Evaluation of Akshara Foundation Strategies in Teaching Mathematics at Primary Schools

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION AKSHARA STRATEGIES 2016GANITA + - x ÷

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS AT PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Report of the Three Year Longitudinal Study

Sponsored by Akshara Foundation, Bangalore

By Vinod B. Annigeri Arunkumar R. Kulkarni

Dattatreya R. Revankar

CENTRE FOR MULTI-DICIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH Dr. B R Ambedkar Nagar, Near Yalakki Shetter Colony, FEB 2016 Dharwad – 580004 www.cmdr.ac.in

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS AT PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Report of the Three Year Longitudinal Study

Submitted to

Akshara Foundation Bangaluru

CENTRE FOR MULTI-DISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH (CMDR) Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Nagar, Near Yalakki Shettar Colony, Dharwad – 580004 (KARNATAKA STATE) Tel: 0836(+) 2460453, 2460472 Fax : +2460464 Web : www.cmdr.ac.in

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

CONTENTS

List of Tables List of Graphs Acknowledgement Executive Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 School Effectiveness and Akshara Initiative 1 1.2 Evaluation of Akshara Initiative by CMDR 2 1.3 Sample Frame for the Study 4

Chapter 2 Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Learning Skills: View From Literature 11 2.3 The Determinants of Educational Attainment in India 13 2.4 Few Observations 15

Chapter 3 Findings of the Study

3.1 School Infrastructure, Profile of Teachers and Students: Koppal District 16 3.1.1 School Infrastructure 16 3.1.2 Profile of Teachers 17

i EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

3.1.3 Profile of Students 19 3.2 Class Room Observations and Transactions: Koppal District 21 3.2.1 Class Room Observations 21 3.2.2 Class Room Transactions 22 3.3 School Infrastructure, Profile of Teachers and Students: Gadag District 24 3.3.1 School Infrastructure 24 3.3.2 Profile of Teachers 25 3.3.3 Profile of Students 28 3.4 Class Room Observations and Transactions: Gadag District 29 3.4.1 Class Room Observations 29 3.4.2 Class Room Transactions 30 3.5 Performance Of Students In Mathematics 32 3.5.1 Performance Of Students In Mathematics: Koppal District 32 3.5.2 Performance Of Students In Mathematics: Gadag District 38 3.6 Concluding Observations 44 3.6.1 Combined Report of Econometric Analysis 46

3.7 Few Observations 49

3.8 Recommendations 49

References 51

ii EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page No 1.1 Sample Schools in Gadag District 5 1.2 Sample Schools in Koppal District 5 1.3 Cohort Pattern of the Survey 6 1.4 Inputs of the AF Experiment 7 1.5 Class Room Observation Details 8 1.6 Resume of the Survey-Koppal District 8 1.7 Resume of the Survey- Gadag District 9 3.1 No. of Schools by Type of Building in Koppal District 16

3.2 Infrastructure Facilities at Schools in Koppal District (%) 17 3.3 Teachers by Social Category in Koppal District (%) 18 3.4 Teachers by Level of General Education in Koppal District (%) 18 3.5 Teachers with Different Levels of Professional Education in 19 Koppal District (%)

3.6 Medium of Instruction at SSLC for Teachers - Koppal District (%) 19

3.7 Profile of Students in Koppal District (%) 20 3.8 No. of Schools by Type of Building in Gadag District 24 3.9 Infrastructure Facilities at Schools in Gadag District (%) 25 3.10 Teachers by Social Category in Gadag District (%) 26

3.11 Teachers by Level of General Education - Gadag District (%) 26 3.12 Teachers with Different Levels of Professional Education -Gadag District 27 (%)

3.13 Medium of Instruction at SSLC for Teachers - Gadag District (%) 27

3.14 Profile of Student in Gadag District (%) 28

iii EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table No Title Page No Impact of Akshara Intervention on Mathematics Test Scores 48 3.15 (Phase 1 & 2) Impact of Akshara Intervention on Mathematics Test Scores 48 3.16 (Phase 3 & 4) 3.17 Impact of Akshara Intervention on Mathematics Test Scores for Each 48 Class Individually

iv EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph No Title Page No

3.1 Male and Female Teachers in Koppal District (%) 17

3.2 Teachers Honoring Timetable - Koppal District (%) 21

3.3 Display of Timetable- Koppal District (%) 22

3.4 Any Other TLM in Class Room- Koppal District (%) 22

3.5 Display of Mathematics Charts- Koppal District (%) 22

3.6 Display of Mathematics Activities -Koppal District (%) 23

3.7 Speaking in English by Teachers -Koppal District (%) 23

3.8 Translation of English words to Kannada-Koppal District (%) 23

3.9 Enthusiasm of Teachers- Koppal District (%) 23

3.10 Real Life Examples by Teachers- Koppal District (%) 24

3.11 Love and Affection of Teachers -Koppal District (%) 24

3.12 Teaching Effectiveness - Koppal District (%) 24

3.13 Motivate Children Positively -Koppal District (%) 24

3.14 Male and Female Teachers in Gadag District (%) 25

3.15 Teachers Honoring Timetable- Gadag District (%) 30

3.16 Display of Timetable -Gadag District (%) 30

3.17 Any Other TLM in the Class Room- Gadag District (%) 30

3.18 Display of Mathematics Charts- Gadag District (%) 30

3.19 Display of Mathematics Activities -Gadag District (%) 30

3.20 Speaking in English by Teachers -Gadag District (%) 31

3.21 Translation of English words to Kannada- Gadag District (%) 31

v EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Graph No Title Page No

3.22 Enthusiasm of Teachers -Gadag District (%) 32

3.23 Real Life Examples by Teachers -Gadag District (%) 32

3.24 Love and Affection of Teachers-Gadag District (%) 32

3.25 Teaching Effectiveness -Gadag District (%) 32

3.26 Motivate Children Positively- Gadag District (%) 32

3.27 Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District 33 (Class 1 to 3)

3.28 Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District 33 (Class 1 to 3)

3.29 Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District 34 (Class 1 to 3)

3.30 Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District 35 (Class 2 to 4)

3.31 Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District 35 (Class 2 to 4)

3.32 Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District 36 (Class 2 to 4)

3.33 Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District 36 (Class 3 to 5)

3.34 Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District 37 (Class 3 to 5)

3.35 Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District 38 (Class 3 to 5)

3.36 Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Gadag District 39 (Class 1 to 3)

3.37 Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics : Gadag District 40 (Class 1 to 3)

3.38 Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 40

vi EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Graph No Title Page No (Class 1 to 3)

3.39 Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 41 (Class 2 to 4)

3.40 Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 41 (Class 2 to 4)

3.41 Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 42 (Class 2 to 4)

3.42 Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 43 (Class 3 to 5)

3.43 Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 43 (Class 3 to 5)

3.44 Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District 44 (Class 3 to 5)

vii EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT School performance has a bearing on the learning levels of students. This is more so in public schools which deserve immediate attention. Many studies have documented the fact that the learning skills need improvement in public schools especially with regard to Mathematics and English at the primary level. Akshara Foundation has embarked on a very interesting and challenging project to bring in improvements in learning skills of students in Mathematics and English. It has been trying to bring this change via its very innovative and child friendly teaching methods. The experiment is carried out in select schools of Gadag and Koppal districts of North Karnataka.

The task of evaluating this experiment was entrusted to Center for Multi-disciplinary Development Research (CMDR) Dharwad. At the outset CMDR sincerely thanks Akshara Foundation for providing this opportunity.

The study team sincerely thanks all those who helped us in completing this task. Mr. Ashok Kamat, Chairman and Ms. Kanchan Bannerjee, Managing Trustee of Akshara Foundation did visit CMDR and provided critical inputs to the study team. They deserve our sincere thanks. Mrs. K. Vaijayanti, Head for Research, Resource & Evaluation wing of Akshara Foundation, supported us all throughout in carrying out this study effectively and we are falling short of words to thank her in this regard.

Mrs. Angelina Gregory, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi, Mrs. Anuradha Mondal and many others from Akshara Foundation did extend their help to us and we thank them in this regard. Dr. Rajesh Raj who was with CMDR during the initial stages of the study managed the quantitative analysis and we thank him for his support. Prof. Vinish Kathuria of IIT Bombay did help us with regard to the econometric analysis for the subsequent two years and we sincerely thank him for his useful inputs.

viii EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Study team received very good support and co-operation from the teachers of both Akshara and Non Akshara Schools who deserve our sincere thanks. The team of investigators who remained with us for three years played a crucial role in collecting the necessary data from the field. We have full appreciation of their support and sincerely thank them.

At CMDR we received guidance and support from Prof. P.R. Panchamukhi, Chairman CMDR and we place on record our sincere thanks to him. We also thank Prof. Pushpa Trivedi former Director CMDR for supporting this evaluation exercise. Other members of CMDR who need to be thanked are, Mr. V. T. Hungund – Deputy Registrar (Admn.), Mr. A. S, Raichur - Deputy Registrar (Acts.), Mr. Sameer Huddar, Mr. Mukund Kallapur, Mr. B.P. Bagalkot, Mr. Gururaj Haribhat, Mr. Jayateertha.B. Purohit, Mrs. Vinoda Kulkarni, Mrs. Vijay Veena, Mrs. Jayashree Kukarni, Mrs. Meena Hungund and Mr. Ramesh Patwari.

The study team also thanks the other committed band of people at CMDR for the effective completion of this study.

17.2.2016 Prof.V.B.Annigeri Director, CMDR

ix EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Akshara Foundation has a novel Government schools in Karnataka, there has mission to ensure that ‘every child is in been an acute need for appropriate school and learning well’. Established in the material for both Teachers and pupil. While year 2000, Akshara Foundation has a range the NCF stipulates what is age-appropriate of programmes that provide multiple learning content for children, it is also solutions for universalizing elementary essential to ensure that the content is education. within the grasp of the teacher in our system today. In this background Akshara In the interest of reaching out to Foundation (AF) visualized an innovative the vast number of students in program of teaching English and Government schools, Akshara has Mathematics at primary schools. The tools consciously adopted the approach of so developed are teacher and student comprehensive, scalable, replicable and friendly. After an encouraging experiment cost-effective education solutions. Akshara at Hoskote, AF is trying to bring this idea to works in Bangaluru, and many other parts northern districts in the state namely of Karnataka through its close partnership Koppal and Gadag. with the State Education Department and Government school administration, in Akshara Foundation’s objective is areas of basic literacy and numeracy. The to demonstrate the efficacy of these interventions are designed based on the interventions in pilot implementation "ground level" insights that have been usually covering entire block or at times acquired by working for over a decade even a complete district to demonstrate with the elementary education sector in scale related aspects. Akshara Foundation’s Karnataka. vision is to implement the NCF 2005 goals of teaching English in classes I- IV at Ever since it was decided in 2007 to government primary schools in Karnataka. st introduce English from 1 std in

x EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Center for Multi-disciplinary would consist of teacher training, usage of Development Research (CMDR) Dharwad manual and usage of kit, classroom strategy took up the evaluation of Akshara leading to universal understanding of basic intervention to examine the impact of the Mathematics concepts. The following program on the learning levels of the diagram shows sample frame of the study.

students and also the improvement in their Sample Frame skills. Along with such outcome measures it DISTRICTS is also required to study the process indicators that have a bearing on the impact KOPPAL GADAG of the program.

KUSTAGI YALABURGA MUNDARGI SHIRAHATTI CMDR examined the effect of the

Treatment Cluster Non-Treatment Treatment Cluster Non-Treatment Akshara intervention in both Akshara

KORADAKERA Cluster BANDI HIREWADDATTI Cluster SURANAGI (treatment) schools and Non Akshara (non- treatment) schools over a period of three MAJOR FINDINGS: years (2012-13 to 2014-15). For each year Tests were conducted in data was collected in two phases. The first Mathematics for the students of both phase was during the beginning of the Akshara and Non Akshara schools to academic year and the second phase was understand the impact of Akshara just before the close of the academic year. initiatives. Tests were administered to Thus, it is a longitudinal study which understand the learning abilities of these focused on the same students over the students. whole period of time. By comparing the test scores of Akshara and Non-Akshara schools Akshara initiative has made a positive one can try to capture the effect of the impact on the classroom transactions and program on the student community. hence on the performance of students as

In a way such comparison between well. Akshara students are doing well in Mathematics as compared to the Non Akshara and Non-Akshara schools will yield Akshara students in the districts. The fact the effect of the Akshara program which

xi EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

that greater proportion of Akshara students, the Akshara initiave has made students were found in > 75 percentage signifiant impact on the learning levels of brackets in all the three years of the students. The following diagrams intervention itself is a proof that the depict this picture in greater detail. One students have been benefitted by the can find better performance of Non Akshara iniative. Keeping aside certain Akshara schools in some phases and it is factors which are beyond the control of quite obvious that such results do occur any initiative like Educational background in any field investigation. of parents, Socio-economic status of the

Koppal District

Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 1 to 3*) Koppal District (Class 2 to 4*) VI … 19.4 37.9 VI Phase 36.9 57.9 V Phase 29.2 V Phase 55.8 65.6 37.9 IV … 45.7 IV Phase 38.5 68.9 51.1 III Phase 25.7 III Phase 34.139.3 40.7 70.8 II Phase 71.3 88.8 II Phase 40.9 33.3 I Phase 58.2 74.1 I Phase 32.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 NAK AK NAK AK

*Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 3 to 5*)

VI Phase 33.6 38.9 V Phase 37.9 45.4 IV Phase 29.6 37.8 III Phase 6.6 18.1 II Phase 34.2 47.4 I Phase 23.2 47.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 NAK AK *Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

xii EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Gadag District

Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag district (Class 1 to 3*) Gadag District (Class 2 to 4*) 0.0 VI Phase 5.1 VI Phase 16.7 27.1 2.2 V Phase 1.6 V Phase 11.0 0.0 2.9 IV Phase 26.0 IV Phase 16.1 27.8 14.0 III Phase 22.0 III Phase 16.1 17.8 41.7 40.0 II Phase 73.1 II Phase 49.2 27.9 I Phase 18.9 I Phase 38.6 8.3 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

NAK AK NAK AK

*Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 3 to 5*) VI Phase 13.8 19.8 6.4 V Phase 1.0 0.0 IV Phase 5.0 5.3 III Phase 0.0 46.9 II Phase 31.3 43.1 I Phase 11.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 NAK AK *Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE: VIEW FROM  In phases 1 and 2, intervention in ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS: mathematics benefited students in

 Irrespective of standard, location, or standard 3 in Koppal district, class, students who secured higher whereas students in 4th and 5th percentage marks in phase 1 or standard benefited in Gadag. phase 3 or phase 5, their gain is  For 3rd and 4th phase, for standard 1 statistically lower than that of and standard 2 students – in Koppal students who secured lower marks – Akshara students have done in subsequent phase. statistically better for Mathematics

intervention. For standard 3 and 4

xiii EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

students – there is no statistically the performance of Akshara students in different impact of intervention in Mathematics tests which were both the districts. administered to both Akshara and Non  In 5th and 6th phases Akshara Akshara schools. Out of the total six phases intervention yielded higher results in spread over three years, one can observe most cases except for Standard 3 that by and large Askhara students have students in Koppal with or without performed better than Non Akshara controls for Mathematics in Koppal students. This only brings home the fact or Gadag. Results were statistically that Akshara intervention has served the significant. purpose for which it was initiated. This also supports the argument of scaling up such Based on our field experiences and intervention in other parts of the state. our analysis of the cohort data we would like to place the following suggestions for RECOMMENDATIONS: the Akshara initiative. The study team would like to make FEW OBSERVATIONS: the following recommendations which In sum, if one looks at the Akshara would go a long way in further fine tuning intervention in both the districts, the news the intervention for the benefit of the seems to be good and encouraging. For student community. example both input and outcome indicators  The issue of teacher transfer who due to such intervention have improved in are trained by the Akshara initiative Akshara schools as compared to the Non has sometimes created irritants in Akshara schools. The indicators of the effective implementation of the Classroom transactions as well as Classroom initiative. The trained teachers need observations have been better in Akshara to be retained in the same place till schools and they have also improved as the the intervention is in progress. intervention has progressed. Such improvement has its impact on the learning  Another issue with regard to teacher skills of the students which is exhibited by training is that all the teachers in the

xiv EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

same school need to be trained by  the initiative even after the Akshara. Now those who are not exogenous factor withdraws; the trained feel that they have been need is felt with regard to use the neglected by this kind of trained teachers as trainers for intervention. Time schedule of training the other teachers. This training and supply of kits need to would help the program to get be in accordance with the academic internalized in the public schooling calendar of schools. system.  The need is also felt to train BRPs  Now the intervention of the Akshara and CRPs for effective monitoring of initiative is trying to make a dent the program. SDMC members also into the public education system at need to be sensitized with regard to the school level. The need is felt in such intervention.

this regard from the Education  Usually such interventions would Department to own this initiative lose the steam as soon as the which would give greater mileage to intervening agency withdraws from the efforts put in. the scene. Thus, in-order to sustain

xv EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND THE AKSHARA Ever since it was decided in 2007 to INITIATIVE: introduce English from 1ststd in Akshara Foundation is a Bangalore- Government schools in Karnataka, there has based Public Charitable Trust with a mission been an acute need for appropriate to ensure that ‘every child is in school and material for both Teachers and pupils. learning well’. Established in the year 2000, While the NCF stipulates what is age- Akshara Foundation has a range of appropriate learning content for children, it programmes that provide multiple solutions is also essential to ensure that the content for universalizing elementary education.

is within the grasp of the teacher in our In the interest of reaching out to system today. In this background Akshara the vast number of students in Foundation (AF) visualized an innovative Government schools, Akshara has program of teaching English and consciously adopted the approach of Mathematics at primary schools. The tools comprehensive, scalable, replicable and so developed seem to be both teacher and cost-effective education solutions. Akshara student friendly. After an encouraging works in Bangaluru, and many other parts experiment at Hoskote, AF is trying to bring of Karnataka through its close partnership this idea to northern districts in the state with the State Education Department and namely Koppal and Gadag. Government school administration, in Akshara Foundation’s objective is to areas of basic literacy and numeracy. The demonstrate the efficacy of these interventions are designed based on the interventions in pilot implementation "ground level" insights that have been usually covering entire block or at times acquired by working for over a decade even a complete district to demonstrate with the elementary education sector in scale related aspects. Karnataka.

1 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Akshara Foundation’s vision is to (treatment) schools and Non Akshara (non- implement the NCF 2005 goals of teaching treatment) schools over a period of three English in classes I- IV in government years. For every year data was collected in primary schools in Karnataka. In the same two phases. The first phase was during the fashion Akshara also tries to teach beginning of the academic year and the Mathematics to the students of primary second phase was just before the close of schools by providing a systems approach to the academic year. Thus, it is a longitudinal teaching the two subjects. study which would focus on the same students over the whole period of time. By In this background it would be comparing the test scores of the Akshara useful to initiate an evaluation of the and Non-Akshara schools one can try to program before it is launched on a large capture the effect of the program on the scale to take stock of the situation at the student community. In a way such ground level. Therefore, on the request of comparison between Akshara and Non- the Akshara Foundation, CMDR has Akshara schools will yield the effect of the undertaken to determine the impact of the Akshara program which would consist of program on the learning levels of the teacher training, usage of manual, and students and also the improvement in their usage of kit, classroom strategy leading to skills. Along with such outcome measures it universal understanding of basic is also required to study the process Mathematics concepts as well as basic indicators that have a bearing on the impact spoken English skills. of the program. For example, the class room transactions, the way the inputs reach The overall focus of the study the schools, design and content of the considered the Akshara Foundation’s inputs, training of the teachers and Program across the components specified feedback from stake holders. below in both Akshara and Non-Akshara schools: 1.2 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA INITIATIVE BY CMDR 1. Classroom processes CMDR examined the effect of the 2. Learning outcomes Akshara intervention in both Akshara 3. Teacher and student Perceptions

2 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

4. Focus of the Survey Tools Used Pupil Achievement in Mathematics Achievement tests Tests developed for the purpose for Std 1 to 5 Pupil/Teacher/School Variables Pupil: Gender, Attendance as % of Enrolment Mother’s education Mother’s Occupation Father’s Education Schedule/s developed for the purpose Father’s Occupation

Social category PDS card

Teacher: Gender, Experience, Educational Qualifications, Schedule/s developed for the purpose Teacher Training, INSET medium of instruction at SSLC

School:

Infrastructure

No. of teachers trained in AF Schedule/s developed for the purpose teaching strategy in the school

Class room Observation Record developed for the purpose by the AF Seating Teacher student interaction Teaching effectiveness

Treatment: Learning materials, training of teachers in AF Teaching AF teaching learning Strategy Strategy and Training of observers/Field investigators- a package developed by AF. Feedback from teachers Interview schedule developed for the purpose by the AF Feedback from pupils Interview schedule developed for the purpose by the AF

3 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

1.3 SAMPLE FRAME FOR THE STUDY Gadag and Koppal districts have In the district of Gadag two blocks been chosen for the study. Within these namely Mundargi and Shirahatti were districts, two blocks have been identified surveyed. In Mundargi block Hirewatti which were classified as backward as per cluster is the Akshara strategy unit with 9 the D.M Nanjundappa Committee report. schools. In Shirahatti which is the Non- Each cluster within the selected block is Akshara block, Surangi is the cluster with 9 identified as one belonging to the schools. Similarly in Koppal district intervention category and the other one as Koradekera is the Akshara strategy unit with belonging to the non intervention category. 14 schools and Bandi is the Non-Akshara Following chart would explain the selection cluster in Yelburga block with 13 schools. of the sample units for the study. The following table would give the number Chart 1.1: Sample Frame of the Study of schools that formed the sample frame for

DISTRICTS the study. The study focused on Kannada

medium schools.

KOPPAL GADAG

KUSTAGI YALABURGA MUNDARGI SHIRAHATTI

Treatment Cluster Treatment Cluster Non-Treatment Non-Treatment

KORADAKERA Cluster BANDI HIREWADDATTI Cluster SURANAGI

4 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 1.1: Sample Schools in Gadag District Block: Mundargi Block: Shirahatti Cluster: Hirewaddatti Cluster: Suranagi Treatment Schools Non Treatment Schools Village School Name Village School Name Kelur GHPS Kelur Nelogal GLPS Nelogal Tambragundi GHPS Tambragundi Balehosur GHPS Balehosur Hirewaddatti GMCS Hirewaddatti Suvarnagiri GLPS Suvarnagiri Budihal GHPS Budihal Suranagi GLPS Suranagi Tanda 2 Hirewaddatti GHPGS Hirewaddatti Suranagi GHPGS Suranagi Hirewaddatti GLPS Hirewaddatti Suranagi GLPS Suranagi (Janata Plot) Harogeri GHPS Harogeri Suranagi GHPS Suranagi Harogeri GLPGS Harogeri Balehosur GLPS Balehosur ( Kanakadas) Basapur GHPS Basapur Balehosur GLPGS Balehosur

Table 1.2: Sample Schools in Koppal District Block: Kushtagi Block Block: Yelburga Cluster: Koradakera Cluster: Bandi Treatment Schools Non Treatment Schools Village School Name Village School Name Benchamatti GLPS Benchamatti Chikkoppa GHPS Chikkoppa Madalagatti GLPS Madalagatta Ballutagi GLPS Girls Ballutagi Hirebannigol GHPS Hirebannigol Chikkoppa GLPS Chikkoppa Tanda Koradkera GCHPS Koradakeri Ballutagi GLPS Balutagi Tanda Yeleburthi GHPS Yalaburthi Ballutagi GHPS Balutagi Chikkanandihal GLPS Chikka Nandihal Hagedal GLPS Hagedhal Shakhapur GHPS Shakapur Kadabalakatti GLPS Kadabalakatti GLPS SC Colony Hirebannigol Hirebannigol Boonkoppa GLPS Bunakoppa Bisnhal GLPS Bisnhal Tummaraguddi GHPS Tummaraguddi Donnegudda GLPS Donnigudda Bandi GHPS Bandi Hirenandihal GHPS Hirenandihal Julakatti GHPS Julakatti Parasapur GLPS Parasapur Bassapur GHPS Bassapur Byalihal GHPS Byalihal Bandi GLPS Girls Bandi Kanakoppa GHPS Kanakoppa

5 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

The pre and post intervention survey was tests were conducted for 1st to 5th standard carried over the period of three years to students. examine the cumulative impact of the These instruments were initially program on students’ performance. The tested in the Hoskote study and same students were surveyed in all the modifications based on the feedback were three years as indicated in the table below. obtained. Further all the instruments were

scrutinized by a committee consisting of Table 1.3: Cohort Pattern of the Survey Survey experienced researchers and practitioners. Classes Surveyed Schedule Hence all the instruments have content Class Class Class Class Class Year 1 validity. 1 2 3 4 5

Class Class Class Class Year 2 Procedure of Data Collection 2 3 4 5

Class Class Class The AF personnel conducted a Year 3 3 4 5 training program for teachers in the sample

with two objectives:- Instrumentation 1. To improve teachers’ subject The data for the evaluation was matter competency and obtained from different stakeholders, and 2. To train them in using AF’s accordingly the study team developed teaching learning material and teaching different field survey instruments as strategies. indicated below.

1. School Schedule Design of Akshara Teacher training: 2. Classroom Observation Schedule On the basis of inputs from 3. Teachers’ Schedule teachers, observations of classroom 4. Students’ Schedule practices, study of various State text-books as well as the NCF guidelines, Akshara has For assessing the skills / designed a training package, keeping in competencies of the students, Mathematics mind the capacity of the average teacher in a Government school at the primary level.

6 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

making learning fun and relevant to Critical Inputs of the AF Experiment: everyday life and is taught based on A) Capacity building for teachers of std the Philosophy of Activity based 1-5, in Mathematics learning. B) Creating course-content which is appropriate at the ground level, by

Table 1.4: Inputs of the AF Experiment Course content for Classes Capacity-building for Teachers TLM I, II, III , IV & V

A five-day teacher training The objectives spelt out Participatory approach has programme in the beginning in the NCERT Position been followed to make of the academic year, Paper have been taken best use of the resources. followed by a two day brush- as the guidelines in Simple and student friendly up session in December designing the TLM tools have been designed content to teach Mathematics

A host of innovative methods have Class Room Observations: been introduced keeping in mind the Classroom Observations were context specific environment that exists in conducted along with the test score the rural government schools. In this Assessments. As Nali Kali is operating at the background an evaluation of such an primary levels, the class room observations initiative would be useful for pushing were conducted as indicated below. further the simplistic way of teaching Mathematics at the primary level.

7 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 1.5: Class Room Observation Details

Observation of Class Room Number of Class Rooms per School Transactions

One Nali Kali Class Room (1st std to 3rd std) One Class Room of Standard 4 Mathematics One Class Room of Standard 5

The following tables present the and Non-Akshara schools, students and scenario of selected schools in Koppal and teachers in such schools and period of data Gadag districts. Tables below show Taluks collection. covered for the study, number of Akshara Table 1.6: Resume of the Survey-Koppal District Details Type First Year Second Year Third Year Akshara Kushtagi Taluks Non Akshara Yelburga Akshara 14 14 14 No. of Schools Non Akshara 13 13 13 Akshara 808 765 558 No. of Students Non Akshara 670 654 506 Akshara 40 44 36 No. of Teachers Non Akshara 35 36 33 August - June-July September 2014 and Period of Data - 2012 and August 2013 January- Collection Feb. – and January February, March 2013 2014 2015

8 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 1.7: Resume of the Survey- Gadag District Details Type First Year Second Year Third Year Akshara Mundargi Taluks Non Akshara Shirahatti Akshara 9 9 9 No. of Schools Non Akshara 9 9 9 Akshara 484 402 309 No. of Students Non Akshara 428 474 353 Akshara 22 21 17 No. of Teachers Non Akshara 17 15 14 August - June-July September - 2014 and Period of Data 2012 and August 2013 January- Collection Feb. –March and January February, 2013 2014 2015

9 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. INTRODUCTION performers and their learning attainment is India’s educational achievements in comparable to the top performers in most the recent past have had a mixed record OECD countries, there is a large proportion (Kingdon 2006). While there has been of the school-going population whose level significant recent progress in school of learning attainment is abysmal and participation, especially among children of among the worst for countries where primary school age, drop-out rates remain similar data is available. stubbornly high, and India still is home to Low learning attainment imply low around 40 percent of the world’s illiterates. cognitive skills, and since cognitive skills are Perhaps the most disturbing feature of a good predictor of how well the child may India’s educational landscape is the low do in labour markets when she/he reaches levels of learning attainment of children in adulthood, the low learning outcomes of a primary and secondary levels of schooling – large proportion of school-children, for example, around half of children in especially in rural India, would act as an Standard III could not read a Standard I text important constraint to these children in rural areas (ASER 2009). Das and Zajonc obtaining well-paid jobs, especially as the (2009) find that 42 percent of children demand for skilled workers increases enrolled in standard IX in Rajasthan and 50 relative to demand for unskilled workers percent in Orissa fail to meet a basic with economic growth and in a rapidly international low benchmark of modernising economy as we see in India mathematical knowledge. Based on data on currently. The role of cognitive skills in test scores for these two states, they also individuals earnings and economic growth is find that the distribution of learning now well-recognised - as Hanushek and attainment in Indian school-children is Woessmann (2008, p. 657) note, “Individual highly skewed – while a small proportion of earnings are systematically related to the school-going children are high cognitive skills. The distribution of skills in

10 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 society appears closely related to the matter of significant concern as potentially distribution of income. Perhaps most low rates of cognitive skill acquisition importantly, economic growth is strongly among backward cast children, and among affected by the skills of workers”. girls in their childhood years could play an Therefore, the low learning outcomes important part in restricting earnings among India’s school-going population can potential and in determining their poverty act as a significant constraint to future status later in life. economic growth, and can have an adverse While the problem of low learning effect on the distribution of income.

outcomes among a large proportion of Low educational attainment is school-going children in India is being particularly pronounced among children increasingly recognised, it is not clear; from socially disadvantaged backgrounds however, what kind of policy intervention such as Scheduled Castes (SC) and can have a significant positive effect on Scheduled Tribes (ST) as well as among girls. learning outcomes, especially among rural For example, using the PROBE-data-set children from relatively poor background. from five North-Indian states, Dreze and 2.2. LEARNING SKILLS: VIEW FROM LITERATURE Kingdon (2001) suggest that SC children There has been considerable have an ‘intrinsic disadvantage’ with a progress in the provision of schooling inputs relatively lower chance of going to school in the recent period in India. However, an even after having controlled for household important factor that determines how these wealth, parental education and motivation, inputs translate into learning outcomes is and school quality. With respect to gender the structure of pedagogy and classroom disparities in educational attainment, instruction (Muralidharan, 2013). Kingdon (2006) notes that among children Developing an appropriate child-centred aged 11-14 years, 10.3 per cent of girls pedagogy is a daunting task for countries were out of school as compared to 7.7 per such as India given the situation that cent of boys. Such strong disparities in several millions of first-generation learners educational attainment among children have joined a rapidly expanding national from SC/ST background and among girls is a

11 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 schooling system. Learner-centred classroom learning. Countries such as South education (LCE) is perceived as a solution to Africa, where learner-centred pedagogy a myriad of issues facing the school was promoted in the post-apartheid era education system in many developing (Nakabugo and Sieborger, 2001and Harley countries (Tabulawa, 1997; Nakabugo and et al., 2000; Spreen and Vally, 2010), Sieborger,2001; Harley et al., 2000), and Namibia, where LCE has been enacted for some researchers even call it as a policy teacher educators through Basic Education panacea (Sripakash, 2010). It is expected Teachers Diploma programme (BETD) that the effect of LCE would get reflected (Nyambe and Wilmot, 2008; Dembele and beyond the realm of education to address Miaro-II, 2003), Poland, where learner- such broad and intractable issues as poverty centred pedagogical practices have been (Brock, 2009); exclusivity (O’Sullivan, 2006); part of the education system in the post- and the need for a democratic political Communist period (Vulliamy and Webb, culture (Harber, 2006). 1996), Tanzania, where a revised curricula for secondary schools developed in 2005 Since the 1990s, child-centred ideas enact the use and promotion of LCE(Vavrus have been part of teacher training et al., 2011), Zambia, where the Teacher programmes and school reforms in many Education Reform Programme (ZATERP) parts of Africa and Asia (Capper et al., 1997; introduced in the late 1990s place the Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002). Following this, learner at the centre of the educational many countries have brought in reforms at process (Musonda, 1999), Turkey, which the school level and child-centred ideas has revised the curriculum for primary have increasingly found a place in the new schools in 2005 to accommodate student- curriculum. These learner-centred centred pedagogical practices (Aksit, 2007; pedagogical practices have been introduced Altınyelken, 2010) and India, where child- into classrooms or other learning centred pedagogy was made part of its environments using different strategies. universal elementary education programme National educational reform is one such called Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan (SSA) principal channel using which many introduced in 2001 (Planning Commission, countries have introduced LCE into the

12 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

2010), are examples of countries that The key concerns are infrastructure, class followed this route. There are also size, teaching materials, and teacher innovations that are conceived, developed capacity (Schweisfurth, 2011). Teacher and implemented at the local level so as to quality is another factor determining the integrate child-centred pedagogical success of the programme (Dello-Iacovo, practices into classroom learning. 2009). Some also point to the crucial and Innovations implemented in a teachers’ powerful role of donor agencies in shaping college in Tanzania (Vavrus, 2009), science policy (Chisholm and Leyendecker, 2008). classrooms in Kenya (Ndirangu et al., 2003) Some commentators, on the other hand, and school-library program in Karnataka, focused on the intrusion of western ideas India (Borkum et al. 2013) are examples of into LCE ignoring the current educational such local innovations. needs of developing countries (see In the midst of some available Thompson, 2013 for discussion surrounding evidence on the positive effect of child- this issue). While disputing the perception centred education on student outcomes that LCE may be simply a western construct, (Piper et al. 2014), critics questions its Thompson (2013) argues that LCE initiatives suitability in all cultural and resource can make a favourable impact if their contexts, (Schweisfurth, 2011 for a detailed professional language has been ‘culturally discussion on these challenges). While there translated’. has been a lot of policy rhetoric on child 2.3 THE DETERMINANTS OF EDUCATIONAL pedagogy, implementation plans have ATTAINMENT IN INDIA rarely matched the rhetoric (Jansen, An emerging literature has studied 1989;Dello-Iacovo, 2009), and “the the determinants of educational attainment governments’ desire to be making visible, in India. Most of these studies have looked positive, modern changes drives policy at school enrolment and drop-out rates, forward at a pace which practice cannot rather than learning outcomes as captured match” (Schweisfurth, 2011). Another set of by test scores, possibly due to the lack of papers highlight material and practical available data on the latter. In common issues in the implementation of these ideas. with studies on schooling determinants in

13 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 other countries (e.g. Holmlund et al. 2011, bottleneck and improve the overall student Barnham 2004, Glewwe 2002), Dreze and performance (Rawal and Kingdon, 2010).A Kingdon (2001) find that parental growing literature on developing countries education, school infrastructure, and social suggest that the presence of female background matter in explaining school teachers would lead to higher levels of girls’ participation rates, especially among girls. enrolment and achievement and argue for Kingdon and Teal (2007) find that teacher hiring more female teachers (UNESCO, human capital (as proxies by teacher’s 2006).Rawal and Kingdon (2010) find that education and experience) along with girls benefit from the presence of more teachers’ pay matter in explaining student female teachers in schools. Studies have achievement in numeracy and literacy. The also highlighted the importance of separate sociological and anthropological literature sanitary facilities for girl children to attend (along with an emerging economics school, as well as feel part of the learning literature summarised in Akerl of and environment. Studies show that schools Kranton (2002)) highlight the role of social that provide better sanitation facilities for disadvantage and social identity - a person's girls are likely to improve girls’ participation sense of self - around caste/ethnicity and and help achieve better educational gender as a primary determinant of learning outcomes (Ekpoet al., 2008; UNICEF 2009; outcomes(Fuller and Clarke Bandyopadhyay, 2012). 1994,Nambissan 1996, 2007). In the case of There is an emerging literature on India, SC/ST children and girls would be less the evaluation of educational interventions likely to finish school or acquire the relevant on learning outcomes in India. skills because the social expectation within Muralidharan et al. (2013) find no their community could be that they do not correlation between changes in average complete schooling or that they are less village-level school infrastructure (between able or deserving than others. However, the 2003 and 2010) and student test scores. presence of teachers sharing similar social While studying the impact of a school- background as the student could library program in Karnataka, Borkum et al. significantly help in overcoming this (2013) observe that infrastructure

14 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 intervention had no impact on student studies that have systematically evaluated reading scores. Using the data from the the impact of child pedagogical Andhra Pradesh Randomized Evaluation interventions in the Indian context (except Studies (APRESt) project, Muralidharan the study on remedial instruction discussed (2013) also finds no relationship between earlier). infrastructural availability in the school and 2.4 FEW OBSERVATIONS measures of student test-score gains. There The studies have shown that the is also absence of any credible evidence on learning levels of students in the primary the impact of teacher characteristics on and secondary levels have been a challenge learning outcomes in schools. For instance, and deserve attention from all corners. available studies do not report a significant Such a phenomenon is quite severe in the positive relationship between teacher children belonging to children from training and increases in test scores for Scheduled Caste and Tribes. Similarly the students taught by the trained teacher girl children still lag behind as compared to (Kingdon and Teal 2010; Muralidharan and the boys. Effective policy measures and Sundararaman 2011b, 2013; Muralidharan interventions have been evading many of us 2012). Banerjee et al. (2007) in their in dealing with this issue for quite number experimental evaluation study find of years. The overall school environment significant difference in test scores between plays an important role in pushing forward students who received remedial instruction the learning skills. Developing appropriate outside the class room and students who child-centred pedagogy would help in remained in the class room and did not addressing this issue in a meaning full way. receive any such instruction. The authors In this background the initiative by Akshara thus conclude that reducing class-size may Foundation would be quite handy which have a limited impact on improving test addresses the needs of the children in a scores. However, there have been few user friendly manner.

15 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

This chapter has been organised schools in Koppal district has been mainly in 4 sections. The first section examined. Table 3.1 shows number of presents the availability of school selected schools by type of building in infrastructure, profile of teachers and Koppal district. It shows that all the selected profile of students in Koppal and Gadag schools, both Akshara and Non Akshara, districts. The second section presents had pucca building which is really an results of classroom observation and encouraging factor.

classroom transactions. The third section Table 3.1: No. of Schools by Type of presents performance of students during Building in Koppal District the reference period in Akshara and Non- School Semi Category Pucca Pucca Total Akshara schools in both the districts. The Akshara 14 0 14 last section gives concluding observations. Non Akshara 13 0 13 3.1 SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE, PROFILE OF Total 27 0 27 TEACHERS AND STUDENTS: KOPPAL DISTRICT Table 3.2 shows availability of In this section, the availability of infrastructure facilities in selected schools school infrastructure, profile of teachers in Koppal district. It can be observed from and profile of students of selected schools the table that major concerns in the district in Koppal district have been presented. with regard to infrastructure in schools are

3.1.1 SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE availability of benches, play grounds, girls’ A number of studies reveal that urinals, computers and Science Laboratory. availability of pucca school building and Thus there is a need to improve such other infrastructure facilities play important facilities in the schools. role in improving the performance of the students. In this section, availability of infrastructure facilities in the selected

16 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 3.2: Infrastructure Facilities at education of teachers and teachers with Schools in Koppal District (%) English medium learning have been Schools With Facilities Facilities Akshara Non Akshara examined. Chart 3.1 shows share of male Benches 28.6 30.8 and female teachers in selected schools of Playground 57.1 61.5 Library 85.7 100.0 Koppal district. The table reveals that both TV 21.4 7.7 Akshara and Non Akshara schools have Radio 100.0 100.0 more number of male teachers, except in Girls’ Urinals 78.6 76.9 Urinals 85.7 92.3 first phase in Akshara schools. Girls Toilet 71.4 92.3 Drinking water 100.0 92.3 Computer 14.3 15.4 Science Lab 28.6 23.1 Midday meal 100.0 100.0

3.1.2 PROFILE OF TEACHERS In this section, the proportion of male/female teachers, social category of teachers, teachers’ education, professional

Chart 3.1: Male and Female Teachers in Koppal District (%)

100.0

80.0 31.3

32.4

34.2

37.1

39.0

42.9

43.0

44.2

45.0 46.2

60.0 53.3

40.0

68.8

67.6

65.8

62.9

61.0

57.1

57.0

55.8 55.0

20.0 53.8 46.7 0.0 I Phase II III IV V VI I Phase II III IV V VI Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase

Akshara Non Akshara Male Female

Note: The survey as part of the study was spread over three years consisting of two phases per year amounting to a total of six phases

Teachers’ Characteristics indicates that by and large, teachers Table 3.3 shows proportion of belonging to OBC category are higher in teachers by social category. The table both Akshara and Non Akshara schools. The

17 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 distribution of teachers across different teachers belonging to ‘Others’ category will social categories shows that in some years, be higher in number in Akshara schools.

Table 3.3: Teachers by Social Category in Koppal District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year Social Non Non Category Akshara Non Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara SC 17.5 11.4 19.0 8.7 20.9 10.5 ST 5.0 8.6 9.5 13.0 2.3 7.9 Minority 7.5 8.6 0.0 4.3 9.3 5.3 OBC 45.0 31.4 38.1 56.5 39.5 44.7 Others 25.0 40.0 33.3 17.4 27.9 31.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Teachers’ Education majority of teachers are educated up-to Table 3.4 shows percentage of PUC level followed by graduates. Presence teachers by level of general education in of graduates is certainly advantageous for selected schools of Koppal district. One can these schools. note that in both the categories of schools

Table 3.4: Teachers by Level of General Education in Koppal District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year General Non Non Non Education Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara 10th Std 10.0 8.6 11.9 10.8 4.7 5.3 PUC 50.0 51.4 45.2 43.2 51.2 36.8 Degree 37.5 28.6 40.5 40.5 30.2 47.4 Post Graduation 2.5 11.4 2.4 5.4 14.0 10.5 Total 100 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Professional Education of Teachers qualification in Akshara and Non Akshara Table 3.5 shows teachers with schools followed by teachers with B.Ed. different levels of professional education. It qualification. It is interesting to note that in reveals that most of the teachers had D.Ed. the second and third year there were

18 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 teachers who were trained in some way or the other.

Table 3.5: Teachers with Different Levels of Professional Education in Koppal District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year Training Non Non Akshara Akshara Non Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara D Ed 70.0 54.3 83.3 89.2 83.7 76.3 B Ed 10.0 17.1 16.7 10.8 16.3 23.7 No Training 2.5 8.6 Others 17.5 20.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Teachers with English Medium Learning of schools had completed their education in Table 3.6 shows medium of Kannada medium. However Akshara schools instruction of teachers at SSLC. It is were marginally better which had teachers interesting to note that more than 90 per with education in English medium. cent of the teachers in both the categories Table 3.6: Medium of Instruction at SSLC for Teachers - Koppal District (%) Second Year Third Year First Year Medium Non Non Non Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara

English 7.5 0.0 2.4 2.7 7.0 2.6 Kannada 92.5 100.0 97.6 97.3 93.0 97.4 100 100 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3.1.3 PROFILE OF STUDENTS The profile of students has been analyzed taking into consideration mothers’ and fathers’ educational level and occupation. The type of PDS card indicates the economic status of the family of the students.

19 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 3.7: Profile of Students in Koppal District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year Particulars Non Non Non Akshara Total Akshara Total Akshara Total Akshara Akshara Akshara SC, ST & OBC 90.1 90.9 90.46 90.6 93 91.8 87.6 92.6 90 Minority 0.8 1 0.95 1.5 1.2 1.3 2 1.6 1.8 Others 9.03 8.06 8.59 9.6 5.8 7.7 10.5 5.8 8.2 Students by Mothers' Education Level (%) Illiterate 60.64 59.7 60.22 55 60.2 57.6 29.8 42.9 36.4 Literate 13.24 9.7 11.64 15.7 10.6 26.2 22 17.7 19.8 Primary 21.66 18.96 20.43 23.8 18.2 21 41.3 24.3 32.8 Higher Primary & Above 4.46 11.64 7.71 5.5 11 8.25 6.9 15.1 11.1 Students by Mothers' Occupation (%) Agriculture (Land Owners) 5.45 0.3 3.11 3.4 0.3 1.9 3.6 0.4 2.1 Agricultural labor 63.49 60.3 62.04 65 61.8 63.4 66.9 64.9 66 Housewife 30.45 37.76 33.76 31 37 34 29.1 33.9 31.3 Others 0.62 1.64 1.08 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.6 Students by Fathers' Education Level (%) Illiterate 44.93 39.25 42.35 43.1 39.3 41.2 14.6 19.7 17.1 Literate 16.71 8.51 12.99 15 10.4 12.7 24.1 15.3 19.8 Primary 26.24 29.4 27.67 28 29.4 28.7 44.2 38.6 41.5 Higher Primary & Above 12.13 22.84 16.98 13.9 20.9 17.4 17.1 26.4 21.7 Students by Father’ Occupation (%) Agriculture (Marginal Farmers) 77.1 67.46 72.73 75.9 71.4 73.7 80.8 76.3 78.7 Agricultural labor 19.93 25.37 22.4 21.7 22.3 22 17.2 17.9 17.5 Other 2.97 7.16 4.87 2.4 6.3 4.4 2 5.8 3.8 Students by Household PDS Card (%) BPL Card 89.11 89.85 89.45 87.7 92.4 89.9 89.1 91.6 90.3

From the above table one can note status. For example in Akshara schools, SC, the Socio-economic Status (SES) of the ST and OBC students are to the extent of students. Most of the students belong to about 90 percent and their respective the socially backward communities and BPL number in Non Akshara schools is also

20 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 about 90 percent. Minorities range  Display of timetable in the class between 0 and 1 per cent. Around 90 per room, cent of mothers of these children are either  Availability of Teaching and Learning illiterate, just literate or have completed Materials in the class room (TLM), primary education. With regard to mothers’  Display of Mathematics charts and occupation, one can note that ‘agricultural activities labor’ and ‘house wife’ account for more than 90 percent. Similar pattern is found as far as fathers’ educational level and Household occupation are concerned. Around 90 percent of the students belong to the BPL status. On the whole one can say that the socio economic status in both the categories of schools remains the same. The following charts reveal that with

3.2 CLASS ROOM OBSERVATIONS AND regard to honoring time table, display of TRANSACTIONS: KOPPAL DISTRICT timetable, TLM and display of Mathematics

The study team also took note of the charts and activities in the classroom, the transactions within the classrooms in both Akshara schools are better in all the phases Akshara and Non Akshara Schools. The idea than Non Akshara schools. was to catch with the kind of atmosphere that exists in the classroom and how the Chart 3.2: Teachers Honouring

Timetable Koppal District (%)

teachers are interacting with the students.

97.0

100.0

100.0 100.0

98.5

100.0

95.0 100.0 100.0 92.2 3.2.1 CLASS ROOM OBSERVATIONS 78.8 In the selected schools, the class 50.0 rooms have been observed to know the 0.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase following. Akshara Non Akshara

 Honouring of time table by teachers,

21 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.3: Display of Timetable- 3.2.2 CLASS ROOM TRANSACTIONS

Koppal District (%)

Charts 3.7 to 3.13: show classroom

97.1

99.0

100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 94.0 75.8 transactions in the selected Akshara and 50.0 Non Akshara schools of Gadag district. The

0.0 tasks of teachers in the classroom such as; I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase speaking in English, translation of English Akshara Non Akshara words to Kannada, Enthusiasm of teachers, Chart 3.4: Any Other TLM in Class

Room- Koppal District (%) giving real life examples to students, love

94.1

94.0 and affection towards the students, overall

87.3 91.0

100.0 82.4

78.8

80.8

76.9

74.1

69.0

68.6 55.0 50.0 teaching effectiveness and motivating

0.0 children to learn have been taken into I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase consideration.

Akshara Non Akshara It can be observed from chart 3.7 that as regards Speaking in English by

Chart 3.5: Display of Mathematics

Charts Koppal District (%)

Teachers, Akshara schools are better in all

100.0

91.2 89.0

100.0 85.2

87.0

82.9

82.4

84.6

76.9

77.0 73.0

68.2 the six phases except second and fourth 50.0 phases. Interestingly as the intervention has

0.0 progressed, the proportion of such behavior I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase has increased among the Akshara Teachers. Akshara Non Akshara From chart 3.8, one can observe that Akshara Teachers are better in translating English words to Kannada. Chart 3.9 reveals that all the teachers in both Akshara and Non-Akshara are Enthusiastic in teaching during the reference period, except in phase 2 and phase3. In these phases Akshara schools are better as3 compared to

Non-Akshara schools.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

As far as providing Real life examples by teachers is concerned, Akshara schools are doing well in all the phases (Chart 3.10). Chart 3.11 reveals love and affection of teachers is slightly better in Akshara schools, except in phase 2. Chart 3.12 shows effectiveness of teachers. It reveals that teaching effectiveness in Akshara schools is better in all the phases, except in phase 2. Chart 3.13 shows proportion of teachers motivating students. It reveals that Motivation by teachers is also good in Akshara schools in all the phases, except phase 1.

Chart 3.6: Display of Mathematics Activities Chart 3.8: Translation of English words

Koppal District (%) to Kannada-Koppal District (%)

100.0

98.6

100.0

98.5

92.3

82.0

74.2

96.3 100.0

87.3

100.0 69.0

66.7

80.3

60.5

84.0

58.0 53.9

80.0 66.0

47.0 44.1 50.0 42.0 60.0 36.4 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara Non Akshara Akshara Non Akshara Chart 3.9: Enthusiasm of Teachers- Chart 3.7: Speaking in English by

Koppal District (%)

Teachers Koppal District (%)

95.7

100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0

100.0 100.0

99.0

100.0

85.7

97.0

82.1

69.2

65.4

95.6

67.4 63.0

57.1 95.0

46.2

50.0 90.8

90.0

21.4 15.4 85.0 0.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara Non Akshara Akshara Non Akshara

23 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.10: Real Life Examples by 3.3.1 SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

Teachers - Koppal District (%)

91.2

100.0 82.5 Table 3.8 shows number of schools

79.0

77.8

76.0

75.0

73.2

71.2

68.0

67.9 67.0

50.0 by type of building in Gadag district. It 50.0 indicates that all the schools had pucca 0.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase building (except one) which is really an Akshara encouraging factor in this district as well. Chart 3.11: Love and Affection of Following table depicts the picture. Teachers Koppal District (%)

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0 Table 3.8: No. of Schools by Type of

98.5 98.5

100.0 98.0 97.0

95.7 Building In Gadag District 95.0 School Semi 90.0 Category Pucca Pucca Total I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara Non Akshara Akshara 8 1 9 Non Chart 3.12: Teaching Effectiveness Akshara 9 0 9

Koppal District (%)

Total 17 1 18

99.0

100.0

96.2

100.0

95.5

100.0 100.0 100.0

97.0 81.8 100.0 85.3 Table 3.9 shows availability of 0.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase infrastructure facilities in selected schools Akshara Non Akshara in Gadag district. It indicates that the major

Chart 3.13: Motivate Children Positively

concerns in the district with regard to

Koppal District (%)

100.0

95.6

96.3

93.9

94.1

91.2

88.9 86.0

100.0 86.0 infrastructure in schools are availability of

75.0

74.0 63.1 50.0 benches, play grounds, girls’ urinals,

0.0 computers and Science Laboratory. Thus I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase there is a need to improve such facilities in Akshara Non Akshara the schools. Library is also a cause of 3.3 SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE, PROFILE OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN GADAG DISTRICT concern in both the categories of schools. Availability of TV needs to be ensured. In this section, the availability of school infrastructure, profile of teachers and profile of students of selected schools in Gadag district have been presented.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 3.9: Infrastructure Facilities at Schools in Gadag District (%) Schools With Facilities Facilities Akshara Non Akshara Benches 77.8 55.6 Playground 77.8 55.6 Library 88.9 100.0 TV 22.2 22.2 Radio 100.0 88.9 Girls Urinals 77.8 55.6 Urinals 100.0 77.8 Girls Toilet 88.9 77.8 Drinking water 77.8 100.0 Computer 77.8 22.2 Science Lab 44.4 11.1 Midday meal 100.0 100.0

3.3.2 PROFILE OF TEACHERS and female teachers in selected schools of In this section, the proportion of Gadag district. It indicates that male male/female teachers, social category of teachers are more in number than female teachers, teachers’ education, professional teachers in both Akshara and Non Akshara education of teachers and teachers with schools. In the second phase Non Akshara English medium learning have been schools had more female teachers than examined. Chart 3.14 shows share of male male teachers.

Chart 3.14: Male and Female Teachers

in Gadag District (%)

100.0

80.0 22.7

35.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

42.9

44.4

46.2

50.0 52.9

60.0 56.3

40.0

77.3

65.0

62.0

61.0

60.0

57.1

57.1 55.6

20.0 53.8

50.0

47.1 43.8 0.0 I II III IV V VI I II III IV V VI Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase

Akshara Non Akshara

Male Female

25 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Teachers’ Characteristics teachers across different social categories Table 3.10 shows proportion of shows that in some years teachers teachers by social category. It indicates that belonging to ‘Others’ will be higher in by and large teachers belonging to OBC Akshara schools except for the third year. category are higher in both Akshara and The table below gives the details. Non Akshara schools. The distribution of

Table 3.10: Teachers by Social Category in Gadag District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year Social Non Non Non Category Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara SC 22.7 11.8 19.0 8.7 20.9 10.5 ST 4.5 17.6 9.5 13.0 2.3 7.9 Minority 0.0 11.8 0.0 4.3 9.3 5.3 OBC 54.5 41.2 38.1 56.5 39.5 44.7 Others 18.2 17.6 33.3 17.4 27.9 31.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Teachers’ Education of teachers are educated up-to PUC level Table 3.11 shows percentage of followed by graduates. However, in the teachers by level of general education in third year, graduates are more in Non selected schools of Gadag district. It reveals Akshara schools. Presence of graduates is that in both categories of schools majority certainly advantageous for these schools.

Table 3.11: Teachers by Level of General Education - Gadag District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year General Non Non Non Education Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara 10th Std 0.0 5.9 9.5 4.3 0.0 12.5 PUC 50.0 64.7 42.9 56.5 65.0 18.8 Degree 50.0 23.5 38.1 30.4 30.0 56.3 Post Graduation 0.0 5.9 9.5 8.7 5.0 12.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Professional Education of Teachers schools followed by teachers with B.Ed. Table 3.12 shows teachers with qualification. It is interesting to note that in different levels of professional education. It the second and third year there were reveals that most of the teachers had D.Ed. teachers who were trained in some way or qualification in Akshara and Non Akshara the other. The table below gives the details. Table 3.12: Teachers with Different Levels of Professional Education -Gadag District (%) Second Year Third Year First Year Training Non Non Non Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara D Ed 40.9 52.9 61.9 91.3 90.0 87.5 B Ed 18.2 0.0 38.1 8.7 10.0 12.5

No Training 9.1 5.9

Others 31.8 41.2 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Teachers with English Medium Learning: of schools had completed their education in Table 3.13 shows medium of Kannada medium. However Akshara schools instruction of teachers at SSLC. It is were marginally better which had teachers interesting to note that more than 90 per with education in English medium. cent of the teachers in both the categories

Table 3.13: Medium of Instruction at SSLC for Teachers - Gadag District (%)

First Year Second Year Third Year Medium Non Non Non Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara Akshara

5.0 English 0.0 11.8 4.8 0

95.0 100.0 Kannada 100.0 88.2 95.2 100

100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100 100

27 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

3.3.3 PROFILE OF STUDENTS the economic status of the family of the The profile of students has been students. analyzed taking into consideration, mothers’ and fathers’ educational level and occupation. The type of PDS card indicates Table 3.14: Profile of Student in Gadag District (%) First Year Second Year Third Year Particulars Non Non Non Akshara Total Akshara Total Akshara Total Akshara Akshara Akshara Students by Social Category (%) SC, ST & OBC 46.07 67.29 56.03 54.4 68.8 61.6 53.9 74.9 65 Minority 2.07 0.7 1.43 2.5 1.1 1.8 2.9 1.7 2.3 Others 51.86 32.01 42.54 44.8 30.4 37.6 43.2 23.4 32.7 Students by Mothers' Education Level (%) Illiterate 33.88 18.46 26.64 36.3 30.8 33.6 40.1 35 37.4 Literate 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 Primary 47.73 69.86 58.11 47.8 62 54.9 47 61 54.5 Higher Primary & Above 18.39 11.68 15.24 15.9 7 11.45 12.8 3.7 8 Students by Mothers' Occupation (%) Agriculture (Land Owners) 0 0.7 0.33 0 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.5 Agricultural labor 83.06 81.78 82.46 84.1 82.9 83.5 85.6 81.1 83.2 Housewife 14.67 16.59 15.57 13.2 15.6 14.4 11.8 16.6 14.4 Others 2.27 0.93 1.64 2.7 0.8 1.75 2.6 1.4 2 Students by Fathers' Education Level (%) Illiterate 29.13 14.25 22.15 31.6 23.4 27.5 32.1 25.1 28.4 Literate 0.62 0 0.33 0.7 3.4 2.1 1 4.6 2.9 Primary 41.94 62.62 51.64 44.8 58 51.4 47.2 61.1 54.7 Higher Primary & Above 28.31 23.13 25.88 22.9 15.2 19.05 19.7 9.1 14 Students by Fathers’ Occupation (%) Agriculture (Marginal Farmers) 13.22 5.84 9.76 11.7 4 7.8 10.8 2.9 6.6 Agricultural labor 75.41 89.49 82.02 75.4 91.8 83.6 78.4 92.3 85.8 Other 11.36 4.67 8.22 12.9 4.2 8.55 10.8 4.9 7.6 Students by Household PDS Card (%) BPL Card 50.83 31.54 41.78 44.3 39.2 41.8 51.5 61.4 56.2

28 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

From the table 3.14 one can note and how the teachers are interacting with the Socio-Economic Status (SES) of the the students.

students. Most of the students belong to 3.4.1 CLASS ROOM OBSERVATIONS the socially backward communities and BPL The class room observations reveal status. For example in Akshara schools, SC, following picture. ST and OBC students are to the extent of  Teachers honouring time table – about 90 percent and their respective Akshara schools have picked up over number in Non Akshara schools is also the period of time around 90 per cent. Minorities range  Display of time table in classroom – between 0 and 1 per cent. Around 90 per Akshara schools are marginally cent of mothers of these children are either better illiterate, just literate or have completed  Presence of any other TLM – primary education. With regard to mothers’ Akshara Schools are far ahead occupation one can note that ‘agricultural  Display of Mathematics Charts – labor’ and ‘house wife’ account for more Akshara Schools have improved over than 90 percent. Similar pattern is found as the period of time far as fathers’ educational level and  Display of Mathematics activities – Household occupation are concerned. Akshara Schools are doing well Around 90 percent of the students belong to the BPL status. On the whole one can say that the SES status in both the categories of schools remains the same.

3.4 CLASS ROOM OBSERVATIONS AND TRANSACTIONS: GADAG DISTRICT

The study team also took note of the transactions within the classrooms in both Akshara and Non Akshara Schools in Gadag district. The idea was to catch with the kind of atmosphere that exists in the classroom

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.18: Display of Mathematics

Charts Gadag District (%)

100.0

94.0

98.0

91.43 95.2

100 84.2

80.0

70.3

68.4

66.67 53.8 50

0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara Non Akshara

Chart 3.19: Display of Mathematics

Activities Gadag District (%)

100.0

Following charts depict the picture

97.0

96.0

97.7

97.6 98.0

100

80.0

75 70.3

Chart 3.15: Teachers Honouring 65.8

51.3

Timetable Gadag District (%)

100 50

84.1

75.0

65.0

64.9

45.5

43.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase

40 39.5

50 38.0 31.7 25.6 Akshara Non Akshara

0 3.4.2 CLASS ROOM TRANSACTIONS I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Charts 3.20 to 3.26:, show classroom Akshara Non Akshara

transactions in the selected Akshara and

Chart 3.16: Display of Timetable Non Akshara schools in Gadag district. The

Gadag District (%)

97.0

98.0 tasks of teachers in the classroom such as;

100 91.43

88.57

80.0

63.0

55.8 speaking in English, translation of English

47.4

46.3

51.4 46.2 50 45.5 words to Kannada, Enthusiasm of teachers, 0 giving real life examples to students, love I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase and affection towards the students, overall Akshara Non Akshara teaching effectiveness and motivating Chart 3.17: Any Other TLM in the

Class Room Gadag District (%) children to learn have been taken into

94.0

98.0

93.2

86.4 86.7

100 consideration. Chart 3.20 shows that the

87.8

74.29

71.0

70.3

63.64

63.2 48.7 50 proportion of teachers speaking in English is

0 more in Akshara schools compared to Non- I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara schools in all the phases, except Akshara Non Akshara phase 2.

30 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

From chart 3.21, one can observe that Akshara Teachers are better in translation of English words to Kannada in all the phases. However, in the sixth phase, both the schools have made it with 100 per cent achievement. Chart 3.22 reveals that Enthusiasm of Teachers has picked up in Akshara schools, after 2 phases. In phase 6, all the teachers in both Akshara and Non- Akshara schools are found enthusiastic. As far as providing Real life examples by teachers is concerned, Akshara schools are doing well in all the phases (Chart 3.23). Chart 3.24 reveals love and affection of teachers is slightly better in Akshara schools. Chart 3.25 shows effectiveness of teachers. It reveals that after the first

Chart 3.20: Speaking in English by

Teachers Gadag District (%)

phase, Akshara schools have picked up and

94.1

100.0

86.2 86.0

100 92.3 86.0

teaching effectiveness in Akshara schools is 80.8

72.0

better compared Non-Akshara schools. 50

16.7

18.8

14.3 14.3 Chart 3.26 shows proportion of teachers 0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase motivating students. It reveals that Akshara Non Akshara Motivation by teachers is also good in Chart 3.21: Translation of English Words

Akshara schools in all the phases, except to Kannada-Gadag District %)

100.0

phase 1. 100.0 86.0

100

71.0

68.8

71.0

53.0

50 52.9

30.8

28.57

23.8 22.86

0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara Non Akshara

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.22: Enthusiasm of Teachers ERFORMANCE F TUDENTS N ATHEMATICS

3.5 P O S I M

Gadag District (%)

100.0

98.0 Tests were conducted in 94.0

100

79.5

78.0

63.2

61.5 57.14 59.5 Mathematics for the students of both

50 28.57 Akshara and Non Akshara schools to 0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase understand the impact of the Akshara Akshara Non Akshara initiatives. Tests were administered to

Chart 3.23: Real Life Examples by understand the learning abilities of these

Teachers Gadag District (%)

91.9

91.0

88.0

85.0 84.2

100 84.1 students. In the following discussion, an

78.4

75.0

71.0

69.2

50 42.86 attempt is made to present the results of 28.57 these tests. 0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase Akshara Non Akshara 3.5.1 PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS: KOPPAL DISTRICT

Chart 3.24: Love and Affection of Teachers

Gadag District (%)

The following section presents the

100

100.0

100

100.0 100.0

100.0

95.5

86.8 90.5

100 82.0

61.5 performance of students in Mathematics 50 for class 1 to 3, class 2 to 4 and class 3 to 5 0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase for different phases of the survey in Koppal Akshara Non Akshara district.

Chart 3.25: Teaching Effectiveness

Performance of students in mathematics

Gadag District (%)

100.0

100.0 for classes 1 to 3

97.0

100.0

100.0 92.1

100.0 81.1

78.0

76.9 81.4 74.3 The charts below show the

50.0 45.7 performance of students in Mathematics in

0.0 Koppal district (class 1 to 3). Chart 3.27 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase shows proportion of students who obtained Akshara Non Akshara more than 75 percent in Mathematics in

Chart 3.26: Motivate Children Positively

Gadag District (%) Akshara and Non Akshara schools. The chart

95.0

95.5

91.0 91.0 92.9

100.0

78.0

77.3 reveals that the performance of Akshara

71.1

64.9

56.4 48.6

50.0 42.9 students is better than Non Akshara students. The proportion of students who 0.0 I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase got more than 75 marks has been declining Akshara Non Akshara

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 in both the types of schools but the extent performance of students in Akshara of decline is more in Non Akshara schools schools as far as Mathematics is compared to Akshara schools. This shows concerned. the effectiveness of Akshara initiatives in improving and maintaining the

Chart 3.27: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District (Class 1 to 3*) 36.9 VI Phase 57.9 55.8 V Phase 65.6 38.5 IV Phase 68.9 34.1 III Phase 39.3 88.8 II Phase 71.3 58.2 I Phase 74.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NAK AK *Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.28 shows proportion of The proportion of students who got 50 to students who obtained 50 to 75 marks in 75 marks has increased greatly (from 19.4 Mathematics in Koppal district. It reveals percent in phase 1 to 35.2 percent in phase that except for phase 2 and phase 3, the 6) in Non Akshara this proportion has Non Akshara students are performing increased slowly (from 18.1 percent in better as compared to Akshara students. phase 1 to 18.6 percent in phase 6).

Chart 3.28: Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District (Class 1 to 3*) 35.2 VI Phase 18.6 26.3 V Phase 21.9 35.8 IV Phase 14.2 22.3 III Phase 29.5 10.2 II Phase 16 19.4 I Phase 18.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 NAK AK *Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI

33 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.29 (below) shows proportion compared to Non Akshara students. But of students who obtained less than 50 over the period of time, the proportion of marks in Mathematics in Koppal district. It students in this group has increased in the reveals that except in phase 2, the same rate in both Akshara and Non Akshara proportion of students who obtained less students. than 50 marks is less in Akshara students as

Chart 3.29: Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Koppal District (Class 1 to 3*) 27.9 VI Phase 23.5 17.9 V Phase 12.6 25.7 IV Phase 16.9 43.6 III Phase 31.1 0.9 II Phase 12.8 22.3 I Phase 7.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 NAK AK

*Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI

Taking into account the presence of than 75 marks is more in case of Akshara greater number of students in > 75% students (except first two phases) as category the Akshara Schools are doing compared to Non Akshara students. Over better than the Non Akshara schools. the period of time the proportion of students in this group has increased in case Performance of Students in Mathematics for Classes 2 to 4 of Akshara but in case of Non Akshara it has been declining. This indicates that Akshara The following charts give the students were trailing behind and as the performance of students in mathematics for intervention has progressed the classes 2 to 4. Chart 3.30 shows that the performance of Akshara students has proportion of students who obtained more improved.

34 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.30: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 2 to 4*)

19.4 VI Phase 37.9 29.2 V Phase 37.9 45.7 IV Phase 51.1 25.7 III Phase 40.7 70.8 II Phase 40.9 33.3 I Phase 32.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 NAK AK *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.31 shows proportion of group is almost similar with the exception students who obtained 50 to 75 marks in of phases I, II and III. One can say that both Mathematics in Koppal district. This the categories of students are on the same indicates that proportion of students in this page in this category of results.

Chart 3.31: Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 2 to 4*) 35.4 VI Phase 35.2 36.0 V Phase 17.6 33.1 IV Phase 33.0 32.6 III Phase 35.2 23.6 II Phase 19.3 24.8 I Phase 21.1

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 NAK AK

*Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.32 shows proportion of progressed, the proportion of students students who obtained less than 50 marks getting less than 50 marks has declined in in Mathematics in Koppal district (Class 2 to Akshara schools, (i.e. students have moved 4). It reveals that as the intervention has to greater than 75 marks category),

35 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 whereas in case of Non Akshara schools the over the time period. proportion of such students has increased

Chart 3.32: Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 2 to 4*) VI Phase 26.9 45.1 V Phase 34.9 44.5 IV Phase 15.9 21.1 III Phase 24.2 41.7 II Phase 5.6 39.8 I Phase 41.9 46.9 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 NAK AK *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

On the whole, the Akshara students who got more than 75 marks has increased are doing better as compared to Non in case of Akshara students (from 23.2 Akshara students. percent in phase 1 to 38.9 percent in phase 6) and in case of Non Akshara students it Performance of Students in Mathematics for Classes 3 to 5 has declined (from 47.5 percent in phase 1 For classes 3 to 5, better to 33.6 percent in phase 6). Both Akshara performance of Akshara students and Non Akshara scores have decreased in continues, compared with Non Akshara, Phase 3. This is an enigma which is likely to except for first and fifth phase (Chart 3.33). appear in such field based investigations. Over the period, the proportion of students

Chart 3.33: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 3 to 5*) 33.6 VI Phase 38.9 45.4 V Phase 37.9 29.6 IV Phase 37.8 6.6 III Phase 18.1 34.2 II Phase 47.4 47.5 I Phase 23.2 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 NAK AK *Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

36 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.34 shows proportion of phases Non Akshara students are more. students who obtained 50 to 75 marks in Over the period of time, the proportion of Mathematics in Koppal district for class 3 to students in this category has been declining 5. This indicates that in 3 phases the in both Akshara and Non Akshara and this proportion of students who obtained 50 to decline is more in case of Akshara. 75 marks is more in Akshara and in other 3

Chart 3.34: Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 3 to 5*) VI Phase 23.8 33.6 V Phase 22.8 32.9 IV Phase 41.4 48.7 III Phase 28.3 36.8 II Phase 24.7 50.7 I Phase 30.7 35.8 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 NAK AK *Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.35 shows proportion of in Mathematics in Koppal district (Class 3 to students who obtained less than 50 marks 5). It reveals that as the intervention has

37 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 progressed, the proportion of students case of Non Akshara schools the proportion getting less than 50 marks has been of such students in this category has been declining in Akshara schools, whereas in increasing over the period of time.

Chart 3.35: Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics : Koppal District (Class 3 to 5*)

32.9 VI Phase 37.3 21.7 V Phase 39.4 28.9 IV Phase 13.5 65.1 III Phase 45.1 15.1 II Phase 28.0 21.8 I Phase 41.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 NAK AK *Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

On the whole, the performance of for different phases of the survey in Gadag Akshara students is better and as the district. intervention has progressed, the students’ Performance of Students in Mathematics progress has improved in Mathematics in for Classes 1 to 3 Koppal distirict for class 3 to 5. It can be observed from the chart below that the Akshara Students are doing 3.5.2 PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS IN well in mathematics as compared to the MATHEMATICS: GADAG DISTRICT Non Akshara students (Chart 3.36) in Gadag The following section presents the district. But over the period of time the performance of students in Mathematics proportion of students who got more than for class 1 to 3, class 2 to 4 and class 3 to 5 75 marks has been declining in both Akshara and Non Akshara schools.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.36: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics : Gadag District (Class 1 to 3*) 5.1 VI Phase 27.1

2.2 V Phase 11.0

2.9 IV Phase 16.1

14.0 III Phase 16.1

41.7 II Phase 73.1

27.9 I Phase 38.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 NAK AK *Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.37 shows proportion of fourth and sixth phases. The proportion of students who obtained 50 to 75 marks in students in this group in case of Akshara has Mathematics in Gadag district for class 1 to remained steady over the period of time 3.It reveals that the performance of Akshara but in case of Non Akshara it has been students is better in first, second, third, increasing.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.37: Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics : Gadag District (Class 1 to 3*)

25.0 VI Phase 34.7

19.1 V Phase 23.7

20.6 IV Phase 13.6

6.6 III Phase 11.9

14.6 II Phase 19.2

20.6 I Phase 38.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 NAK AK *Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI Chart 3.38 shows proportion of Akshara as compared to Non Akshara. But it students who obtained less than 50 marks seems that over the period of time the in Mathematics in Gadag district (Class 1 to proportion of such students has increased 3). It reveals that the proportion of students in both Akshara and Non Akshara schools. who got less than 50 marks is less in case of

Chart 3.38: Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 1 to 3*)

69.9 VI Phase 38.1 78.7 V Phase 65.3 76.5 IV Phase 70.3 79.4 III Phase 72.0 43.8 II Phase 7.7 51.5 I Phase 22.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 NAK AK *Class 1 = Phase I & II, Class 2 = Phase III & IV, Class 3 = Phase V & VI

On the whole, Akshara students are Performance of Students in Mathematics for Classes 2 to 4 doing well in mathematics as compared to The following charts give the the Non Akshara students in Gadag district performance of students in mathematics in for class 1 to 3. Gadag district for classes 2 to 4. It can be

observed from chart 3.39 that (in the

40 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 percentage category of > 75 %) except for students are doing better than their the first, third and fifth phases, the Akshara counterparts in Non Akshara schools.

Chart 3.39: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 2 to 4*) 0.0 VI Phase 16.7

1.6 V Phase 0.0

26.0 IV Phase 27.8

22.0 III Phase 17.8

40.0 II Phase 49.2

18.9 I Phase 8.3

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 NAK AK *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI Chart 3.40 shows proportion of 4. It reveals that the proportion of students students who obtained 50 to 75 marks in in this category has been declining in both Mathematics in Gadag district for class 2 to Akshara and Non Akshara schools.

Chart 3.40: Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 2 to 4*) 6.5 VI Phase 21.1 8.1 V Phase 5.6 26.0 IV Phase 16.7 15.4 III Phase 24.4 32.5 II Phase 15.3 26.4 I Phase 40.3

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 NAK AK *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.41 shows proportion of students Akshara students. But over the period of who obtained less than 50 % marks in time, proportion of students who are Mathematics in Gadag district for class 2 to getting less than 50 marks has been 4. It indicates that in 3 phases Akshara increasing in both Akshara and Non Akshara students are doing better i.e. second, fourth schools i.e. from 51.4 % to 62.2% and 54.7% and fifth phases as compared to Non to 93.5% respectively. This shows that

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016 students, especially from Non Akshara have importance of Akshara intervention in moved from higher grades to lower grades maintaining the performance of students over the period of time. This indicates over the period of time.

Chart 3.41: Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 2 to 4*)

93.5 VI Phase 62.2

90.2 V Phase 94.4

48.0 IV Phase 55.6

62.6 III Phase 57.8

27.5 II Phase 35.6

54.7 I Phase 51.4

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

NAK AK *Class 2 = Phase I & II, Class 3 = Phase III & IV, Class 4 = Phase V & VI

On the whole, the Akshara students Performance of Students in Mathematics for Classes 3 to 5 are doing better than Non Akshara The following charts give the students. But the proportion of students performance of students in mathematics in getting less than 50 marks has been Gadag district for classes 3 to 5. From chart increasing over the period of time in both 3.42, one can observe that Akshara Akshara and Non Akshara schools. This is students are doing well in fourth and sixth the challenge for the Akshara team to look phases. It is interesting to note that Non into. Akshara students are better than Akshara

students in this category. On some

occasions it is quite natural that players

from the other side can do well.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.42: Students Obtaining >75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 3 to 5*) 13.8 VI Phase 19.8 6.4 V Phase 1.0 0.0 IV Phase 5.0 5.3 III Phase 0.0 46.9 II Phase 31.3 43.1 I Phase 11.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 NAK AK

*Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.43 shows proportion of doing better in first, second and sixth students who got 50 to 75 marks in phases. It seems that the performance of Mathematics in Gadag district for classes 3 Akshara students has improved over the to 5. It reveals that Akshara students are period of time as well.

Chart 3.43: Students Obtaining 50 to 75 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 3 to 5*)

14.9 VI Phase 30.7

41.5 V Phase 14.9

23.4 IV Phase 10.9

4.3 III Phase 7.9

24.5 II Phase 39.1

0.0 I Phase 32.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

NAK AK

Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

Chart 3.44 shows proportion of Akshara schools. One can say that students who got less than 50 marks in Mathematics is still a issue which needs Mathematics in Gadag district for classes 3 greater attention. Improving the to 5. It reveals that most of the students got performance of these students will be the less than 50% marks in Mathematics in task of Akshara team in the days to come. Gadag district in both Akshara and Non

43 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Chart 3.44: Students Obtaining <50 Marks in Mathematics: Gadag District (Class 3 to 5*) 71.3 VI Phase 49.5 52.1 V Phase 84.2 76.6 IV Phase 84.2 90.4 III Phase 92.1 28.6 II Phase 29.7 56.9 I Phase 55.8

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 NAK AK

*Class 3 = Phase I & II, Class 4 = Phase III & IV, Class 5 = Phase V & VI

On the whole, the Akshara students Akshara and Non Akshara schools. Efforts are doing better than Non Akshara should be made to improve their students. But significant proportion of performance. students who got less than 50 marks in both

3.6 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Infrastructure, Teachers, Students, Class Room Observations and Class Room Transactions KOPPAL DISTRICT Inputs Findings All the selected schools had a pucca building. Availability of benches, play Infrastructure grounds, girls’ urinals, computers and Science Laboratory are lacking. Male teachers are more. Teachers belonging to OBC category are higher in both Akshara and Non Akshara schools. Majority of teachers are educated Teachers Profile up-to PUC level. Most of the teachers had D.Ed. qualification in Akshara and Non Akshara schools. More than 90 per cent of the teachers in both the categories of schools had completed their education in Kannada medium. About 90 percent of the students belong to SC, ST and OBC category in both Students Profile Akshara and Non Akshara schools. With regard to honoring time table, display of timetable, TLM and display of Classroom Mathematics charts and activities in the classroom, Akshara schools are Observations better in all the phases than Non Akshara schools. Akshara Teachers are better with regard to; speaking in English by Teachers and translation of English words to Kannada. Similar trend is also found with Classroom regard to Enthusiasm of Teachers, providing Real life examples by teachers, Transactions Love and affection of teachers, Effectiveness of teachers and Motivation by teachers.

44 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

GADAG DISTRICT Inputs Findings All the schools had pucca building (except one). Availability of benches, Infrastructure play grounds, girl’s urinals, computers and Science Laboratory are lacking. On the whole Male teachers are more in number. Teachers belonging to OBC category are higher in both Akshara and Non Akshara schools. Majority of teachers are educated up-to PUC level. Most of the teachers Teachers Profile had D.Ed. qualification in Akshara and Non Akshara schools. More than 90 percent of the teachers in both the categories of schools had completed their education in Kannada medium. About 90 percent of the students belong to SC, ST and OBC category in Students Profile both Akshara and Non Akshara schools. With regard to honoring time table (picked up over the period of time in Class Room Akshara schools), display of timetable (marginally better in Akshara schools), Observations TLM and display of Mathematics charts and activities in the classroom, the Akshara schools are better than Non Akshara schools. With regard to speaking in English by Teachers and translation of English words to Kannada, Enthusiasm of Teachers, providing Real life examples Class Room by teachers, Love and affection of teachers, Effectiveness of teachers and Transactions Motivation by teachers it is interesting to note that Akshara Teachers are better.

Performance of Students in Mathematics KOPPAL DISTRICT Classes Performance 1 to 3 Performance of Akshara students is better than Non Akshara students (classes 1 to 3) 2 to 4 Akshara students are doing better compared to Non Akshara students. These students were trailing behind and as the intervention has progressed the performance of Akshara students has also improved. 3 to 5 Performance of Akshara students is better and as the intervention has progressed, the students progress has improved in Mathematics in Koppal distirict for classes 3 to 5.

GADAG DISTRICT Classes Performance 1 to 3 Akshara students are doing well in mathematics as compared to the Non Akshara students in Gadag district for classes 1 to 3 2 to 4 Akshara students are doing better than Non Akshara students but this performance needs to be maintained 3 to 5 Performance of Akshara students has been improving compared to Non Akshara students.

45 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

In sum, if one looks at the Akshara doing well in mathematics as compared to intervention in both the districts, the news the Non Akshara students in the districts. seems to be good and encouraging. For The fact that greater proportion of Akshara example both input and outcome indicators students were found in >75 percentage due to such intervention have improved in brackets in all the three years of Akshara schools as compared to the Non intervention itself is a proof that the Akshara schools. The indicators of students have been benefitted by the Classroom transactions as well as Classroom Akshara iniative. Keeping aside certain observations have been better in Akshara factors which are beyond the control of any schools and they have also improved as the initiative like Educational background of intervention has progressed. Such parents, Socio-economic status of the improvement has its impact on the learning students, the Akshara initiave has made skills of the students which is exhibited by signifiant impact on the learning levels of the performance of Akshara students in the students. Based on our field Mathematics tests which were experiences and our analysis of the cohort administered to both Akshara and Non data we would like to place the following Akshara schools. Out of the total six phases suggestions for the Akshara initiative. spread over three years, one can observe 3.6.1 COMBINED REPORT OF ECONOMETRIC ANALYSES BASED ON DATA FROM PHASE 1 TO 6 that by and large Askhara students have performed better than Non Akshara Before we discuss the results based students. This only brings home the fact on Akshara intervention, there are two that Akshara intervention has served the points we would like to mention: First, since purpose for which it was initiated. This also this is a cohort study with intervention in supports the argument of scaling up such Mathematics for students from Standard 1 intervention in other parts of the state. to 5. This implies that after 4th phase, students in 1st had already moved to Akshara initiative has made a standard three. Correspondingly students positive impact on the classroom from Class 4 would have moved to Class 6, transactions and hence on the performance thus not part of the sample of students as well. Akshara students are

46 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Further, to ensure comparability, statistically better for Mathematics our analysis included only those students intervention. For standard 4 and 5 who have attended both pre-test and end- students – there is no statistically line test. For different phases we estimated different impact of intervention in the impact in three different ways: both the districts. In Gadag for

a) District wise each standard mathematics intervention, students separately, in standard 2 have benefited. b) Each district (Koppal and Gadag)  In 5th and 6th phases Akshara separately; intervention yielded higher results in c) Combined (both districts together) most cases except for Standard 3 but each standard separately. students in Koppal with or without Following are our key findings based on controls for Mathematics in Koppal analysis of phases 1 to 6. or Gadag.  Irrespective of standard, location, or  With respect to Control Variables - class, students who secured higher not all controls are significant percentage marks in phase 1 or irrespective of location and phase 3 or phase 5, their gain is standard. Only variable which is statistically lower than that of consistently significant, though students who secured lower marks against our hypothesis, is “BRC in phase 2 or phase 4 or phase 6 distance from School”. A school with respectively. greater distance tends to have  In phases 1 and 2, intervention in higher improvement. Occasionally, mathematics benefited students in Minority or OBC have gained more, standard 3 in Koppal district, whereas in some cases, SC and ST whereas students in 4th and 5th have done worse. Occasionally standard benefited in Gadag. School infrastructure, Family size, or  For 3rd and 4th phase, for standard 2 mother’s education have impact – and standard 3 students – in Koppal sometimes counter-intuitive. – Akshara students have done The following Tables show Results of the econometric analysis.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Table 3.15: Impact of Akshara Intervention on Mathematics Test Scores (Phase 1 & 2) Without controls With Controls District Class1 Class2 Class3 Class4 Class5 Class1 Class2 Class3 Class4 Class5 Intervention 14.28*** -2.57 -14.4*** 1.09 -12.7*** 11.4*** 5.39 -12.1*** -3.94 -12.8*** (3.09) (4.48) (3.61) (3.58) (2.75) (3.06) (5.21) (3.96) (4.19) (3.14) Koppal Interaction -24.2*** -17.9*** 10.98** 2.29 1.64 -24.1*** -17.9*** 11.22*** 2.29 2.41 (3.96) (6.04) (4.66) (5.16) (4.01) (3.80) (5.22) (4.43) (4.85) (4.02) Intervention 13.37** -4.57 -3.52 -14.1*** -14.5*** -24.17* -32.11** 44.89*** -17.2*** -5.65 (5.54) (5.28) (6.29) (3.97) (3.29) (14.46) (16.07) (11.77) (5.20) (4.76) Gadag Interaction 6.32 1.04 -3.11 17.63*** 9.29** 6.32 1.04 -2.19 17.83*** 9.29** (7.36) (7.94) (7.50) (5.10) (4.50) (6.32) (6.92) (6.21) (4.76) (4.08) Note: Akshara is a binary variable indicating whether the student belongs to a treatment school or a control school. Figure in parenthesis are standard errors and ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively; yellow cells means positively significance; sky blue cells means negatively significance. All other tables are have same notes.. Source: Estimated from Field Survey Data.

Table 3.16: Impact of Akshara Intervention on Mathematics Test Scores (Phase 3 & 4) Without Controls With Controls District Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Koppal 10.07*** 5.237 6.275** 3.765 10.53** 18.46*** 4.323 4.592 (2.941) (3.505) (3.000) (3.500) (4.095) (5.206) (3.765) (3.882) Gadag 13.88*** -2.720 2.548 -19.12*** 8.068 30.54* 11.24 -8.907 (4.210) (4.490) (3.833) (3.786) (20.48) (18.18) (14.69) (6.858) Dependent Variable: Change in Test Score for Mathematics from pre-intervention to 4th intervention

Table 3.17: Impact of Akshara Intervention on Mathematics Test Scores for each class individually

Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 District Without Controls With Controls Without Controls With Controls Without Controls With Controls Koppal -7.270*** -11.11*** 10.74*** 13.47*** 4.707* 19.91*** (2.670) (3.874) (2.737) (3.741) (2.725) (3.397) Gadag 13.70*** 15.33*** 26.45*** 31.72*** 20.14*** 34.92*** (2.967) (4.782) (3.084) (5.086) (3.841) (6.139)

Dependent Variable: Change in Test Score for Mathematics from 5th intervention to 6th intervention

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

On the whole, we can say that performed better than Non Akshara results show somewhat positive evidence students. This only brings home the fact on the role of Akshara intervention on that Akshara intervention has served the student outcomes. We find that purpose for which it was initiated. This also intervention has led to an improvement in supports the argument of scaling up such average test scores for students belonging intervention in other parts of the state. to certain standards and this effect varies 3.8 RECOMMENDATIONS across districts. The study team would like to make the following recommendations which

3.7 FEW OBSERVATIONS would go a long way in further fine tuning In sum, if one looks at the Akshara the intervention for the benefit of the intervention in both the districts, the news student community. seems to be good and encouraging. For  The issue of teacher transfer who example both input and outcome indicators are trained by the Akshara initiative due to such intervention have improved in has sometimes created irritants in Akshara schools as compared to the Non the effective implementation of the Akshara schools. The indicators of initiative. The trained teachers need Classroom transactions as well as Classroom to be retained in the same place till observations have been better in Akshara the intervention is in progress. schools and they have also improved as the  Another issue with regard to teacher intervention has progressed. Such training is that all the teachers in the improvement has its impact on the learning same school need to be trained by skills of the students which is exhibited by Akshara. Now those who are not the performance of Akshara students in trained feel that they have been Mathematics tests which were neglected by this kind of administered to both Akshara and Non intervention. Time schedule of Akshara schools. Out of the total six phases training and supply of kits need to spread over three years, one can observe be in accordance with the academic that by and large Askhara students have calendar of schools.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

 The need is also felt to train BRPs training the other teachers. This and CRPs for effective monitoring of would help the program to get the program. SDMC members also internalized in the public schooling need to be sensitized with regard to system. such intervention.  Now the intervention of the Akshara  Usually such interventions would initiative is trying to make a dent lose the steam as soon as the into the public education system at intervening agency withdraws from the school level. The need is felt in the scene. Thus, in-order to sustain this regard from the Education the initiative even after the Department to own this initiative exogenous factor withdraws; the which would give greater mileage to need is felt with regard to use the the efforts put in. trained teachers as trainers for

50 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

REFERENCES

Akerlof, G. and R. Kranton (2000), Black, S.E., P.J. Devereux, and K.G. Salvanes “Economics and Identity”, Quarterly Journal (2003), Why the Apple Doesn’t Fall Far: of Economics, Vol. CXV, pp. 715-753. Understanding the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital, NBER Akerlof, G. and R. Kranton (2002), “Identity Working Paper no. 10066, National Bureau and Schooling: Some Lessons from the of Economic Research, Cambridge MA. Economics of Education”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XL, pp. 1167-1201. Borkum, E., He, F. and Linden, L.L. (2013), The Effects of School Libraries on Language Aksit, N. (2007), Educational reform in Skills: Evidence from a Randomized Turkey, International Journal of ControlledTrial in India, NBER Working EducationalDevelopment, 27: 129–137. Paper No. 18183, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, USA. Altinyelken, H. (2010), Curriculum change in Uganda: teacher perspectives on the new Branham, D. (2004),The wise man builds his thematic curriculum, International Journal house upon the rock: The effects of of Educational Development, 30:151–161. inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance, Social Science Altınyelken, H.K. (2010), Changing Quarterly, 85 (5): 1112-1128. pedagogy: A comparative analysis of reform efforts in Ugandaand Turkey, Dissertation, Brock, A., (2009), Moving mountains stone Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, by stone: reforming education in ruralChina, University of Amsterdam. Annual Status of International Journal of Educational Education Report (ASER) (2008, 2009), Development, 29:454–462. Pratham. Buhmann, D. and Trudell, B. (2008), Mother Balu, R., Patrinos, H. and Vegas, E. (2009), Tongue Matters: Local Language as a key to GDN Education Issues Paper, Working Paper Effective Learning, UNESCO, Paris. No. 10, Global Development Network. Capper, J., Nderitu, S. and Ogula, P. (1997), Bandyopadhyay, M. (2012), Gender and The School Improvement Programme of the School Participation: Evidences from Aga Khan Education Service, Kenya at Empirical Research in Madhya Pradesh and Kisumu, Western Kenya: Evaluation Report. Chhattisgarh, NUEPA Occasional Paper 41, Aga Khan Foundation, Geneva. NUEPA, New Delhi. Casanova, P.F., Garcia-Linares, C.M., de la Banerjee, A. and Duflo, E. (2011), Poor Torre, M.J., and de la Villa Carpio, M. Economics: Rethinking Poverty And The (2005), Influence of Family and Socio- Ways To End It, Random House India. Demographic Variables on Students with

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Low Academic Achievement, Educational Fuller, B. and P. Clarke (1994), “Raising Psychology, 25 (4): 423-435. School Effects While Ignoring Culture? Local Conditions and Influence of Classroom Chevalier, A. (2004), Parental Education and Tools, Rules and Pedagogy”, Review of Child’s Education: A Natural Experiment, Educational Research, Vol. 64, pp. 1119- Discussion Paper No. 1153, Institute for the 157. Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany. George, J.M. and Lubben, F. (2002), Chisholm, L. and Leyendecker, R. (2008), Facilitating teachers’ professional growth Curriculum reform in post-1990s sub- throughtheir involvement in creating SaharanAfrica, International Journal of context-based materials in science, Educational Development, 28:195–205. InternationalJournal of Educational Development, 22: 659–672. Das, J. and T. Zajonc (2009), “India shining and Bharat drowning: Comparing two Glewwe, P. (2002), “Schools and Skills in Indian states to the worldwide distribution Developing Countries: Education Policies in mathematics achievement”, Journal of and Socioeconomic Outcomes”, Journal of Development Economics, forthcoming. Economic Literature, Vol. XL, pp. 436-482.

Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009), Curriculum reform Guimaraes, J. and Sampaio, B. (2011)Family and ‘Quality Education’ in China: an background and students' achievement on overview, International Journal of a university entranceexam in Brazil, Educational Development, 29: 241–249. Education Economics, First published on: 18 April 2011 (iFirst). Dembele, M. and Miaro-II, B. 2003. Pedagogical Renewal and Teacher Haahr, J. H., Nielsen, T.K., Hansen, M.E. and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Jakobsen, S. T. (2005), Explaining Thematic Synthesis. ADEA Biennial Meeting, StudentPerformanceEvidence from the December 3-6, 2003. international PISA, TIMSSand PIRLS surveys, Report, Danish Technological Institute. Dreze, J. and G. G. Kingdon (2001), “School Participation in Rural India,” Review of Hanushek, E.A. and L. Woessmann (2008), Development Economics, 5(1), pp. 1-24. “The Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development”, Journal of Economic DFID (2005), Girls’ education: towards a Literature, Vol. 46, pp. 607-668. better future for all, Department for International Development, Galsgow, UK. Harber, C. (2006), Democracy, development Ekpo UF, Odoemene SN, Mafiana CF, Sam- and education: working with TheGambian Wobo WO (2008) Helminthiasis and inspectorate, International Journal of Hygiene Conditions of Schools in Ikenne, Educational Development, 26: 618–630. Ogun State, Nigeria.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Harley, K., Barasa, F., Bertram, C., Mattson, E. and Pillay, S. (2000), The real and the ideal’:teacher roles and competences in

52 EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

South African policy and practice, Layne, A., Jules, V., Kutnick, P. and Layne, C. International Journal of Educational (2008), Academic achievement, Development, 20:287–304. pupilparticipation and integration of group work skills in secondary school class rooms Holmlund, H., M. Lindahl and E. Plug (2011), in Trinidad and Barbados, International “The Causal Effect of Parents’ Schooling on Journal of Educational Development, 28: Children: A Comparison of Estimation 176-194. Methods”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 615-651. Li, H., Zhang, J. and Zhu, Y. (2008),The quantity–quality trade off of children in a Jansen, J. (1989), Curriculum reconstruction developing country: Identification using in post-colonial Africa: a review of the Chinese twins. Demography 45 (1): 223–43. literature, International Journal of Educational Development, 9(3):219–231. Lindahl, E. (2007), Gender and ethnic Javier, M.F. and Marcelo, J. (2011), School interactions among teachers and students - infrastructure and resources do matter: evidence from Sweden, Working Paper No. analysis of the incidence of school 25, Institute for Labour Market Policy resources on the performance of Latin Evaluation, Uppsala. American students, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22 (1): 29-50. Majoribanks, K. (1996), Family Learning Environments and Students’ Outcomes: A Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (1998), The black- Review, Journal of Comparative Family white test score gap: An introduction. In C. Studies, 27 (2): 373-394. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The black- white test score gap, Washington DC: McLoyd, V. C. (1998), Socioeconomic Brookings Institution Press. disadvantage and child development, American Psychologist,53, 185-204. Kingdon, G. G. (2006), Teacher characteristics and student performance in Ministry of Human Resource Development India: A pupil fixed effects approach, (2012), Report to the People on Education: Working Paper 59, Global Poverty Research 2011-12, Government of India, New Delhi. Group, University of Oxford, UK.

Kingdon, G.G. and F. Teal (2007), “Does Muralidharan, K. (2013), Priorities for performance related pay for teachers Primary Education Policy in India’s 12th improve student performance? Some Five-year Plan, NCAER-Brookings India evidence from India”, Economics of Policy Forum, forthcoming. Education Review, Vo. 23, pp. 473-486. Muralidharan, K., Das, J.,Holla, A., Kremer, Kingdon, G. and Teal F. (2010), Teacher M. and Mohpal, A. (2013), The Fiscal Costs Unions, Teacher Pay and Student of Weak Governance: Evidence from Performance in India: A Pupil Fixed Effects Teacher Absence in India. UC San Diego. Approach, Journal of Development Economics, 91 (2):278-288.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Muralidharan, K. and Sundararaman, K. Nyambe, J. and Wilmot, D. (2008), (2011), Teacher Performance Pay: Bernstein's theory of pedagogic discourse: a Experimental Evidence from India, Journal framework for understanding how teacher of Political Economy, 119 (1):39-77. educators in a Namibian college of education interpret and practice learner- Muralidharan, K. and Sundararaman, K. centred pedagogyFifth Basil Bernstein (2013), Contract Teachers: Experimental Symposium, Cardiff School for Social Evidence from India. UC San Diego. Sciences, July 9–12.

Musonda, L.W. (1999), Teacher education O’Sullivan, M. (2006), Lesson observation reform in Zambia, Teaching and Teacher and quality in primary education Education, 15(2):157-168. ascontextual teaching and learning processes, International Journal of NAEP (2004), Trends in Academic Progress: Educational Development, 26:246–260. Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics, Institute of Piper, B. Zuilkowski, S.S. and Mugenda, A. Education Sciences, US Department of (2014), Improving reading outcomes in Education. Kenya: First-year effects of the PRIMR Nakabugo, M.G. and Sieborger, R. (2001), Initiative, International Journal of Curriculum reform and teaching in EducationalDevelopment, 37:11-21. SouthAfrica: making a ‘paradigm shift’? International Journal of Educational PISA (2003), Problem Solving for Development, 21: 53–60. Tomorrow’s World: First Measures of Cross- Curricular Competencies from PISA 2003, Nambissan, G. (1996), Equity in Education? Programme for International Student The Schooling of Dalit Children in India, Assessment, OECD. Discussion Paper Series no. 15, Studies of Human Development in India, Project of the Planning Commission (2010), Evaluation United Nations Human Development Report on SarvaShikshaAbhiyan, Programme. Government of India, New Delhi.

Nambissan, G. (2007), Exclusion, Inclusion Rawal, S and Kingdon, G. (2010), Akin to my and Education: Perspectives and teacher: Does caste, religious or gender Experiences of Dalit Children, Paper distance between student and teacher presented at the National Conference on matter? Some evidence from India, DoQSS Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies, New Working Paper No. 10-18, Department of Delhi, October 2007. Quantitative Social Science, Institute of Education, University of London. Ndirangu, M., Kathuri, N.J. and Mungai, C. (2003), Improvisation as a strategy Schweisfurth, M. (2011), Learner-centred forproviding science teaching resources: an education in developing country contexts: experience from Kenya, nternational From solution to Problems, International Journal of Educational Development, 23: Journal of Educational Development, 31 (5), 75–84. 425-432

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016

Siraj-Blatchford, M. Odada and M. Omagor UNESCO (2006), Advocacy brief: The impact (2002), Supporting child-centered teaching of women teachers on girls’ education. under universal primary education in Bangkok: UNESCO. Kampala, Uganda, S.E. Anderson (Ed.), Improving Schools Through Teacher UNICEF (2009):Towards gender equality in Development: Case Studies of the Aga Khan education: Progress and challenges in the Foundation Projects in East Africa, Asia-Pacific Region, Technical Paper Swets&Zeitlinger, The Netherlands. presented in UNGEI Global Advisory Committee Asia-Pacific Technical Meeting, Spreen C.A. andVally, S. (2010). Outcomes- 11–12 June 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal on based education and its (dis)contents: Equity, gender and quality in education in Learner-centredpedagogy and the Asia-Pacific. education crisis in South Africa. Southern African Review of Education, 16(1), 39-58. Vavrus, F. (2009), The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: teacher Suryadarma, D., Suryahadi, A., Sumarto, S. educationreform in the United Republic of and Rogers, F. H. (2004), The Determinants Tanzania, International Journal of of Student Performance in Indonesian Educational Development, 29: 303–311. Public Primary Schools:the Role of Teachers and Schools, SMERU Working Paper, Vavrus, F., Thomas, M. and Bartlett, L. SMERU Research Institute, Jakarta. (2011), Ensuring quality by attending to inquiry: Learner-centered pedagogy in sub- Sripakash, A. (2010), Child-centred Saharan Africa, UNESCO: International education and the promise of democratic Institute for Capacity Building in Africa, learning:pedagogic messages in rural Indian Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. primary schools, International Journalof Educational Development, 30:297–304. Vulliamy, G. and Webb, R. (1996), Education during political transition in Poland, Tabulawa, R. (1997), Pedagogical classroom International Journal of Educational practice and the social context: the case of Development 16 (2): 111–123. Botswana, International Journal of Educational Development, 17(2):189–204. Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E. and Linden, L. (2007), Remedying Education: Evidence Thompson, P. (2013), Learner-centred from Two Randomized Experiments in India, education and ‘cultural translation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 International Journal of Educational (3):1235-1264. Development, 33:48-58.

EVALUATION OF AKSHARA FOUNDATION STRATEGIES 2016