4 percent of the total schoolgoing population) from lowest income group of Tk. 20,000.00 -40,000.00 and 1.39 on an average (3.69 percent of the totalschool going population) from highest income level attendschools (Table 4.3). On the other hand,in Manikgonj on anaverage 2.83 percent students attend school (~.57 percentof the total school going population) from the income groupof Tk. SO,OOO.OO - 1,00,000.00 and on an average 2.3 percentstudents attend school (6.29 percent of the total schoolgoing population) from the income group of Tk. 60,000.00 -80,000.000.00, on an average 2.24 percent of students attend(44.80 percent of the total school going population) schoolfrom income group of Tk. 20,000.00 - 40,000.00, on an average2.0 percent from highest income group and on an average 1.27percent (24.59 percent of the total school going population)from the lowest income group students attend school.

Table No. 4.3DISTRIBUTIONS OF HOUSE HOLD BY INCOME AND NUMBER OF SCHOOL GO",NG POPULATION

"-Income Tantail (Average number of primary school going population) Manikgoj (Av. number of primary school going populerange W1 W2 "13 \14 \15 W6 Total W1 W2 W3 Total( 1000 ) Av.No.~ over the, Av. Number--% over the total

total

1.76 1.83 2.0 1.29 1.43 2.0 1.53 8.84 .73 1.05 1.26 1."27 " 24.59Upto 20 n=9 n=6 n=2 N-14 n=7 n=1 n=39 n=19 n=39 n=27 n=921.84 1.86 1.57 1.6 1.8 1.94 1.76 50.59 1.76 2.18 3.04 2.24 44.80

20-40 n=39 n=42 .n=28 n=38 n=30 =18 n=195 =30 n=44 =21 n=952.16 1.68 1.59 .1.14 1.45 1.00 1.67 20.94 1.8 2.62 1.92 2.17 18.27

40 - 60 n=12 =25 =17 ri=14 II>'9 n=8 n=85 =10 n=16 II>'14 n=401.69 1.17 1.85 1.67 1.58 :l.33 1.68 13.13 ~.6 2.46 2.0 2.34 6.29

60 - 80 II>'13 n=6 11=13 n=6 n=12 II>'3 n=53 =5 n=3 n=5 n=131.7 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 1.73 3.83 3.67 3.0 1.5 2.83 3.57

80 - 100 II>'10 n=1 II>'1 - n=2 n=1 =15 n=3 n=1 n=2 II>'61.2 1.67 - - 1.67 1.5 1.39 3.69 2.0 - - 2.0 2.0 1.68

100 and II>'10n=3 - - =3 n=2 n=18 n=4 - - n=4above

1.76 1.75 1.62 1.32 1.67 2.12 1.7 1.56 2.08 2.0 1.9Total n-93 n=83 =61 n=72 n=63 =33 n=405 100.0 n=78 II>'103 n=69 II>'250 100.0

Source: Field survey 1988.~(J"I

47

The above finding indicates that the number of school goingpopulation is lower in the higher income group than in thelower income group. It also shows that the higher is theincome the lower is the percentage of students attendingschool. This may be explained by the fact that higher incomegroup population live far away from the school and their chil-dren avail private transport. It is also found that on an ave-rage, the rate of school going population from higher and mid-income group eventually from two study areas are higher thanfrom the lower income group. The reasons may be explained inthe following way: (i) sample taken from higher income groupwas less (ii) Higher the income, lower is the number of pri-mary school going population (table 4.3).

4.4 Characteristics of household by income and si~e of .the family:Another important finding is that 78.76 percent of the guar-dians fall under low, lower-middle and middle-midJle income(Table 4.4) with family si2'eof average 4~67,5.48, 6.31 personsrespectively. These guardians can ill-afford transport and edu-cation cost for their wards in Tangail pourashava. It is alsoseen that the location of the schools should be within walkingdistance and be provided with adequate educational facilities.On the otherhan~in Manikgonj pourashava 90.80 percent of theguardians fall under low, lower-middle and middle-middle incomebracket with family size of 5.36, 7.39 and 7.45 personsrespectively. These guardians can not bear the transport Bnd

'\.',\ '1

.

Table No. 4.4DrSTR BUTION OF HOUSE HOLD BY :i:llCCflE SIZE OF TIlE FAHILY

Income Tangail (av. family size) Manikgo"j (av. family size)range W1 \/2 W3 w4 \/5 w6 .Total \I ,- II Total(1000) .1 "2 35.11 5.27 4.50 4.07 .4.15 5.0 4.67 4.89 6.02 6.14 5.36Up to 20 n=09 n=06 n=02 n=14 n=7 n=1 n=39 n=19 n=39 n=27 n=927.43 6.30 6.53 6.24 7.27 6.16 5.48 7.43 7.61 6.86 7.3920-40 n=39 n=42 n=28 n=38 n=3O n=18 n=195 n=3O n=44 n=21 n=956.50 5.64 6.29 5.86 7.66 7.62 6.31 6.9 7.94 7.28 7.4540-60 n=12 n=25 n=17 n=14 n=09 n=8 n=85 n=10 n=16 n=14 n=4o7.0 7.17 6.84 4.83 7.17 7.67 6.81 7.8 8.30 7.40 7.7760-80 n=13 n=06 n=13 n=06 n=12 n=3 n=53 n=05 n=03 n=05 n=137.70 5.0 6.0 - 6.5 6.0 7.13 7.3 6.0 7.5 7.1680 -100 n=10 n=01 n=01 n=2 n=01 n=15 n=03 n=01 n=02 n=066.80 6.3 - - 7.3 7.50 6.89 7.75 - - 7.75100 and n=10 n=03 n=3 n=02 n=18 n=04 n=04above

6.98 6.10 6.46 5.62 6.95 6.70 6.54 6.12 7.06 6.75 5.61Total n=93 n=83 n=61 n=72 n=63 n=33 n=405 n=78 n=103 n=69 n=250Source: Field survey 1988

.pOJ

49

education cost. With this economic condition of the guardians,it can be said that majority of guardians in Manikgonj poura-shava live ~~thin the poverty line. It appears that the guar-dians prefer to think in generating income by their werdsthan in sending to schools. The prevailing socio-economiccondition may be held responsible for this situation.

4.5 Occupational status and primary school going population:The occupational status of the sample household population andtheir average number of primary school going children are shownin Table 4.5.

From the table it appears that in Tangail pourashava 39.82 per-cent population are engaged in business and 1.74 percent (on anaverage) being the highest percentage of their children areschool going. On the other hand in Manikgonj pourashava 31.95percent population are engaged in business while their primaryschool going children is 1.75 percent (on an average), 1.8 per-cent children from teaching and 1.76 percent children fromlearned occupational status are school going.

Other occupational group such as physicians and engineers(Professional group) which are about 5.64 percent and 4.06percent of the sample populetion and their average number ofprimary school going chilrlrenare 1.68 percent and 1.6~ percentrespectively. These are higher than the average in Tangailpourashava.

t

~,L-;

(\"

~iJ(j

51

In Manikgonj pourashava the highest average number of primaryschool going children were found in the occupational group ofteaching being 10.30 percent.

In ';Tangailpourashava the lowest average number of primary• school going children have been found in the occupational grou',;

daily labours, rickshawPullers and cultivators and the sametrend was found in Manikgonj pourashava.

In Manikgonj pourashava the percentage of cultivators is higherthan that of Tangail pourashava. It means agricultural landarea is more in Manikgonj than in Tangail. Average number ofprimary school going children is also higher in Manikgonj thanin Tangail pourashava.

Average number of primary school going children is higher fromteaching occupation in Manikgonj, whereas it is higher amongbusiness occupation in Tangail. It indicates that the socio-economic condition of in Tangail,,is much better than that inManikgonj.

It also shows that more of population live within lower incomebracket in Manikgonj than in Tangatl pourashava and is evidentfrom Table 4.5. It is one of the main reasons of lower numberof primary school attendance and dropout in Manikgonj.

52

4.6. Teacher Student Ratio:Table 4.6 shows the present situation of the number of student againstnumber of teachers, that is, teacher-student ratio. It is foundthat in each case the ratio is more or less the same and resemblesto the national ratio. It may be said that more new schools to beset up to accommodate the school going population, keeping inmind the distributional pattern of the schools and the poten-tial school going population.

Under Tangail pourashava in ward no. 6, there are only twoschools. The teachers student ratio is very high compared withthe national ratio.*

4.7 Physical Facilities in Schools:It is said that the class.room facility is one of the importantfacilities needed for better education of children. In the pou-rashava:under study show (see Table 4.7) that primary schoolfor both town has a minimum of 3-class room.

In Tangail there are 9 primary schools which have 6.class roomand ratio of student 76.2 per class room and 8 primary schoolswhich have 5-class room, ratio 71.78 per class room which islower than in Tangail pourashava.

* National ratio of teacher and student has been collected fromthe directorate of primary education, Ministry of Education.

Table No. 4.6

PRIMARY TEACHER- STUDENTRATIO-TANGAIL AND .MANIKGONG POUR ASHAVA.

• - Ratio of .student per teacher•• - Number of teacher.

\J1

'>'1:

Table No. 4.7RATIO OF PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENT AND THEIR SCHOOL CLASS ROOM FACILITY

Tangail (ratio of student per class room) Manikgonj (ratio of student per class room)No. of W1 W2 W3 W4 W5' W6 Total W1 W2 W3 Totalclassroom •3 - - (85.67) - - - (85.67) (115.50) (78.83) (92.67) (96.26)0=2 .0=2 0=2 0=2 I1'01 0=54 - (:;Z5) - (83.0) (84.12) (26.25) (70.5) - (45.0) (59.75) (52.38)

••n=1 0=1 11=2 0=1 n=5 0=1 0=1 n=2

5 (105.6) (85.4) (86.2) (74.0) (71.5) - (71.78) (140.0) (58.8) (49.7) (74.55)n=1 0=1 0=1 0=3 0=2 n=8 0=1 n=1 0=2 0=4

6 (60.28) (91.92) ('5.16) (77.83) (153.5) (55.6) (76.20)n=3 0=2 1lF1 n=1 0=1 n=1 0=9

78 - - - (75.0) - - (75.0) (125.0) - - (125.0)

n=1 0=1 0=1 =19 - - (131.78) - - - (131.78)

n=1 n=11011 8: .- - - - - - - - (~';18) - (g~118)aboveTotal (70.13) (85.0) (90.0) (75.84) (96.21) (43.9)••• (80.23) (125.95) (63.19) (57.65) (80.90)0=23 0=21 0=26 0=33 0=24 0=10 0=137 0=19 n=26 n=17 n-62

<

Field survey 1988. 1,J1-Source: • Figure shown in the parenthesis indicates.ratio of students.per class rooll! ~

•• 'Its indicate number of school••• Its indicate number of class room

. '::'.

room with rate of 74.55 student per class roomroom, ratio of student per class room is 96.26

55i

While out of .13 primary. schools only 4 primary schools for 5 class"

and 5 for 3-classI,

(Table 4.7).1I)

It is also found that every school of the study pourashava satis-fies the national standard in respect of ratio of student per

'\

class room with the exception of 2 primary school at ward No.1and ward No.3 in Tangail pourashava and 4_primary schools ofManikgonj at ward No.1, these 6,primary schools of two studypourashavas are laid above the national scale. Here enrollmentposition hampered by inadequacy of class rooms.

Besides these, our survey has shown that proper facilitiessuch as seating arrangements (High and low benches),teacher'sroom, water and sanitary arrangement, learning materials, all

!are inadequate almost in every school of Tangail and Manikgonjpourashava.

4.8. Patterns of School Attendance:In order to find out the potential school going population fromthe total population of specific age group Table 4.8 has beendeveloped. It shows that 26.18 percent (from Table 4.4)*popula-tion came at age (6-10 years) but only 84.65 percent is atten-ding to the school in Tangail pourashava under different incomerange, while in Manikgonj.pourashava 33.67 percent out of total

* Characteristics of household by income an'dsb',eof the familySample population of Tangail pourashava is 2648 and in Manik-gonj pourashava is 1402.

Table lio. 4.8D=RIB1JTION OF HOUSEHOLDBY nrCOMERANGEAGATIlSTSCHOOLGOINGAGEGROUP(6-10 ;rears)AHE POPULATIONANDACTUAL SCHOOLATTENDANCE.

Income No. of % of the School age School age % over S~hoolage No.of % of the School age School age % over Schoollagerange HlH total population attend in the total not attend HfH total population population the total not attend(1000) 6-10 ;rears the school school age in the 6-10 ;rears attend in school in the school(with % ) group , school (with %) 'the Schooi age group %. over the% over the totaltotal

•Upto 20 39 9.63 60(8.77) 38(6.5{;) 63.33 22<36.67) 92 35.8 117(24.79) 73(21.41) 62.39 44<37.61)20 -40 195 48.15 343(50.15) 283(48.38) 82.51 60(17.49) 95 38.0 213(45.13) 149(43.7) 69.95 64(30.5)40-60 85 20.9 141(20.61) 123(21.24) 87.23 18(12.77) 40 16.0 87(18.43) 71 (20.82) 81.61 16(18.39)60-80 53 13.09 89(13.02) 84(14.51) 94.38 5 (5.62) 13 5.2 30(6.36) . 25(7.33) 83.33 5( 16.67)

80-100 15 3.7 26(3.80) 26(4.49) 100.00 0.0(0.0) 6 2.4 17(3.6) 15(4.40) 88.23 2(11.77)100 and 18 4.44 25(3.66) 25(4.32) 100.00 0.0(0.0) 4 1.6 8(1.69) 8(2.35) 100.00 O.O(O.C)above

Total 405 100,00 684(100.00) 579(100.00) 105 250 100.00 475(100,00) 341(100.00) 131Source: Field survey 1988.

.-Figure shown in the parenthesis. indicates percentage. VI'" . 0'. ,.

57

sample population are of school going age (6-10 years) but out ofwhich 72.25 percent are usually attending school from differentincome range. The rest 15.55 percent in Tangail against 27.75 percent in Manikgonj pourashava do not enjoy any opportunity to attendschool at all. The table also shows that this trend prevails amon~low, lower-middle and middle - middle income group in Tangail pou-rashava. One interesting trend which is evident from Manikgonj isthat along with the lower and middle income group a few from higherincome group also dropped. The table also reflects that schoolattendance rate of school going children is lower in the lowerincome range, and it increase gradually from lower to higherincome group. This implies that schooling of children at theprimary level is in-variably related to the income of parents.

4.9 Teachers opinion regarding factors of dropoutCertain factors have influenced the drop out of primary schoolage (6-10 years) population. From the teachers opinion it isfound that proverty is the main cause of dropout. Their opinionhave been reflected in Table 4.9. The table presents that 32.89percent of respondents in Tangai1 pourashava opined that it isdue to poverty, 26.32 percent opined that the lack of properguidence of paren~s and ignorence of guardians are the importantcauses of dropout. On the other hand, 31.82 percent respondentsin Manikgonj pourashava opined that socio-economic factors suchas poverty is the main cause and has relevance with Tangail.From the table,it is also found that respondents of Manikgonj

"

58

have identified that the insufficient ~overnment aid (20.45 percent) and inadeauate accommodation in institution (15.91 percent)are also responsible for dropout.

4.10 Appendix-V and appendix-VII show the requirement of class roomfacilities and number of primary schools for the future studentsin 2000 A.D. In doing so, the wardwise total potential studentshave been projected for 2000 A.D. 'llheexisting and required classroom facility has been calculated by statistical technique andon the basis of projected students additional class room require'-ment as well as new schools to be set up for every ward to acco-modate the excess student. In calculating the actual requirement,one hundred students have been taken ideal for each class room andin double shifts. (Directorate of primary education) (Appendix-V)~

It is found that in Tangail pourashava additional 4 class roomrequired for ward No.1, 9-classroom for ward No.2, 15-classroom for ward No.3, 4-class room for ward No.4 and 26-classroom for ward No.5 'would be required for accomodating studentsin 2000 A.D. On the other hand, in Manikgonj pourashava 25 addi-tional class room for ward No.1 and 9 class room for ward No.2would be needed in 2000 A.D.

Table no. 4.9DAeHERS OPINION~j.J300T DROP-OUT"li"A~RS'"- --

Type offactors Total

•• .> ~.

Poverty

Lack of teaching staff

25(32.89)(25(32.89) 14(31.82)

Inadequate accomodation in institution

Insufficient number of school

Shortage of expended and skilledteaching staff-

Insufficient Govt. aid

Lack o-fproper guidence of parents

Ignorence of guardians

Total

4(5.26)4(5.26)

3(3.95)20(26.32)20(26.32)

76( 10)

7(15.91)2(4.54)

9(20.45)7(15.91)5(11.36)

44(100) 100/

Source: Field survey 1988.Do Source: Field Survey, 1988

(Figure shown in the prenthesis indicate the percentage)

\1l

'"

~.11 Summary of findings:

In summary it can be said that the variables related to the loca-tion, service area and school going population and school atten-ding children reveal interesting result. The significant relationbetween the variables ,'distance of school and mode of travel bypublic transport 'guardian income more than Tk. 60,000.00 andmaximum school attending children indicate that mostly highincome families and their ward go to school at any distanceand the lower and middle income people can not afford to sendtheir ward far from their residence and this necessitatethat planning policies should be directed towards proper loca-tion of .primary schools.

CHAPTER- 5

DISTRIBUTION PATTEitN OF GOVERNMENTPRIMARY SCHOOL AND SERVIuEAREA

5.1. Distribution pattern of Governmentprimary school

5.2. Service area of the school

5. DISTRIBUTION PATTERN .oF GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOLAND SERVICE AREA:

5.1• Distribution Pattern of Government Primary school:

Of the two pourashava under this study - Tangail and Manikgonj,only the government primary schools have been taken into analy-sis for preparing a locational plan incorporating wardwisedistribution. Also it is necessary to find out the ratio ofexistinr,Uovernment primary school and the population, for thepotential planninr concomitant to the present situation inlocational aspects. The existing government primary schoolshave been plotted on a map of the scale 1:236 by using a sym-bol 'delta I .for each government primary school (map 5.1 and5.2).

There are 'Z7 Government primary schools in Tangail pourashavaand 13 in Manikgonj pourashava. Table 5.1 shows the numberof Govt. primary school, population and their ratio. Itpresents that in Tangail ward No.1 population-school ratio is2435, 3397 in ward no. 2, 2237 in ward no. 3,3191 in ward no.4,3015 ward no. 5, and 3474 in ward no. 6 whereas, it is 2923 forward no. 1, 3385 for ward no. 2 and 2166 for ward no. 3 in'Manikgonj pourashava.On an average the population per schoolis 2822 in Tangail and 2848 in Manikgonj pourashava. From thetable we may.conclude that the Government primary school isinsufficient in number. The ratio is lower in Manikgonj than

MANIKGONJ POURASAVA5 t a I ~ :- 11236

JAIGIR U/C.

62

/::,1

/::,'2Word No-03

/::,4

NABAGRAM U/C,

/::,3

oWord No-01

/::,3

/::,2

Word No-02

BETlLA- MIlARA UIC

'V'\

LOCATION OF G.P.5. (Word-Wis.)

LEGEND

/::,------Govi. Pry.Sthool

TANGAIL POURASAVA5 c a Iq :- 1,236

6)

'TANGAIL

KARATIA U/C.

LEGEND

6,25

Word No-02

Word INo -01

61 .

6,6

6,I~

Word No- 06

621

Word No -05

623

6106

13No -03

611

Word No-O~

Word

DELDUAR

LOCATION OF G.P.S. IWord-Wisq )6 -------GovL Pry. School.j

-'0'

TABLENo. 5.1

RATIOOF POPULATIONANDGOVERNfI.ENTPRIMARYSCHOOLIN

l'.ANGAIL.ANDl'1.ANIKGONJ

•Tangail Manikgonj.

Ward

No. of Population Ratio (piN) No. of .PopulatiQn -Ratio (PIN)

school (P) school (N) (P)(N)

Ward no.1 05- 19479 2435 04 11693 2923

\oJard no.2 04 16985 3397 05 16677 3335

Ward no.3 05 13420 2237 04 8665 2166

Ward no.4 06 12764 3191

Ward no.5 05 15077 3015

Ward no.6 02 6947 3474

Total Z7 8~72 2822 13 37035. 2848

v

Source: Pourashave office field survey and district primary education office.

-~

~

65

in Tangail. The existing deficiency and future need would pro-vide the basic consideration for the planning of governmentprimary school in the study pourashava. The exercise has beenbased upon wardwise population density and density of popula-tion as a whole and factors prevailing for settingup govern-ment primary school with the help of another map plotting den-sity of population and another showing existing land use of thetwo pourashava. Other calculations have been made in order toprovide guidelines in the preparation of locational plan ofnew primary schools in these two pourashavaj.

From maps 5.3 and 5.~ it appear that the locational patternvaries in magnitude from one area to another depending uponsome related factors including population base.

In order to find out the locational frequency variation ofthe schools in terms of the distance from the pourashavacentre, a series of 16 circles for Tangail and 1~ circlesfor Manikgonj pourashava were drawn to cover the pourashavalimits. The circles were drawn with the pourashava officeas the centre and the raddi of successive circles increasing"by O.~2 km while the first circle had also a radius ofO.80~ kID. The number of school in each successive circleswere determined in table no. 5.2 and in the maps 5.3 and5.4.

&&.

TANGAIL POURASAVA5 cal.,... 1123&

OELDUAR

TANGAIL

TANGAIL

DELDUAL

KARATIA Utc.

OELOUAR

LEGEND

b>. ~----_.:.- Gov!. Pry. School.

60\'t. Primary School from Pourasovo Cllntr,.I Radious of Cirel., O.80Km. )

Map

MAP; 5.3

MANIKGONJ POURASAVA5 c a I. :- 1: 236

DIGHI UIC,

NA8AGRAM UlC,

67

JAIGIR U/C,

,Govl. Primary School from PourasQva CfntrG'.I Radious of Cirel. '0.8 Km; 0,25 Km )Map .

LEGEND

6. -- - - - - - Govl.Pry, Schoo~.,

TABLE No. 5".2NO. OF GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN EACH CIRCLE

---------------------;;;Nc:o:-".---:O'"'f"'C"'J.'"'r=cTI""e--------------------......;.---

PourashaiTa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Tangail

Manikgonj

03 02

02

03

01

02 03

" 01

04

03

03 01

01 03

02 02 03 01

01 01

01

Source: Field survey 1988

$

69

The Graphs 5.1 and 5.2 show a peak around the centre of poura-shava sloping down towards the periphery. However, for Tangailpourashava it rises possibly this is due to the newly deve1op-.ed residentiai neighbourhood that have grown in the periphe-ral areas of the town.

Furthermore, in order to give a quantitative expression to thepattern of distribution of rrovernment primary schools in thetwo.study pourashavas of Tangai1 and Manikgonj the nearness ana-lysis technique has been employed here.

The nearness technique involves measurement of the followingstraight line distance in case of schools:

i) Between the nearest school of same kind; and

ii) Between each school. Thus the observed mean distance( rA)* is calculated for all schools. The expected meandistance (rE)** was obtained first by calculating thedensity of schools per square kilC?meter and then usingthe mathematical law of probability (rE) equals to1/2 p ~ i, where p is the density of school per squarelj:i10meter.

iii) The nearness statistics was computed as a ratio of theobserved mean distance to the expected mean distance ofthe school. Mathematically', R equal to rlJ.jrEwhere R isthe nearness statistics, rA is observed mean distance andrE is expected mean distance (Table no. 5.3).

* rA it is a statistical notation. It means observed mean** rE it is also a statistical notation, it means expected

distance.distance.mean

I j' _.j.[1

r*~ti.I

l.II---I. '..TI --

:.. .:-.

.. -_ .. ----- -- .. - --- -- - --

-

0_ i ~ ' I

--/I I I

I --.x

-----_ .. -.-

TABLE 5.3

NEARNESS STATISTICS

Pourashava

Tangail

r'Ianikgonj

Total no.of school

30

13

Density ofschool persq. lan.(p)

0.917

0.60

Observedmean dist.in lan. (rA)

1.05

1.40

Expectedmean dist.in lan. (rE)

0.522

0.645

Nearnessstatistics

(R)

2.01

2.17

Patternof distri-bution

Random

-d0-

rE = 1/2 p-l!!

rB = 1/2 p-l!!

= 1/2 0.917 = 0.522 For Tangail Pourashava.= -2-- = 0.645 For Manikgonj Pourashava.2 0.6

Mean of the observed (St. Line or direct air line) distance.i) 0-1 = Clustered/approaching Uniform.ii) 0-2.15 = Random/approaching Uniform.

---JI\)

t

73

iv) Values less 0.5 may be regarded as clustered oraggregated.

The values of R statistics shows that the distribution patternof govt. primary schools in two pourashav~are mostly random.But without considering the other factors that is physicalfeatures, economic base, transportation netlrork and land occu-pancy history which are likely to influence the actual spacingof the school in an area; the statistics may not be strictly 8

correct picture in every 1hstance~ . However, the motive forintroducing such an analysis is to view the situation from astatistical point, the implication of which cannot entirelybe ruled out. It may be a good case for better understandingof the problem.

5.2. Service area of schools:

It is very difficult to determine the limit of the servicearea of govt. primary schools in the absence of detailed in-formation. However, efforts were made to estimate the servicearea of a sample of govt. primary school. in pourashava. Theapproximate distance travelled by students have been presentedin Table 5.3. It appears that average service area of thesample govt. primary school is of 1.96 km radius rangingfrom 0.402 to 3.22 km. in Manikgonj pourashava and that of1.79 km ranging from 0.402 to 3.70 krn in Tangail pourashava.But the desirable distance of government primary school fromresidence is 0.80 km which has been found from the survey of

74

this study (Chapter - 4). Within this range there are only 03school out of 27 schools in Tangail pourashava area and 01school out of 13 in Manikgonj pourashava. Service area ofgovernment Model primary school and Alowa Govt. primaryschool are above 3.0 km in Tangail pourashava and Lowkhandagovernment primary school and Porra Government primary schoolare more than 3.0 km in Manikgonj pourashava. The reasons be-hind this difference in service area have been identifiedare -

i) the quality of the school;ii) the economic class structure of the population;

iii) membership of guardians in the school managementcommittees;

iv) sufficient educational facilities; and

v) better teaching staff

It should be noted that the guardians who are educated andfinancially well-off can afford the cost of education fortheir wards to attend a better school at a longer distance.Details of the service area of government primary schools'have been presented in Table 5.4.

TABLE NO. 5.4SERVICE AREA OF THE GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL

IN MANIKGONJ AND TANGAIL POUHASHAVA

75

A. Manikgonj

1. Lowkhonda Govt. primaryschool

Totalstudent

700

Catchmentarea

3.22 Kilometre

2. Porra Govt. primary school3. Bakjury Govt. primary school4. Nabagram Govt. primary school5. Matta girls Govt. primary

school6. Joynagar Govt. primary school7. Purba Dashora Govt. primary

school

8. Matta boys Govt. primary school9. PouliGovt. primary school

10. Megshimul Govt. primary school11. Shahar Govt. primary school12. Beotha Govt. primary school13. Bandutia Govt. primary school

1000171

369

294

239180

248258324

750205278

3.002.50

2.412.40

2.402.01

1.609

1.609

1.609

1.50

0.8040.402

"

""

"

""

"

""II

"

Source: Field Survey, 1988.

25.48 KilometreAverage = 1.96 Kilometre

B. Tangail

76

Total Catchmentstudent area

3.70 Kilometre1. Govt. Model primary school2. Alowa Govt. primary school3. Bindu Basirti Govt. primary

school~. Enayetpur Govt. primary school5. Santosh Jhanavi Govt. primary

school6. Digulia east Govt. primary school7. Beradoma Govt. primary school8. Santosh Rani Dinomony Govt.

primary school9. Jobaida Govt. primary school

10. Darul ulum Govt. primary school11. Kahdalia Govt. primary school12. Ka~ipur east Govt. primary school13. Kagmari Govt. primary school1~. Betka Munshipara Govt.Primary

school15. Town Govt. primary school16. Bera Buchunia Govt. primary school17~ Bazitpur Govt. primary school18. Sakrail Govt. primary school19. Digulia west Govt. primary school20. Patuali Bhavani Govt. primary

school21. Zilla Badar Govt. primary school22. H.K. Govt. primary school

1186

~58

3~

3~

~31

328

~61

3~2600

375105312

528

379

300

~27301

213

332

921

36~

3.22

2.50

2.~1

2.012.001.75

1.701.701.70

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.21

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

1I

II

II

B. Tangail Po uraljIhava:Total

studentCatchmentarea

77

23. Kodalia Govt • primary 345 1.0 Kilometreschool

1".•

24. Kazipur west Govt. primary 334 0.804 II e';'

school25. Kalipur Govt. primary school 211 0.804 II

26. Adarsha Govt • primary school 531 0.804 II

27. Star Govt. primary school 572 0.402 "48.414

Averagec 1.79 Kilometer

Source: Field su~ey 1988.

C HAP T E R ,_ 6

SUMMARY OF FINDING, bISCUSSION, REC0l11-1ENDATIONAND CONCLUSION

6.1. Findings and discussion

6.2. Planninf the location of government primaryschool at pourashava level

6.2.1. Location of lower level optimagovernment primary school

6.3. Recommendations

6.3.1. Administrative measures6.3.2. Planning the sites of primary school6.3.3. Area specified for the primary school6.3.4. Imprmvement of the ancilll;lry facilities

planning

(L

Improvement of school design criteria,ma1ntenance and managementImprovement of teaching system, eliminatingthe dropout and increase literacy

6.4. Conclusion

78

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION; RECOMMENDATION & CONCLUSION:

6.1. Findings and discussion:The present study is of normative type. It is the result of aninvestigation into the locational aspects of government primaryschools in two pourashaVlis.Tangail and Manikgonj. The study en-compasses:

i) Education statusii) Family size

iii) Occupational statusiv) Income levelv) Mode of transport of the student

vi) Existing physical facilities in schoolsvii) Teacher. student ratio

viii) Locational pattern of schoolsix) Distribution of population and potential school going

population 1~ municipal ward in the study area.

The study was, therefore, undertaken with the expectation thatthe result of this research will make useful contribution in theplanninF for the location of new government primary school irres-pective of' pourashava townships in Bangladesh.

The most important i~sue is then what should be the criteria todetermine the location for primary schools. The present study is,therefore, an attempt to develop the criteria for the location ofprimary school. Location of existing primary schools were plottedon the pourashava map. Service area of sample primary school weredetermined. Present primary school going population was found

,,

79

out and projection for 2000 A.D. using statistical technique wasdone. Demand for total primary schools were estimated for diffe-rent wards. The socio-economic condition of the areas were ana-lysed and correlated.

The site upon which the school is located or for which it isplanned to be located. throws a series of staggering challengesto the community administrators and planners. However, the plan-ners have recommended for consideratioD of more than a score offactors affecting the choice of a school site. The presentstudy is concerned only with a few factors which are directlyrelated to the location as well as'its associates includingaccessibility.

It is clear from Map No. 5.3 and map 5.4 and table 5.1 that themaximum number of primary schools are located in areas where thedistance of the schools from the residential areas are quite faraway, that is to say, not ~dthin the walking distance of theschool going children. Table 5.2 reveals the fact that theprimary schools are randomly distributed throughout the studyarea, that is, the average service area of twenty seven primaryschools in Tangail is 1.79 sq.km. and of thirteen primary schoolsin Manikgonj is 1.96 sq. km. (Map 6.1 and 6.2). The total popu-lation is 84,672 in Tangail and 37,035 in Manikgonj. Populationper sq. km is 2615 and 1711 in Tangail and Manikgonj pourashavarespectively Map 6.5,6.6.and Graphs 3.1(a). 3.1(b). The average

80TANGAIL

---W~d-Fro-=-OO-

TANGAIL

TANGAIL POURASAVASeol.;- 6

' .

DELDU

SCHOOL CATCHMENT AREA MAP

Govl. Pry. School from Pourosovo C.nlr.(Rodious 0' Cirel. ,O.ilOKm., 0.25 Km)Mop

LEGEND

6. ------ Govl. Pry. School

Map no. 6~i.

MANIKGONJ. POURASVAScol. :- 1,236

DIGHI utC.

NABAGRAM UtC.

SCHOOL CATCHMENT AREA MAP

81

IGIR UlC.

LEGEND

6--------Gov!. Pry. SchoolGovl. Prlmory School 'rom Pourosovo Ctnlro.I Rodious of eircl •• O'~OKm" 0'25 Km.Mop:

82

number of students in 1988 A.D. and projected students in 2000 is10991 and 18310 respectively for Tangail pourashava and 5016 and9542 respectively ~or Manikgonj pourashava. Assuming 1000 studentsper school as the optimum enrollment capacity, the demand ofschools in 2000 has been estimated to be 3 more for Tangail and4 more for Manikgonj if the p!"l!vailiIigrateof populetion gro.wthremains the same.

The existing distribution pattern of Govt. primary schools, demandfor new primary schools on the basis df potential primary schoolgoing population as well as on the ward wise population densityhas been plotted on map (No; 6.5 and 6.6) and graph No. 3.1 (a;"'b)considerinf the minimum and maximum walking distance with thehelp of a nearness distance statistics.

Keeping in vie,,'of the above. two potential location criteria havebeen identified from this study:

i) Distance related criteriaii) Inc.ome related criteria

The first one offers that the Govt. primary school should be loca-ted within 0.802 km distance from the residence so that the stu-dents can walk down to the schools.

The second one offers that there should be another type of loca-tion for Govt. primary school at and that is the top level optimabased on higher income of the guardians.

83

6.2. Planning the Location of Govt. Primary School at PourashavaLevel:

The potential location criteria are classified as the way of(i) within a 0.802 km distance from the residence (ii) within1.6 - 3.2 km distance from the residence. (iii) providing app-ropriate technology type or vocational training type educationin the primAry school.

The criteria are better tested when these could be made usefulin planning th~ location of Govt. primary school in pourashava.To examine the usefulness of these criteria, the follo~dng ward-wise census charges have been taken as test case (Appendix-VI).Map No. 6.5, 6.6 shows that densly j populated area is at thecentre of pourashava both in case of Tangail and Manikgonj. Den-sity decreases in the periphery of the pourashava (Graph No. 5.1and 5.2) and also shown in land use Map 6.3 and 6.4.

6.2.1. Location of Lower Level Optima Government Primary School:

The map of the specified area is drawn to a scale of 1 cm to236 meter. The existinrrlocation of Govt. primary school of

URASAVAMANIKGONJ POI . l' 236Sca e~ .

55 JAIGJR U/C.

84l

23 DIGHI U/C.

87 NABAGRAM U/C.

LAND USE MAP

66,Map no.

LEGEND

r, Area.t0o/ .- --Re.ide" 10

A ril Area. . . I111111--- 9 • I II Industna .'''Ii' ----commerclO. Area.tt1.m __ , Administrotlv'll

~ --- Open Space':"~ - -- Waler bildies~~;. Pourasovaa --, .J\

---------,--

--,\j

o

:

100'1'5 AjOWPd' jI,09 -,b..qUi') OA()~O.In0J

'P"OI 1"&\1 ---- iiiIsa'!JjO '1.09 ,-- 51

'lsul IOuo!lo)np3 --- ~~/ .. 'l"

-D3JV 10!\UllP!Sitj ---///;::-,r

ON3931

1>'"9 "OU d'ElW

dVI'l

wn0130

350 ONVl

~vn0130

~B,/

V!lVS\1~nOd

.;'1

WnrTl30

llV9NVl

-C1,

M

lIV!>NVl

MANIKGONJ POURASAVASea I 0 : - ,: 236 86

55 JAIGIR U/C .

87 NABAGRAM VIC.BETILA MITARA U/C.

. i,,I

. ,'I, .,I..,

. '/,,,,)

I!.-.(..............",t~ . \ .

( . '-~ --r--~•I. • ,I. I. .:... ~.\ •.•.~\ .... ":

. ~/,I '/.;1, ;."/., .. k. ,"

/.II', .,I'

Word- ~No.-l

.' .

. ,,I . ',I .I, ' .1."/ --~-'-:- -r--.;i-~-"' ...I ,. I' I . I •..,. (' '1 .1, I .. :

{:I . '.--~'---):,' .,.\ '., ,,".. . ).If, ,

'/, '.I •

.......... I, ('

.." ••.-~.........

,,,

23 DIGHI U/C.

DENSITY' OF POPULATION

LEGEND

'_--O~. Dot for 50 Porson•.

fil -~ Polit. Station.

Map no. 6.5

lANGAIL POURASAVAS c a I .:- 1: 236

87

DELDUAR

TANGAIL

TANGAIL

DENSITY OF POPULATIONMap riO. 6.6

TANGAil

...

LEGEND

0-- - Pourasava C.ntr •.

fIl--- Polic. Stalion .. ---On. Dot lor 50 PO'sons.

88

6.3. Recommendations:

A pack8f;e of actions including few measures should be implemen-ted in new toWn area of the two study areas to change the presenthazard into a safe and convenient one for both the students andguardians as well. In this regard; the main recommendations aregiven below.

6.3.1. Administrative measures:

1. Establishment of a high powered public agency to functionas a key co-ordinator with all agencies '~oncerned witheducation in Bangladesh supported by qualified staff andall necessary flexibility.

2. Hi~hest priority should be given to upgrading educationalfacilities. In this regard a special and separate technicalagency well trained in planning, designing implementationmay be assigned to enforce laws of education in Bangladeshwith personnel liberty.

3. Legislations should be incorporuted ap.d enforced on townauthority to check their indiscrimination.

4. Priority should be given to upgrade '.traffic enforcementeffectiveness. A special branch of police with well trainedpersonnal may be assigned to enforce traffic laws during thetime of schooling; specially in a very crowded erea of thetowns.

89

5. Expansion of education on traffic laws, behaviour thro~ghmass media, environmental situation and training programme.It should be included in Children text books at school orassigned training programme.

6. Co-ordination, co-operation anc1 .'joint action among educa-tion aut,horities associated, planning and development autho-rities and relevant engineering department.

7. Strict observation of land use.

8. Promote the citizen involvement in local planning.

9. Recognition of adequate educational facilities planningeffectiveness in urban activities in the towns like asMsnikgonj and Tsngail.

6.3.2. Planning the sites of primary school:1. The sites of the primary school should be as flat as possible,

because ---

i) At present most of the sites of school buildingare usually low and extensive.

ii) The majority portion of the site is occupied playin~fields/play grounds.

2. Land for primary school is not at all easy matter. So thereshould be a detailed urban town plan prepared in the lightof existing ------

90

i) accommodationii) population structure

iii) anticipated growth

c. School sites need to be chosen to provide the followingfactors;

e. Children should have to cross a minimum number of mainroads in travelling to and from their homes.

f. The 8rea of lano re(ll1jree' for a primary school is madeup two components --theschool building and play p-round.In urban areas of our country there are scarcities ofland, so some standard should be adopted consideringthe floor area of school and the open space/play gro~d.

91

g. 00nsidering safety of chilr1ren, the mlJin entrlJnceof theschool should not be on the main roads.

h. The distance between two schools should not be more than0.80 km (1.0 km approximately).

i. It should be provided a pause between the gates and foot wayand road.

j. In urban arRas the design of the primary school buildingshould be pleasent and the landscape be made pleasant withtrees and other natural features.

k. Schodll sites should be reasonably level, free from floodlevel, naturally dry and without excessive road frontage.

1. School building should be placed in such a considerationthat there is no annoyance caused to surrounding housesby noise from school play grounds. In this regard ifopportunity permits the school building should be soplaced that it works as a bprrier.

m. The availability of serviCes like water supply and sewagedisposal should be given very special attention in theselection of primary schoola.

n. The layout of the site should be kept very simple toallow for easy maintenance.

92

6.3.3. Area specified for the Primary School:

School area should be specified and some regulations should befollowed. In school area the following things should be provided;

i) A class room designed for the 40 pupils.

ii) Play ground area should be within 15 decimal or 613 sqm.

iii) Total school area should be 0.33 decimaliv) School area should be boundedv) Minimum size of the class room is 37.16 sqm.

6.3.4. Improvements of the ArlciU.ary Facilities Planning:

In urban areas, the following things should be considered inthe planning of primary schools;

i) Roadways should be laid to easy gradients, properlydrained and kerbed. Adequate turning spaces,properlyplanned near service entrance.

ii) Proper water supply and sewage disposal system shouldbe provided for the consideration of sanitation ofpupils.

iii) The surrounding of schools should be pleasantly treatedand laidout with shurbs, grass and properly constructedand drained paths.

iv) Path"and roadWays should be suitably surfaced.

93

v) Provision should be made for sanit,gry accommodation, teachingaccommodation and seating arr(mgement.

vi) Playground should be placed slightly away from schoolbuildings, the intermediate space being reserved forschool gardens and open air teaching.

vii) Provision to provide black-board should be placed in thefront wall of the classroom in the visualvision of thetotal pupils.

height =

Si7,eof theblack-board = 2/3rd of the clear span of the CR.

(OR means classroom)2'-8" or 0.814 m from floor.

6.3.5. Improvements of School Design criteria, Maintenanceand Management:

i) Adequate measures should be taken on school desipncriteria and consider the follo\,dng factors;-

a) sites of the schoolb) popul",tionc) number of pupilsd) socia-economic conoition of the. surroundinginhabitants.e) area effected by nntural disastersf) environmentg) climate

94

ii) Space for the class room should be ?7.16 sqm. Thereshould be a small area for practical work.

iii) There should be provision -for chi1dreng~rden ;eqtiippedwith benches and a sand pit or paddling pool.

iv) Adequate measures should taken on sanitary accommodation.There should be provisionatleest two toilet, three ~inals.two basin for 120 pupils. Hygiene is one of the subjectstaught or implied in primary education.

v) Brovision should be made for class spaces to receivesunlight throughout the school day. A minimum of 2%daylight factor is required.

vi) Adequate measures should be taken for the safe ofschool bui1ding from natural disasters like 8S floodprone. A provision should be made to raise the plinthheight of the school building comprising the floodlevel.

6.?6. Improvements of Teaching System, Eliminating the Dropoutand Increase Literacy:

The followinp- men SUTe s should be taken for improving. the tea-ching system.minimi~e dropout and increase the rate of nationalliter8c;j'-

•

95

i) Adequate measures should be taken on selecting theprimary school teacher. Consider age, qualification,impression expression, voice, delivery capacity,.inte-lligent quotient during the period of selection. Stro-ngly avoid mal-practices on teaching staff selection.Lack of 'teaching staff is one the causes of the drop-out in our country concerned.

ii) Primary school teacher should be engaged .'only withteaching not to participate in any nuissance politicsand also never be used 8S political tools of some pow-erful illmotived personal. Nowadays, primary teacherare very much engaged with trade Union, village poli-tics etc. where they spent maximum hours besides

teaching.

iii) Like other Government employee primary schoolteachershould enjoy all the facilities like as transfer; rentetc.otherwiseit is difficult to say, how to improveprimary education.

iv) Emphasizes should be given on teachers training andselection and introduction of semi-skilled education.

6.4. Conclusion:Manikgonj is a new district headquarter and the town is expandingday by day. Agricultural land including low and fallow land arebeing used for new settlements. As a result; the service areaas well as the density of population by ward are increasing day

96

by day. Based on the present and on future projection upto 2000 ADthe planning of location have been made. The service area of exis-ting and potential Government primary school have been plotted insuch a manner so that, the distance of schools does not go beyond0.80 km and that the facilities for accommodation of the presentand future school going population, could be ensured. The dis-tance criteria has been taken as the prime consideration. Need-less to say, that the locational plan prepared here is hypothe-tical. The practical situation for locating new Governmentprimary school will take into accotmt of the existing land useand other factors which are beyond the soap!!"," the presentstudy and therefore, have not been considered here. The authorackhowledges his limitation "with humility.

It is expected that further studies on the locational problemof any other public facilities are required and in this context. "

the present study will hopefully be useful.

TABLE6.it

WARDWISE (CENSUSCHARGES)AREA,POPULATIONANDDENSITYOF POPULATION

Tangail Manikgonj

Variables Ward-1 Ward-2 Ward-3 Ward-4 '•.••ard-5 \o/ard-6 '•.••ard-1 \o/ard-2 ward-3

Area in 1162 548 1119 2230 1680 1266 - 1985 1392 1974Acres

Area in 4.7 2.22 4.53 9.01 6.80 5.12 8.03 5.63 7.99sq.km

population 19479 16985 13420 12764 15077 6947 11693 16,677 8665

Density of 4144 7651 2962 1417 2217 157 1456 2962 1085populationsq.km

Source: Field survey 1988,_ BBS 1981

\D-..1

98APPENDIX -I

(QUESTIONNAIRE-A)QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Name of PourashavaName of Household headOccupationName of the respondentRelationship with the head

Word No/Name

Name of InvestigatorDate of Interview

1.0. Type of Family and their relegions: (Please tick)a) Joint familyb) Semi nuclearc) Nuclear

a) Muslimb) Hinduc) Christiand) Other (Specify)

2.0. Member of the family ~~th age, sex, education Bndemployment:

Sl.No.

1•

3.4.5.6.7.8.9.1011.12.

Relationship i Age !with the I. Ihead I

Sex IMarital:I status II II I

Education i Main "Occupation, Subsidiary, ,

99

3.0. Distribution of school going children (Up to 11 Years)

NSi1,~-C-l-a-s-s-o-f~l~---H-o-w-f-a-r-i-s-h-e----!--Wh-e-t-h-e-r-h-e-/-""II--M-O-d-e-l-o-f--o. Reading 'I Sex I to for school I She is regu- I transport

: commuting distance I lar/regular I

1.

2.3.4.5.6.7.

4.00. A. Code L1: 1) Rickshaw 2) On foot 3) Bicycle 4) Bus5) SCooter 6) Private car 7) Boat8) Other (Specify)

4.00. B. Questionnaire for the particular of school going children.

a) Ho\<!many children are in hi s family (Up to 11 years).'.

b) How many of them are going to school/College up to20 years.

c) How many of them are going to Primary Schoold) What is the distance of nearest Primary School

from yours residenc e (in miles)e) How many children are in your family upto age 5 years

100

5.00. Household's Income and expenditure:

Earningnumber

1. Head

2.3.4.5.

Sourcesofearning

IYearly income: Items of expenditurein (Taka) ,,

I

1. Food includingday to dayshopping

2. Gloth3. Health4. Education5. Housing (Rent or

repairing ofshelter)

6. 'rransport7. Other (specify)

Tk.

--=----------------'---'------------------

6.00. How long has this family been living in this locality?6.1. Whether family immigrated: Inheritently/from Village ~'own

6.2. Whether you enjoying any facility on tution fee.If yes, How much Tk.

Yes No

If no, please specify the amount you are to pay for monthlyeducational purpose 5 school going childrenDrop out children (Upto age 15 years).

SloNo.

1.

2.3.

Class of droping out Age Years

101

7.00. Whether you send your children in school:If' yes,Causes of sending children to the school:a) Traditionalb) Influence by the Government policy of' universal

primary educationc) Idlenessd) Influence of social neighbouring environmente) Politically.

If no, why?

a) Do not rely on present education policy/systemb) Unnecessary expenditurec) Less of laboure) Decrease workin~ abilityf) In the hope of more incomeg) Povertyh) Long term investment

8.00. What kind of benef'its do your expect from your child if'you continue him on edllcation1. Social benefit2. Economic3. Increase personal image4. Increase social status5. Minimise illiteraly in the family6. Minimise dependency7. Others

9.00. Expenditure on education:

102

81-No. I Education Aid

I

•

1. Books2. Dresses3. Transport4. Papers & Pen,Pencil5. Private tutor6. Others

For differentClasses school goingchildren

I. II III IV V

How muchspent forchildren

103

APPENDIX - II(QUESTIONNAIRE-B)

(Questionnaire to collect the Information from schools in thestudy area).

1. Name of School -----------------------------------------

2. Location of the SChool:

3. Name of Interviewer? Mr.

Word/Mouza

Date

{,

4. Total area of the school (In acre)5. Year of establishment

6. P'loor area of existing school .Iluil(1ing:(In sq.feet)

7. Area of play ground (In acre):

8. Fallow land around the school premises (In acre):

9. Whether it is donated or not Yes/No. If donated, mentionthe name of donor and your with donating items.

i) Land (in acre)ii) Blli1r1inrje'1uipment (In Tk.)

iii) Any other facilities:

Year

Year

If not donated, how it is established?

i) Government khash land (in acre)ii) Purchased by school authority

104

11. Catchment area of sample Institute:

Pry.SChool

Total Numberof students Within ~ mile

imile (NO)(No).

Number1 mile(No)

of students comes from:1 mile 2 mile On(No) (No) (No)

12.(a) Information regarding spatial position of school:

Total Area of school(In acre)

'rotal area of school Buildingin sft & number of class room

Axea No. of class

12.(h) What is the approximate land value (Taka per acre)

12.(c) Total Number of staff

Trained teacher ~on-trained teacher Non-Teacher

13. Number of students in different years:

Year Total Numberof students Number of students in classes

1973197819831988

Male Female 'rotal I II III IV V

105

14. Please mention the amount of fees has to pay by the studentsof following -class?

Class I. Tk. ..... .. .... /per monthClass II. Tk. ...~... /per monthCIass HI. 'I'k• • .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ../t> er monthClass IV. Tk. ..................../per monthClass V. Tk. ..................../p er month

14.A. Teaching aid available in the class room:

1. Map2. Diagram3. Chalk4. Duster5. Black Board6. Required paper7. Chair8. Table

Sl.No. Teaching aid

IClassesII III IV _V

14.B. Required teaching aid in the class room:81.No. Teaching aid Different Class SOurce

1 II III IV V

1. Map2. Diagram3. Chalk4. Duster5. Black Board6. Required paper7. Chair8. Table9. Benches

10. Others

106

15. Please mention the per month salary of the following staffs:

1. Headmaster Tk. Per month2. Asstt. Head Tk. Per month

Master3. Teachers Tk. Per month4. Others Tk. Per month

16. Teaching Staff:

a) How many teacher are there in thisb) Whether the number is sufficient?

school"'YeslNo

If no, .what type of teaching staff is needed?1.

2.3.4.

17. Please mention the working hours of the school A.M. to P.M.

18. Has theYesiNo?

school receive any type of aid?If yes, mention the.type of aid and its amount?

Type of aid

Amount in Taka

107

19. Do you think that the following factors binders the increasein number of .student inyopr school?

1. Poverty of the population? Yes/No2. Lack of teaching staff ? Yes I No3. Lack of accommodation in institution? Yes/No4. Number of schools are insufficient? res/No5. Lack of experienced and skilled teadhing staff? Yes/No6. Insufficient Govt. aid? Yes/No7. Ignorence of guardians? Yes/No8. Lack of proper guidance of parents? Yes/No

20. What should be the policy to increase the school attendancein your school? Please explain briefl.y.

APPENDIX - IIIHierarchy of Settlement

(Questionnaire-G)

Name of Ward;Mouza t Centre & Sub-Centre

Name of Interviewer:

1. Total population:2. Number of Daily BaBar:3. Number of Hat;Market:4. Number of Government Primary SChool:

(a) Number of Pri~ate Primary School(b) Other institutions using as primary school:

108

;.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.1;.

16.17.18.19.20.

Kintergarden SchoolHigh SchoolCollegeHospitalClinicNumber of BanksSmall IndustriesLarge IndustriesBus stopageLunch/steamer ghatNumber of householdconnection:

a) Electricbc) Telephone) Gas.

Number of tubewellHousehold enjoy sewerage facilities

Power supply capacity?Number of newspapers circulation?Total municipal budget? (a) in 1981 Tk.

(b) in 198; Tk.(0) in 1987 Tk.

APPENDIX- IVLIST OF GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL

Pourashava: Manikgonj

Ward No. Serial No.1 1.2 2.

3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.

PourashavaTangail

1.

2.3.4.5.

2 6.7.8.9.

3 10.

Centre of Pourashava

Name of the SchoolMegshimul govern~ent primary schoolLowkhanda government primary schoolPorra government primary schoolNabagram government primary schoolBakjury government primary schoolPurban Sashora government schoolShar government primary schoolMatta Girls government primary scho~lMatta boys government primary schoolBandutia government primary schoolPouli government primary schoolJoynagar government primary schoolBeotha government primary school

Betka Munshipara government primaryschoolJobaida government primary schoolBindubasini government primary schoolTown government primary schoolR.K. Government primary schoolAdr8sha government primary schoolBera Bochania government primaryschoolBazitpur government primary schoolStar government primary schoolSakrail government primary school

110

PourashavaTangailWard No. Serial No. Name of School

4

5

6

11.

12.13.14.15.16.1'i1.18.

19.20.21.22.

23.24.25.26.Z7.

Digulia government primary schoolKalipur government primary SCh60lGovernment model primary schoolDigulia west government primary schoolDarul Ulum government primary schoolKagmari government primary schoolAloa Bhabani government primary schoolRani Dinomony Santosh west governmentprimary schoolJhanavi government primary schoolPatuali para government primary schoolAnayetpur government primary schoolDistrict head quarter governmentprimary schoolKodalia government primary schoolBeradoma government primary schoolKandalia government primary schoolKazipur east government primary schoolKazipur west government primary school


APPENDIX - V

CENSUSCHARGEWISE GOVEjtl:HENTPRIMARYSCHOOLSTUDENTANDHUl'lJJEHOF SCHOOL

Pourashava

Tangail

II CensusI chart

: Existing (1988):! Total: Total :Ino. of: no. of I

I cIa ss I student ~I room ,

ProjectedRequiredno.ofclassroom

upto 2000I Total no.: studentII,I

Zila Sadar 24

Kasipur 10

Diguli a 26

Santosh 33

Ward No.1

Ward No. 2

Ward No. 3

Ward No.4

Ward No. 5

\vard No. 6

Manikganj

Betka

Central

16

21

1613

1785

2342

2503

2309

439

20

30

41

375007

1988

2956

4056

3664

4960

686

Ward No.1

Ward No.2

Ward No.3

19

2617

2393

1643

980

44

3517

4377

3467

1698

Source: Field Survey, 1988

APPENDIX - vI

CENSUSCHAHGE iuSEPOPULATI00 AREAANDDENSITY OFPOPULATION ON PER S(~UAIillKILOMETER"1981

112

Manikganj Pourashava:

. ,Population Area in

,Name of Ward I Density (popula-I i

Male' ! Female I (Sq.km)I Tota~ ' tion per so.km),,"

1. Ward No. 1 11593 6148 5545 8.03 1456

2. Ward No. 2 16677 8924 . 7753 5.63. 2962

3. Ward No. 3 8665 4413 4252 7.99 1084

Total 3703319485 17550 21.65 1711

Tangail Pourashava:

1. Betka 19479 10478 9001 4.70 4145

2. Central 16985 9290 7695 2.22 7721

3. Digulia 13420 7094 6326 4.53 2963

4. Santosh 12764 7205 6953 9.01 1417

5. Zila Sadar 15077 8076 6130 6.80 2218

6. Kazipur 6947 5.12 " 1337

Total 84672 32.38 2615

Source: BBS 1981

Appendix _VII

WARD WISE GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENT AND NUMBERS OF SCHOOL.Pourashava: TangailWard.no. Estimated no. Projected no. Existing no. optimat Excess or Optimate no. New GPS

of GPS going of GPS going of GPS no. of GPS deficit no. of GPS 2000 to be builtstudent 1988 student 2000 in 1988 in 1988 of GPS up by 2000

W-1 1613 1988 5- 6 -1 8 3W-2 1785 2956 4 5 -1 7 3W-3 2342 4056 5 6 -1 9 4w-4 2503 3664 6 6 0 7 1

W-5 2309 4960 5 6 -1 10 5w-6 439 686 2 1 +1 2 0

Pourashava: ManikgonjW-1 2393 4377 4 6 -2 8 4

W-2 1643 3467 5 5 '0 7 2

W-3 980 1698 4 4 0 5 1


-'"-'"\)l

Alonso, W.

Bennett, J.S.

Backman, M.

114APPENDIX - VIIIBIBLIOGRAPHY

Location and Land use,Harverd Land University press, 1964.The School - An Organisational Analysis,Blackie, Glasgow, 1974p. 15.Location Theor;yRandom House, New York, 1968.

BBS po!ulation Census. 1981A1Thanas of Dhaka July 1985p. XL - XLVI pp 25-26, 126-127,230,231,236, 237. Government of Bangladesh.U azila Statistics 19Vo ume - One. overnmen

)

Chapin, F.B.

Curle, Adam

ChristaHer, W.

Danielson MichaelW.

Faruque A.U. Khan

Gallion, A.B.Ebinser, S.

Urban Land Use Planning, Universityillinois press, Urbana, 1972 p. 377.

Planning for Education in Pakistan.Tavistock publications London, 1966.

Metropolitan policies, Little Brown andCompany Boston.

An approach to the Formulation of Desi~Criteria and s ace Standaras for CommuIi tSeconda~ c 00 s an Des1gn1ng a pro 0 lEe,in Bangl&desh. M. Arch, Thesis, BangladeshUniversity of Engineering & Technology,Dhaka, 1984. (Unpublished)The Urban Pattern, VanNostrand Rein hold Company, New York, 1950.

Gould, 'N.T.S.

Golant, M.S.

Hossain, Md.Mofazzal

Hagget, P.Chorley, R.J.

Huq, Shanaz

Hagget, P.

Hasan, S.

Hoover, E.M.

Hughes A.G.Hughes, E.H.

Huq M. Anwarul

Islam, S. Mir

115

Planning the location of Schools: AnkeleDistrict, Uganda 11EP research project.Unesco, International Institute for edu-cational planning, Paris, 1973.The Residential Location and Spatial beha-viour of Elderly - A Canadian example.Department of Geography, University ofChicago, Research paper no. 143, 1972.

of some selected Hi h Schools~n a ~ Y 0 de erm~ne t e op mum oca-tion Criteria, MURP, Unpublished ThesisBangladesh University of Engineering andTechnology, Dhaka, 1977.

"Distribution ~attern of Banks in DhakaC}tf Orienta goegrapher. Vol. Departmento eography, Dhaka University, 1975.

Locational Anal~siS in Human geographY,Edward Arnold, London, 1971.School in Urban Stair Cases, BangladeshTimes, Dhaka, April 1,1976.

The location of economic activity, Mc grawHill, New York, 1948.

Education - Some Fundamental ProblemLongman, 1960.

Bangladesh educational statistics,BANBElS, 1987.pp- 1-5.

Isard. W.

King. L.J.

Khan M.Alamgir

Karim. A.H.M.

Latif M.A.

Losch. A.

Nomani. S.K.H.H.

Pierce RowlandS. Patrick Cut-Bush and AnthonyWilliamsRabbani. Golam

Rizvi.S.N.H.ed.

Revelle. C.Marks. D. Lie B.Mann. J.C.

116

Location and space economy. New York.The Technology press of MasschusettsInstitute of Technology and John wiley& Sons. Inc. 1965.

A uantitative e ression of the atterno r an et lements 1n se ec e areas ofthe United stated in J.L. Brian Berry andmarble F. Duan. ef. Spatial analysis -A Reader in Statistical geography prentice-Hall Inc., Engle Wood Cliffs, New Jersey,1968.

Development strategy for Bangl~desh .Centre for Sooial Studies (0.SS1980.

Education for all - papers and proceedingof the symposium. East Pakistan educationweek. 1966';'67"Primary education in EastPakistan" •Ban~ladesh District Gazetters. Tangail198. Bangladesh Government Press.

The economics of Location (Translated byWilliam H. woglom) Yale University pressNew Haven, 1971.Census of Pakistan 1961. Home AffairsDivIsion. Ministry of Home & KashmirAffairs. Karachi.Planning. London. 1936.

District Statistics of Dhaka. 1983. BBS.Government of Bangladesh.

East Pakistan District Gazatters - DaCCa.Govt. of East Pakistan.An anal sis of rivate andLocs 10n Managemen C1enceUniversity Press, 1971.

Robbers, P.D.

117

"Some comments concernin Revelle C.NarksLiebmann s article on fac11it loca-

10n" anagement cience No.1, Ch1cagouniversity Press, 1971.

Sattar, Ellen,D.

Teitz, B.N. "Towards

Ban ladesh.

UNESCO, Bangkok

UNESCO,Bangladesh

UNESCO, Bangkok

UNESCO, Colombo

Von Thunen, J.R.

Long term educational ~lanning Unescoregional office, for e ucation in Asiaand pacific, BangkOk, 1982.Educational devel09ment some practicalissues, Bangkok, 1 76.Educational Buildin s S ace and Cost Normsor e e uca iona palnner, AS1an reg10nalInsti tutes:for school building research,1971.Inter - Countre e 0 e UCa

Thali1and, 1981.School Building Design Asia, Asian RegionalInstitute for school Building Research.

Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehun aufLan W1r scha t an a on econom1C,Humburg 1926. (Summerised Version in NichaelChisholm: Rural Settlement and Land use -An essay in location, Hutchinson UniversityLibrary, London, 1962.

118

WORLD BANK Document of World Banka appraJ..Sa report

1985.

Webber A.

World Bank

Wright, Myles,H.

Uebber den standort der industrieu1 Pt. 1,Tubingen, 1909. (Translated and edJ..tedbyC.J. Friedrich as alfred Weber's Theory ofthe location of industries, Chicago, 1928).

u~azila Planning Manual for Primary Education,1 85.

The Planners note book, London, 1948.

december, 1988 · planning primary educational facilities in bangladesh i a case study of tangail...

Documents