revised district ranking methodology (1)

30 June 2015

Parho Punjab Barho PunjabRevised District Ranking Methodology

22

Agenda

• The new district ranking system

• Core indicators

• Retention indicators

• Infrastructure indicators

• Management & monitoring indicators

• Administrative ranking system

33

The new rankings system is based on a) Administrative indicators b) Quality indicators

Administrative indicators

Qualityindicators

1 2 coaching visits per school2 Separate quality ranking based on this indicator for district which is not part of the quarterly rating used for bonus award

1

2

Categorized into Core, Retention, Infrastructure

and Monitoring & management indicators

Sub categorized into 13 metrics

Focus mainly on achieving administrative

excellence at the school level

Top performing districts to be rewarded financially

Consists of 4 metrics

Focus mainly on accessing quality of Learning &

Education at the school level

44

The Administrative indicators are the following

Core indicators

3

Student attendance (1-12) 1Teacher presence2Functioning facilities3Administrator visits4

MEA visits

2 Overcrowding and multigrade (OCMG) due to classroomsInfrastructure indicators

1 Overcrowding and multigrade (OCMG) due to teachers

3 Dangerous building

Monitoring & managementindicators

2 DTE visits1 1 AEO span of control

Retention indicators

1 Student attendance (Kachi)

2 Retention (Kachi)

3 Student attendance (1-5)

4 Retention (1-5)

Not included in district rankings

1 2 coaching visits per school

A

C

D

B

1

55

The quality indicators are the following

Learning Indicators

LND results1

Punjab Examination Commissioning (PEC) exams2

Six monthly assessment3

MVF form4

Currently not included in district rankings

1 2 coaching visits per school

E

2

66

Agenda


• Core indicators





77

District will be ranked out of a total score of 13Definitions ValueMetrics1

Functioning facilities

Teacher presence

Student attendance (Kachi)

Retention (Kachi)

Student attendance (1-5)

Retention (1-5)

OCMG due to teachers

OCMG due to classrooms

Dangerous buildings

AEO span of control

DTE visits

Functioning & available facilities2 as a % of total required facilities

Teachers present as a % of total teachers

Student present as % of total students enrolled

Current enrolment as % of baseline enrolment retained


Current enrolment as % of baseline enrolment retained


Schools with inadequate3 number of primary teachers as a % of total schools4

Schools with inadequate3 number of classrooms as a % of total schools4

Schools with dangerous buildings as a % of total schools

Average number of schools per AEO

% of schools with adequate3 number of coaching visits by DTEs

13

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

A2

A3

B1

B2

B3

B4

C1

C2

C3

D1

D2

Student attendance (1-12) 1A1

District administrator visits % of schools4 visited by district administrators 1A4

1 All the metrics are calculated on a monthly basis2 Includes electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets3 Step function defined in the backup section of the document4 with primary section

Core

Retention

Infra-structure

Monitoring & Management

Indicators

1

88

District ranking

SOURCE: PMIU

3.53.5

4.04.54.54.54.5

5.05.05.05.0

5.55.55.55.55.55.5

6.06.06.06.0

6.56.56.5

7.07.07.0

7.57.57.5

8.08.08.08.08.0

8.5

NAROWALRAJANPUR

RAWALPINDI

D.G. KHAN

RAHIMYAR KHAN

FAISALABAD

SIALKOT

ATTOCK

BHAKKAR

KHUSHAB

OKARA

MIANWALIGUJRANWALA

SHEIKHUPURALAHORE

MUZAFFARGARH

LAYYAH

GUJRAT

JHANG

BAHAWALNAGARHAFIZABADPAKPATTAN

T.T.SINGH

NANKANA SAHIB

CHINIOT

LODHRAN

CHAKWAL

KASUR

MANDI BAHA UD DIN

KHANEWAL

MULTAN

JHELUM

VEHARI

BAHAWALPUR

SARGODHA

SAHIWAL

Performance (out of 13)District

1 Based on average score of April & May

Average district score, baseline1

99

Performance on most core indicators remains strong…

SOURCE: PMIU, May data

Teacher presenceTeachers present as a % of total teachers

District administrator visits% of schools2 with visited by district administrators

Functioning facilitiesFunctioning & available facilities as a % of total required facilities1

A4A3

A2 93.1%

Student attendance (1-12)Student present as % of total studentsenrolled

89.5%

95.9%95.5%

A1

1 electricity, drinking water, toilet and boundary walls2 with primary section

1010

…. but lags on some of the new indicators (1/2)


Student attendance (K)Student present as % of total studentsenrolled

Student attendance (1-5)Student present as % of total studentsenrolled

Retention1 (Kachi)Current enrolment as % of baseline2 enrolment

Retention1 (1-5)Current enrolment as % of baseline2 enrolment

82.9%

88.7% 99.7%

100%

OCMG due to classroomsSchools with inadequate3 number of classrooms as a % of total schools

OCMG due to teachersSchools with inadequate3 number of primary teachers as a % of total schools4

62%65%

B4B3

C2C1

B2B1

1 Retention for the month of April is taken as 100% (start of school academic year) 2 Peak enrolment month of the current school year3. Step function defined in backup section of the document 4. With primary section

1111SOURCE: PMIU, May data

…. but lags on some of the new indicators (2/2)

1 Two visits per school per month 2 Slightly inflated due to Layyah’s high AEO span of control (138)3. Defined as life threating to teachers or/and students, further details in the “Training on dangerous building” document for MEAs

Dangerous BuildingsSchools with dangerous3 buildings asa % of total schools

DTE Visits % of schools with adequate1 number of coaching visits by DTEs

AEO Span of ControlAverage number of schools per AEO

D2

D1C3 9.3% 472

100%

MEA visits% of schools visited by monitoring officers for data collection

D3 98.1%

1212

Agenda


• Core indicators





1313

Past performance on core indicators (1/2)

Student attendanceStudents present as a % of total students enrolled

Teacher presenceTeachers present as a % of total teachers


86.8

90.188.9 89.5

89.9 92.991.9 93.6

2011 2012 2013 20152014

2011 2012 2013 20152014

On-duty

1414

Availability and functioning of facilitiesFunctioning & available facilities as a % of total required facilities1

District administration visits% of schools2 visited by district administrators


92.6 93.3

87.8

95.5

95.4

82.0

96.0 95.9

Past performance on core indicators (2/2)

1 Includes electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets2 With primary section

2011 2012 2013 20152014

2011 2012 2013 20152014

1515

-4.6-2.9

-2.0-1.8-1.6-1.4-1.4

-1.0-0.7-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

0.10.10.20.30.40.50.70.70.91.01.11.21.21.31.41.41.6

2.02.32.62.82.93.1

A1. Student attendance (1-12)


93.1% 90.0%Jhelum 92.9% 90.0%Chakwal 92.8% 90.0%Pakpattan 92.6% 90.0%Bahawalnagar 92.3% 90.0%Lodhran 92.0% 90.0%Chiniot 91.6% 90.0%Khanewal 91.4% 90.0%Multan 91.4% 90.0%Nankana Sahib 91.3% 90.0%Bahawalpur 91.2% 90.0%Vehari 91.2% 90.0%Hafizabad 91.1% 90.0%Mandi Baha Ud Din 91.0% 90.0%Khushab 90.9% 90.0%Jhang 90.7% 90.0%Layyah 88.7% 88.0%Gujrat 90.5% 90.0%Rawalpindi 88.4% 88.0%Muzaffargarh 88.3% 88.0%Mianwali 88.2% 88.0%T.T.Singh 90.1% 90.0%Rahimyar Khan 85.1% 85.0%Okara 89.9% 90.0%Sahiwal 89.8% 90.0%Lahore 89.7% 90.0%Sargodha 89.6% 90.0%Sheikhupura 89.3% 90.0%Faisalabad 89.0% 90.0%Attock 88.6% 90.0%Sialkot 88.6% 90.0%Narowal 86.4% 88.0%Gujranwala 88.2% 90.0%Bhakkar 86.0% 88.0%D.G. Khan 82.1% 85.0%

Kasur

Rajanpur 80.4% 85.0%

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din

SheikhupuraNankanaSahib

On or above target

Below target by more than 2% but less than 4%

Student present as a % of total students enrolled May 2015District TargetPerformance Delta

Below target by less than 2%

Below target by more than 4%

1616

A2. Teacher presence


0.20.8

1.31.41.61.71.9

2.52.52.62.62.6

3.03.13.13.23.33.33.33.43.53.53.63.63.7

4.04.44.44.54.7

5.05.05.15.25.2

6.9Chiniot 96.9% 90.0%Lodhran 95.2% 90.0%Pakpattan 95.2% 90.0%Vehari 95.1% 90.0%Multan 95.0% 90.0%Jhelum 95.0% 90.0%Layyah 94.7% 90.0%Jhang 94.5% 90.0%Chakwal 94.4% 90.0%Khushab 94.4% 90.0%Sahiwal 94.0% 90.0%Khanewal 93.7% 90.0%Gujrat 93.6% 90.0%Kasur 93.6% 90.0%Nankana Sahib 93.5% 90.0%Bhakkar 93.5% 90.0%Attock 93.4% 90.0%Rajanpur 93.3% 90.0%Hafizabad 93.3% 90.0%Faisalabad 93.3% 90.0%D.G. Khan 93.2% 90.0%Bahawalnagar 93.1% 90.0%Sheikhupura 93.1% 90.0%Bahawalpur 93.0% 90.0%T.T.Singh 92.6% 90.0%Muzaffargarh 92.6% 90.0%Rahimyar Khan 92.6% 90.0%Gujranwala 92.5% 90.0%Sargodha 92.5% 90.0%Narowal 91.9% 90.0%Mandi Baha Ud Din 91.7% 90.0%Okara 91.6% 90.0%Rawalpindi 91.4% 90.0%Mianwali 91.3% 90.0%Lahore 90.8% 90.0%Sialkot 90.2% 90.0%

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


Teachers present as a % of total teachersMay 2015District TargetPerformance Delta

Greater than or equal to 90%

Less than 86%

Less than 88% but greater than or equal to 86%


1717

A3. Functioning Facilities

-6.2-4.2-4.0

-2.6-1.8-1.4-1.4-0.9-0.8

0.20.30.61.01.11.41.41.52.12.22.22.22.22.32.83.03.03.13.53.53.53.63.83.94.04.5

-13.0


Lahore 99.5% 95.0%Gujrat 99.0% 95.0%Vehari 98.9% 95.0%Jhelum 98.8% 95.0%Khanewal 98.6% 95.0%Layyah 98.5% 95.0%Faisalabad 98.5% 95.0%Chiniot 98.5% 95.0%Kasur 98.1% 95.0%Multan 98.0% 95.0%Mandi Baha Ud Din 98.0% 95.0%Chakwal 97.8% 95.0%Sargodha 97.3% 95.0%T.T.Singh 97.2% 95.0%Attock 97.2% 95.0%Pakpattan 97.2% 95.0%Gujranwala 97.2% 95.0%Lodhran 97.1% 95.0%Muzaffargarh 96.5% 95.0%Okara 96.4% 95.0%Sialkot 96.4% 95.0%Sheikhupura 96.1% 95.0%Hafizabad 96.0% 95.0%Sahiwal 95.6% 95.0%Bahawalpur 95.3% 95.0%Nankana Sahib 95.2% 95.0%Bhakkar 94.2% 95.0%Jhang 94.1% 95.0%Narowal 93.6% 95.0%Rawalpindi 93.6% 95.0%Mianwali 93.2% 95.0%Bahawalnagar 92.4% 95.0%Khushab 91.0% 95.0%Rahimyar Khan 90.8% 95.0%Rajanpur 88.8% 95.0%D.G. Khan 82.0% 95.0%

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


Functioning & available facilities as a % of total required facilities1

May 2015District TargetPerformance Delta


Less than 85%



1 Includes electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets

1818

A4. District administrator visits


-8.2-2.7

1.72.02.53.3

5.25.35.75.86.26.36.56.76.86.97.07.27.37.47.67.77.77.87.88.18.18.28.28.39.09.09.59.69.89.9Chiniot 99.9% 90.0%

Jhelum 99.8% 90.0%Pakpattan 99.6% 90.0%Chakwal 99.5% 90.0%Nankana Sahib 99.0% 90.0%Kasur 99.0% 90.0%Khanewal 98.3% 90.0%Multan 98.2% 90.0%Sahiwal 98.2% 90.0%Hafizabad 98.1% 90.0%Lodhran 98.1% 90.0%Vehari 97.8% 90.0%Mandi Baha Ud Din 97.8% 90.0%Jhang 97.7% 90.0%Sheikhupura 97.7% 90.0%Bahawalpur 97.6% 90.0%Layyah 97.4% 90.0%Khushab 97.3% 90.0%Rawalpindi 97.2% 90.0%T.T.Singh 97.0% 90.0%Bhakkar 96.9% 90.0%Okara 96.8% 90.0%Attock 96.7% 90.0%Faisalabad 96.5% 90.0%Gujrat 96.3% 90.0%Muzaffargarh 96.2% 90.0%Mianwali 95.8% 90.0%Bahawalnagar 95.7% 90.0%Rahimyar Khan 95.3% 90.0%Narowal 95.2% 90.0%Sargodha 93.3% 90.0%Gujranwala 92.5% 90.0%Lahore 92.0% 90.0%D.G. Khan 91.7% 90.0%Rajanpur 87.3% 90.0%Sialkot 81.8% 90.0%

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


% of schools1 visited by district administrators April 2015

District TargetPerformance Delta


Less than 86%



1 With primary section

1919

Agenda


• Core indicators






-15.7-15.0

-13.0-13.0-12.8

-10.6-10.5-10.3-10.0

-9.0-8.9-8.8

-7.8-7.5-7.3-6.9-6.7-6.1-5.8-5.7-4.9-4.8-4.8

-3.0-2.9-2.9-2.5-2.4-2.0-2.0-1.7-1.4-1.3-0.8-0.4

1.4CHAKWAL 91.4% 90.0%JHELUM 89.6% 90.0%LODHRAN 89.2% 90.0%LAHORE 88.7% 90.0%KASUR 88.6% 90.0%KHANEWAL 88.3% 90.0%BAHAWALNAGAR 88.0% 90.0%BAHAWALPUR 88.0% 90.0%VEHARI 87.6% 90.0%MULTAN 87.5% 90.0%PAKPATTAN 87.1% 90.0%JHANG 87.1% 90.0%HAFIZABAD 87.0% 90.0%LAYYAH 83.2% 88.0%RAWALPINDI 83.2% 88.0%KHUSHAB 85.1% 90.0%ATTOCK 84.3% 90.0%OKARA 84.2% 90.0%SARGODHA 83.9% 90.0%MANDI BAHA UD DIN 83.3% 90.0%NANKANA SAHIB 83.1% 90.0%GUJRAT 82.7% 90.0%SAHIWAL 82.5% 90.0%MUZAFFARGARH 80.2% 88.0%CHINIOT 81.2% 90.0%FAISALABAD 81.1% 90.0%T.T.SINGH 81.0% 90.0%SHEIKHUPURA 80.0% 90.0%RAHIMYAR KHAN 74.7% 85.0%NAROWAL 77.5% 88.0%GUJRANWALA 79.4% 90.0%SIALKOT 77.2% 90.0%MIANWALI 75.0% 88.0%D.G. KHAN 72.0% 85.0%BHAKKAR 73.0% 88.0%RAJANPUR 69.3% 85.0%

District Performance Target Delta

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


B1. Student attendance (Kachi)Students present as a % of total students enrolledMay 2015

On or above target


Below target by less than or equal to 2%



1.11.31.31.3

1.71.71.8

2.32.32.42.62.72.82.93.03.13.13.33.33.63.63.73.73.83.94.24.34.44.6

5.65.75.9

6.46.6

7.07.0Pakpattan 100.0% 93.0%

Lahore 100.0% 93.0%Khanewal 100.0% 93.4%Bahawalnagar 100.0% 93.6%Rajanpur 100.0% 94.1%Rawalpindi 100.0% 94.3%Nankana sahib 100.0% 94.4%Attock 100.0% 95.4%Gujranwala 100.0% 95.6%Hafizabad 100.0% 95.7%Chiniot 100.0% 95.8%Muzaffargarh 100.0% 96.1%Sargodha 100.0% 96.2%Sahiwal 100.0% 96.3%Jhelum 100.0% 96.3%Sialkot 100.0% 96.4%Mandi baha ud din 100.0% 96.4%Vehari 100.0% 96.7%D.G. Khan 100.0% 96.7%Bahawalpur 100.0% 96.9%Khushab 100.0% 96.9%Multan 100.0% 97.0%Jhang 100.0% 97.1%T.T.Singh 100.0% 97.2%Bhakkar 100.0% 97.3%Sheikhupura 100.0% 97.4%Narowal 100.0% 97.6%Rahimyar khan 100.0% 97.7%Lodhran 100.0% 97.7%Faisalabad 100.0% 98.2%Layyah 100.0% 98.3%Okara 100.0% 98.3%Gujrat 100.0% 98.7%Kasur 100.0% 98.7%Mianwali 100.0% 98.7%Chakwal 100.0% 98.9%

`

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


B2. Retention (Kachi)Current enrolment as a % of baseline1 enrolmentMay 2015District TargetPerformance2 Delta

1 Peak month enrolment of the current school year2. Enrolment in April is taken as 100% (start of school year)

On or above target

Below target by more than 1.5% but less than 3%

Below target by less than or equal to 1.5%



-7.4-5.8

-3.6-3.4-3.3-2.8

-2.0-2.0-1.9-1.9

-1.0-1.0-0.9-0.8-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.1

00.20.20.20.30.30.60.60.91.01.1

1.61.82.12.32.52.72.7Chakwal 92.7% 90.0%

Pakpattan 92.7% 90.0%Kasur 92.5% 90.0%Jhelum 92.3% 90.0%Hafizabad 92.1% 90.0%Lodhran 91.8% 90.0%Bahawalnagar 91.6% 90.0%Khanewal 91.1% 90.0%Bahawalpur 91.0% 90.0%Nankana sahib 90.9% 90.0%Rawalpindi 88.6% 88.0%Vehari 90.6% 90.0%Khushab 90.3% 90.0%Lahore 90.3% 90.0%Multan 90.2% 90.0%T.T.Singh 90.2% 90.0%Chiniot 90.2% 90.0%Mandi baha ud din 90.0% 90.0%Layyah 87.9% 88.0%Jhang 89.6% 90.0%Okara 89.4% 90.0%Rahimyar khan 84.2% 85.0%Sargodha 89.2% 90.0%Muzaffargarh 87.1% 88.0%Gujrat 89.0% 90.0%Sahiwal 89.0% 90.0%Mianwali 86.1% 88.0%Faisalabad 88.1% 90.0%Attock 88.0% 90.0%Sheikhupura 88.0% 90.0%Narowal 85.2% 88.0%Bhakkar 84.7% 88.0%Gujranwala 86.6% 90.0%Sialkot 86.4% 90.0%D.G. Khan 79.2% 85.0%Rajanpur 77.6% 85.0%

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


B3. Student attendance (1-5)Student present as a % of total students enrolledMay 2015District TargetPerformance Delta

On or above target





0.92.22.32.73.03.03.13.13.43.54.14.44.54.65.05.65.75.86.36.46.77.07.17.4

8.68.78.78.99.49.4

11.011.311.812.1

13.013.0

`

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


B4. Retention (1-5)Current enrolment as a % of baseline1 enrolment May 2015

PAKPATTAN 100.0% 87.0%LAHORE 100.0% 87.0%ATTOCK 100.0% 87.9%JHELUM 100.0% 88.2%RAJANPUR 100.0% 88.7%BAHAWALNAGAR 100.0% 89.0%GUJRANWALA 100.0% 90.6%KHUSHAB 100.0% 90.6%NANKANA SAHIB 100.0% 91.1%SAHIWAL 100.0% 91.3%LODHRAN 100.0% 91.3%BAHAWALPUR 100.0% 91.4%JHANG 100.0% 92.6%MUZAFFARGARH 100.0% 92.9%BHAKKAR 100.0% 93.0%D.G. KHAN 100.0% 93.3%RAHIMYAR KHAN 100.0% 93.6%MULTAN 100.0% 93.7%HAFIZABAD 100.0% 94.2%RAWALPINDI 100.0% 94.3%KHANEWAL 100.0% 94.4%CHINIOT 100.0% 95.0%SIALKOT 100.0% 95.4%VEHARI 100.0% 95.5%LAYYAH 100.0% 95.6%SARGODHA 100.0% 95.9%MANDI BAHA UD DIN 100.0% 96.5%SHEIKHUPURA 100.0% 96.6%OKARA 100.0% 96.9%FAISALABAD 100.0% 96.9%MIANWALI 100.0% 97.0%T.T.SINGH 100.0% 97.0%CHAKWAL 100.0% 97.3%KASUR 100.0% 97.7%NAROWAL 100.0% 97.8%GUJRAT 100.0% 99.1%

District Performance2 Target Delta

1 Peak month enrolment of the current school year2. Enrolment in April is taken as 100% (start of school year)

On or above target



Missed target by more than 6%

2424

Agenda


• Core indicators






Lodhran

Chakwal

Jhang

Pakpattan

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawal nagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

T.T.Singh Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

GujranwalaHafizabad

LahoreFaisalabad

SargodhaM.B. Din

NankanaSahib

Sheikhupura

73,9Sheikhupura 73,4

Rahimyar khan79,5

Vehari

85,6Bhakkar 80,8Pakpattan 80,2

Layyah

80,2MuzaffargarhOkara 77,5

75,2Rajanpur 74,9Kasur 74,6D.G. Khan

Nankana sahib

62,3

SargodhaMultan

Mianwali

70,1

Bahawalnagar

66,6

70,4

Chiniot

64,6

Sahiwal

Lodhran

66,0

69,4

Jhang62,1

66,6

Faisalabad

Hafizabad

69,3Bahawalpur

Mandi Baha Ud Din

T.T.singh65,0

60,860,6

46,7

Gujranwala

37,4

56,7

45,2Sialkot

Khushab55,6

Attock

Jhelum54,3

59,7

Narowal54,8

58,0

Gujrat

46,4

Khanewal60,1

56,5Chakwal

LahoreRawalpindi

Less than 5%

Greater than 5% but less than or equal to 25%

C1. Overcrowding & multigrade due to teachers% of schools1 with inadequate2 number of primary school teachers May 2015

District

% of schools with inadequate number of primary school teacher

Greater than 50%


1. With primary section2 0-30 enrolment: 2 teachers, 30-45 enrolment: 3 teachers, 45-180 enrolment: 4 teachers, 180-300 enrolment: 6 teachers, 300-400 enrolment: 8 teachers,

>400 enrolment : primary STR of 50

1,413

3,125

1,534 1,963 956

1,272 2,036 1,048 1,133 1,368 1,984 1,573 1,746 2,669 3,325 1,199 2,491 1,368 1,929 1,674 1,083 2,892 3,642 1,800 1,207 1,258 2,326 2,654 2,416 1,898 2,680 2,856 3,874 5,803 1,754 2,331

Number of additional teachers required

Target 2018: 0%


Lodhran

Chakwal

Jhang

Pakpattan

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawal nagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

T.T.Singh Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

GujranwalaHafizabad

LahoreFaisalabad

SargodhaM.B. Din

NankanaSahib

Sheikhupura

Rahimyar khanKasur

D.G. Khan 77,1

Muzaffargarh

76,7

75,076,2

74,1

70,1

65,5

OkaraBhakkar

Jhang

Bahawalnagar

71,3

69,5

Multan

72,4

69,8

66,5Pakpattan

Rajanpur

LayyahChiniot

74,1

Faisalabad67,7

Bahawalpur

Sheikhupura

Mianwali65,8

73,3

68,5

Vehari

55,7

63,9

Khushab

Narowal

Attock

Gujranwala

59,9

Lodhran

Sargodha

56,0

58,558,7

Khanewal

55,9Nankana sahibHafizabad

62,862,2T.T.Singh

Sahiwal56,7

Sialkot 64,3

Lahore

55,653,8

Mandi Baha Ud Din 52,6

Gujrat 50,2Jhelum 35,5Rawalpindi 35,4Chakwal 32,9

51,4

C2. Overcrowding & multigrade due to classrooms% of schools with inadequate1 number of classrooms May 2015

District

% of schools with inadequate number of teachers

1 0-30 enrolment: 2 classrooms, 30-45 enrolment: 3 classrooms, 45-150 enrolment: 4 classrooms, 150-230 enrolment: 6 classrooms, 230-310 enrolment: 8 classrooms, >310 enrolment: total enrolment/50

Less than 5%


Greater than 50%


Number of additional classrooms required

633

3,415

1,551 578

1,671 1,352 1,021 989 942

1,093 2,947 2,665 1,886 1,685 2,656 1,874 2,017 1,044 1,900 3,121 2,109 2,526 2,303 1,523 5,312 2,816 3,795 1,369 2,461 2,997 2,854 2,225 1,946 3,718 3,235 5,618 Target 2018: 0%


District

17.314.4

13.613.213.1

12.711.911.5

11.311.2

10.910.3

10.09.69.69.59.59.29.1

8.88.48.48.38.1

7.57.5

7.37.37.17.1

6.56.15.7

5.54.8

3.6

KhushabNankana sahibLodhranLayyahRawalpindiD.G. KhanMandi Baha Ud Din

Hafizabad

KhanewalRahimyar khanSialkotAttockSheikhupuraVehariFaisalabadRajanpurMuzaffargarhBahawalpur ChakwalBahawalnagarChiniotOkara

NarowalPakpattanGujranwalaMianwaliLahoreGujrat SahiwalSargodhaKasurJhelumBhakkarT.T.singh

JhangMultan

1 Includes both critically dangerous and partially dangerous buildings

C3. Dangerous buildings% schools with dangerous buildings November 2014

Lodhran

Chakwal

Jhang

Pakpattan

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawal nagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

T.T.Singh Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

GujranwalaHafizabad

LahoreFaisalabad

SargodhaM.B. Din

NankanaSahib

Sheikhupura

26

Number of schools with dangerous buildings

166

693812773128133801691091079716125310813912210712379143192116146127153187101142101213257220110105

% of schools with dangerous buildings1

Less than 1%


Greater than 5%


Target 2018: 0%

2828

Agenda


• Core indicators






-45,0-39,0

-20,0

-20,0

-18,0

-115,0

-17,0

-27,0-25,0

-48,0

-21,0

-32,0

-20,0

-52,0

-38,0-37,0

-50,0

-16,0

-16,0-16,0-16,0

-15,0-15,0-14,0-13,0

-11,0-8,0

-16,0

-11,0

-20,0

-17,0

-17,0-17,0-17,0

-4,0-7,0

KHUSHAB 27 23LAHORE 30 23JHANG 31 23BAHAWALPUR 34 23CHINIOT 34 23NANKANA SAHIB 36 23OKARA 37 23JHELUM 38 23VEHARI 38 23KASUR 39 23LODHRAN 39 23NAROWAL 39 23PAKPATTAN 39 23T.T.SINGH 39 23ATTOCK 40 23BHAKKAR 40 23CHAKWAL 40 23FAISALABAD 40 23MUZAFFARGARH 40 23MULTAN 41 23BAHAWALNAGAR 43 23MIANWALI 43 23RAJANPUR 43 23RAWALPINDI 43 23MANDI BAHA UD DIN 44 23SARGODHA 48 23SAHIWAL 50 23HAFIZABAD 55 23GUJRANWALA 60 23KHANEWAL 61 23D.G. KHAN 62 23RAHIMYAR KHAN 68 23SIALKOT 71 23SHEIKHUPURA 73 23GUJRAT 75 23LAYYAH2 138 23

D1. AEO Span of control

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


Average number of schools per AEOMay 2015District Target1 Performance Delta

1 Assuming a total AEO count of 2000 for a total of 46,341 schools 2. Probably due to empty posts

Less than or equal to 25

Greater than 25 but lessthan or equal to 27

Greater than 28

Greater than 27 but less than or equal to 28

Number of additional AEOs required

37 40 66 80 28 29 61 30 59 60 33 50 36 44 47 54 46 81 85

96 57 49 71 32 75 45 29 64 50 74 131 78 58 53 67

55

3030

D2. DTE visits


Attock 100.0% 90.0%Bahawalnagar 100.0% 90.0%Bhakkar 100.0% 90.0%Chakwal 100.0% 90.0%Chiniot 100.0% 90.0%Faisalabad 100.0% 90.0%Hafizabad 100.0% 90.0%Jhang 100.0% 90.0%Jhelum 100.0% 90.0%Kasur 100.0% 90.0%Khanewal 100.0% 90.0%Layyah 100.0% 90.0%Lodhran 100.0% 90.0%Mandi baha ud din 100.0% 90.0%Multan 100.0% 90.0%Muzaffargarh 100.0% 90.0%Nankana sahib 100.0% 90.0%Narowal 100.0% 90.0%Okara 100.0% 90.0%Pakpattan 100.0% 90.0%Sheikhupura 100.0% 90.0%T.T.Singh 100.0% 90.0%Vehari 100.0% 90.0%Rajanpur 99.0% 90.0%Rahimyar khan 99.0% 90.0%Lahore 98.0% 90.0%D.G. Khan 98.0% 90.0%Mianwali 98.0% 90.0%Sialkot 98.0% 90.0%Rawalpindi 96.0% 90.0%Sahiwal 94.0% 90.0%Bahawalpur 94.0% 90.0%Gujrat 91.0% 90.0%Gujranwala 87.0% 90.0%Khushab 84.0% 90.0%Sargodha 82.0% 90.0% -7.9

-5.6-3.2

1.03.74.3

5.67.77.88.18.3

9.49.410.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.0

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


% of schools with adequate1 number of coaching visits2 by DTEs April 2015


1 Defined as 2 visits per school2 Calculation includes additional visits conducted for the quality drive 3. Defined as 2 coaching visits per teacher per school

90% or above

Less than 80%



Currently using the Old DTE metric, the new3 metric would be operationalized once DTE hiring takes place


-0.62.93.53.7

4.55.0

5.86.9

8.18.48.58.58.89.09.19.29.59.59.59.69.69.79.79.89.89.89.99.910.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.0Lodhran

AttockBhakkarChakwalGujranwalaJhelumT.T.SinghMandi baha ud dinKasurNankana sahibMianwaliJhangLahore VehariRawalpindiKhushabPakpattanFaisalabadMuzaffargarhKhanewalSahiwalChiniotrahim yar khanNarowalGujratLayyahMultanSialkotSargodhaD.G. KhanOkaraBahawalnagarRajanpurHafizabadBahawalpurSheikhupura

90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%90.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8%

99.8% 99.8% 99.7% 99.7% 99.6% 99.6% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 99.2% 99.1% 99.0%

98.8% 98.5% 98.5% 98.4%

98.1% 96.9% 95.8% 95.0% 94.5% 93.7% 93.5% 92.9% 89.4%

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT SinghOkara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


D3. MEA visits% of schools visited by monitoring officers for data collectionMay 2015


90% or above

Less than 80%



3232

Backup

3333

Student attendance

Source: Team analysis

Evaluation criteria

On or above target



Total students present divided by the total enrolment (as per class register)

Calculation

BaselineAverage student attenance for 2014

2018 Target

Districts classified into three categories of performance (high, moderate & low) and targets assigned accordingly (90%, 88% & 85%)

Student present as a % of total students enrolledDefinition

Metric detail

Below target by more than 2% but less than or equal to 4%

3434

Teacher presence


Evaluation criteria



Less than 86%

2018 Target

90%

Teachers present as a % of total teachersDefinition

Metric detail


Definition

Average teacher presence for 2014Baseline

3535

Retention


Evaluation criteria

On or above target

Below target by less than or equal to 1.5%

Below target by greater than 3%

BaselinePeak month enrolment for current school year

2018 Target

Reduce dropout to lower of the following:▪ Retention floor

– Kachi: 7%– Grade 1-5: 13%

▪ 50% of a district’s baseline dropout1 rate

Current enrolment as a % of baseline enrolmentDefinition

1 Drop out is calculated as the difference between month with highest enrolment and any subsequent month with lowest enrolment, based on enrollment from 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 – All enrolment figures are adjusted for MEA coverage

Metric detail

Below target by greater than 1.5% but less than or equal to 3%

On or above target


Below target by greater than 6%

Below target by greater than 3% but less than or equal to 6%

Kachi Grade 1-5

3636

Administrator visits


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

90%

% of schools1 visited by district administrators Definition

Metric detail



Less than 86%


1 With primary section

3737

Overcrowding & multigrade due to teachers


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

0% of schools with overcrowding and multigrade due to teachers

% of schools with inadequate1 number of primary school teachersDefinition

Metric detail

Less than or equal to 5%


Greater than 50%


1 0-30 enrolment: 2 teachers, 30-45 enrolment: 3 teachers, 45-180 enrolment: 4 teachers, 180-300 enrolment: 6 teachers, 300-400 enrolment: 8 teachers, >400 enrolment : primary STR of 50

3838

Overcrowding & multigrade due to classrooms


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

0% of schools with overcrowding and multigrade due to classrooms

% of schools with inadequate1 number of classroomsDefinition

Metric detail



Greater than 50%


1 0-30 enrolment: 2 classrooms, 30-45 enrolment: 3 classrooms, 45-150 enrolment: 4 classrooms, 150-230 enrolment: 6 classrooms, 230-310 enrolment: 8 classrooms, >310 enrolment: total enrolment/50

3939

Functioning facilities


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

Functioning & available facilities as a % of total required facilities1 Definition

Metric detail

1 Each school should have 4 facilities including electricity, boundary wall, drinking water and toilets.Total possible is a product of 4 and the total number of schools

95% of total possible facilities should be functional and available



Less than 85%


4040

Dangerous buildings


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

Schools with dangerous1 buildings as a % of total schools Definition

Metric detail

• 0% of dangerous buildings in a district

• Intermediary target of 2% in June 2016



Greater than 5%


1 Defined as life threating to teachers or/and students, further details in the “Training on dangerous building” document for MEAs

4141

AEO span of control


Evaluation criteria

Less than or equal to 251


Greater than 28

2018 Target

232

Average number of schools per AEODefinition

Metric detail


1 The districts are allowed a 10% deviation from target2 Conditional upon hiring of additional 1000 AEOs

4242

DTE visits


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

% of schools with adequate1 number of coaching visits by a DTE Definition

Metric detail

90%



Less than 80%


1 Defined as two visits per school

4343

LND results


Evaluation criteria

2018 Target

% of correct responses by students Definition

Metric detail

85%



Less than 65%


4444

Percentage of correct responsesMarch 2015

69.274.875.275.776.577.077.677.678.579.079.479.880.480.580.580.581.381.681.981.982.682.783.383.484.184.384.685.085.185.986.086.186.687.588.088.6

BahawalpurRahimyar KhanMuzaffargarhVehariSahiwalGujrat

MianwaliLodhranKasurSargodhaNarowalChakwalJhelum

JhangOkaraD.G. KhanLayyahSheikhupura

T.T.SinghRajanpurMultanBhakkarBahawalnagarFaisalabad

Mandi Baha Ud DinHafizabadKhanewalPakpattanSialkotKhushabLahore AttockRawalpindiGujranwalaChiniotNankana Sahib

District

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT Singh

Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


Source: LND May data

LND results – Maths (1 digit multiplication)

Performance


Less than 65%



4545

59.065.065.066.0

71.073.073.074.075.076.076.076.077.077.078.078.078.078.078.079.079.080.080.080.081.081.081.081.081.082.082.083.084.084.084.085.0

KhushabJhelumD.G. KhanBhakkarOkaraJhang

AttockMianwaliLodhranVehariRahimyar KhanBahawalpurMuzaffargarh

GujratSahiwalLayyahKasurSheikhupura

RawalpindiNarowalT.T.SinghNankana SahibGujranwalaChiniot

Mandi Baha Ud DinPakpattanKhanewalRajanpurChakwalSialkotLahore BahawalnagarSargodhaMultanHafizabadFaisalabad

District Performance

Percentage of correct responsesApril 2015

Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT Singh

Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


Source: LND April data

LND results – Maths (1 digit multiplication) Greater than or equal to 85%

Less than 65%



4646


Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT Singh

Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


58.059.060.060.062.063.064.065.065.066.066.067.067.067.067.068.068.068.068.068.070.070.071.071.071.072.073.073.075.076.078.0

Gujrat Rahimyar KhanChakwal

OkaraMuzaffargarhBahawalnagar

RajanpurFaisalabadSahiwal

SargodhaLodhranGujranwala

Sheikhupura Not enough informationNankana Sahib Not enough informationKasur Not enough information

BahawalpurJhelumMultan

JhangRawalpindiMianwaliLayyahBhakkarVehari

HafizabadPakpattanNarowal

D.G. KhanT.T.SinghLahore

Mandi Baha Ud DinSialkotKhushab

Chiniot Not enough informationAttock1 Not enough informationKhanewal

Footnote 1: Coverage less than 10% in Not enough information districts. In other districts, coverage ranged from 12% to 45%Source: LND March data

L\ND results– English (overall)Percentage of correct responsesMarch 2015


Less than 65%



4747


Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT Singh

Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


48.048.049.050.0

53.054.054.054.055.055.055.056.056.057.057.057.057.057.058.058.058.058.058.058.0

61.062.062.063.0

66.067.069.0

Nankana SahibKasur Not enough informationChiniot

Not enough information

SargodhaRajanpurJhangGujranwalaVehariRahimyar Khan

Not enough informationAttock Not enough informationPakpattanKhanewal

Not enough informationSheikhupura

FaisalabadChakwalBhakkar

SahiwalMandi Baha Ud DinLayyah

MianwaliLodhranLahore KhushabD.G. KhanOkara Gujrat

RawalpindiBahawalnagarT.T.Singh

BahawalpurJhelumMultanMuzaffargarh

NarowalHafizabadSialkot

Source: LND March data

LND results – English (Sentence Completion)Percentage of correct responsesMarch 2015


Less than 65%



4848


Hafizabad

Bahawalpur

Rajanpur

Bahawalnagar

D.G. Khan

Rahimyar Khan

Rawalpindi

Bhakkar

Layyah

Attock

Muzaff-argarh

Khushab

Chakwal

Lodhran

Vehari

Multan

Mianwali

Jhelum

Gujrat

Jhang

Chiniot

SahiwalKhanewal

TT Singh

Okara

Kasur

NarowalSialkot

Gujranwala

Lahore

Pakpattan

Faisalabad

Sargodha

M.B. Din


68.068.069.070.070.071.071.0

74.074.074.075.075.076.076.076.076.077.077.077.078.079.079.080.081.081.082.084.084.085.085.0

88.0

RawalpindiBahawalnagarOkara Rahimyar KhanBahawalpur

BhakkarLodhranLayyahJhangLahore T.T.SinghSargodha

PakpattanNarowalKhushabRajanpurMandi Baha Ud DinMuzaffargarhFaisalabad

Nankana Sahib Not enough informationKasur Not enough informationChiniot Not enough informationAttock Not enough informationKhanewalHafizabad

D.G. KhanSialkotSahiwalVehariMianwaliGujranwala

Not enough informationSheikhupura

Gujrat

MultanJhelumChakwal

Source: LND March data

LND results – English (Picture Recognition)Percentage of correct responsesMarch 2015


Less than 65%

